Supplemental Packet 2 — Thousand Oaks City Council, March 26, 2024

Agenda Related Items - Meeting of March 26, 2024
Supplemental Packet Date: March 25, 2024

THOUSAND OAKS CITY COUNCIL
Supplemental
Information
Packet
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):

In compliance with the ADA, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting or other services in conjunction with this meeting, please contact the City Clerk Department at (805) 449-2151. Assisted listening devices are available at this meeting. Ask City Clerk st aff if you desire to use this device. Upon request, the agenda and documents in this agenda packet, can be made ava ilable in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability. Notification at least 48 hour s prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist City staff in assuring reasonable arrangement s can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service.
3:00 p.m.

Supplemental Information:

Any agenda related public doc uments received and distribut ed to a majority of the City Council after the Agenda Packet is printed are included in Supplemental Packets. Supplemental Packets are produced as needed, typically a minimum of two—one available on the Thursday preceding the City Council meeting and the second on Tuesday at the meeting. The Supplement al Packet is available for public inspection on the City’s website at toaks.org/agendas or by contacting the City Clerk Dept at (805) 449-2151 during normal busi- ness hours [main location pursuant to the Brown Act, G.C. 54957.5(2)].

THE FOLLOWING 67

PAGES ARE RELATED TO
ITEM 10.A.

From: Eldred, Helen@HCD <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 4:07 PM
To: Scott Kolwitz <[email protected]>
Cc: Heaton, Brian@HCD <[email protected]>; Kelvin Parker <[email protected]>; Fabiola Zelaya Melicher <[email protected]>; Stephen Kearns <[email protected]>; Justine Kendall <[email protected]>; Krystin Rice <[email protected]>; Iain Holt <[email protected]> Subject: Proposed GP Amendment and Rezone-400 E. Rolling Oaks & 355 W. Janss-HAU Close Out 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.

Dear Scott,
As you are aware, the HAU received a technical assistance request regarding the proposed General Plan amendment and corresponding zoning change of 400 East Rolling Oaks Drive and 355 West Janss Road in Thousand Oaks. The HAU has completed its initial review of this technical assistance request and is closing the case. The review process involved an independent review of materials, a meeting with the requester, and a meeting with the City of Thousand Oaks. At this time, our team is unable to identify a clear violation of one or more of the State housing laws for which HCD has enforcement authority that would result from the proposed City actions.

HCD understands that the City intends to rezone a site located at 400 East Rolling Oaks Drive (4.74 acres).

The current General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is “Very Low Density” with a maximum density of 2 du/acre and the Zoning District is “Rural Exclusive.” The proposed rezone would result in the loss of approximately nine units of residential development capacity because the new General Plan Land Use Designation and Zone District do not permit residential units.

To make up for the lost residential capacity, the City intends to upzone a site located at 355 West Janss Road (2.145 acres). The current General Plan land use and zoning for the site is Institutional and is proposed to be rezoned to “Residential Planned Development” with a General Plan Land Use Designation of “Residential Low 1” with a maximum density of 4.5 du/acre. This action would compensate for the nine hypothetical units lost at 400 East Rolling Oaks Drive.

The approval of the proposal as understood by HCD would not trigger the "No Net Loss" statute of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Section 66300, subdivision (h)). Because the proposal includes a loss of nine hypothetical residential units on one site and the gain of nine hypothetical residential units on another site, this rezone meets the requirements of the law--to make up for a loss in planned residential unit capacity.

HCD also notes that neither 400 East Rolling Oaks Drive nor 355 West Janss Road are included within the City’s Housing Element Site Inventory.

Thank you for your prompt attention to the matter and please don’t hesitate to reach out to our team in the future.

Best,
Helen
Helen Eldred (she/they)
Housing Policy Analyst, Accountability and Enforcement Unit Housing & Community Development
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 | Sacramento, CA 95833 Work Cell: 916.809.5630
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
1 From: Debbie Adrian <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2024 11:48 PM
To: Lori Goor <[email protected]>
Subject: Los Robles Cancer Center
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.

Dear Laurie,
I am writing to express my support of the Los Robles Comprehensive Cancer center. I have been a resident in the community for 34 years,
raised my family, and during this time I have worked in the health insurance field at Anthem for 23 nears, and now at Warner Pacific Insurance Services as the President. For 12 years.

In my role working in the health insurance field- I encounter the struggles of those with cancer on a regular basis. Los Robles is such a treasured facility that we a re fortunate to have right in
our community. I witness through my work- those who struggle to find a facility in their
insurance network, and are faced with limitations at times because what’s in the network isn’t necessarily ne
ar their home. This causes challenges when attempting to access care that’s local, and having this facility here in our community helps ease the burden of a long commute. This cance
r facility has nothing but positive
things to add to our community- and will bring so much
relief to cancer
patients and their families and caregivers.

Please carefully consider the community support that is overwhelming- and join in facilitating
the approval.

Sincerely,
Debbie Adrian
President- CA
Warner Pacific Insurance Services
This electronic mail transmission contains information from Warner Pacific Insurance Services that may be
confidential or privileged. Such information is solely for the intended recipient, and use by any other party is not authorized. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this message, its contents or any attachments is prohibited. Any wrongful
interception of this message is punishable as a Federal Crime. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone (800) 801-2300 or by electronic mail at [email protected].

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 2 From: ScoƩ Kolwitz
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2024 1:56 PM
To: Karen MarƟn <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk Staﬀ <CityClerkStaﬀ@toaksorg.onmicrosoŌ.com> Subject: RE: Yesterdays emails
Karen,
We believe the email I sent to you today at 10:13 today (below) included all of your emails. As there were many emails, we were seeking your conﬁrmaƟon that we had not missed any.

We will move forward with including your 10:13 AM email and those aƩached to it in the City Council Supplemental Packet.

Sincerely,
ScoƩ
ScoƩ Kolwitz | Senior Planner
Community Development Department
2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
Email: [email protected]
Oﬃce: (805) 449-2319
City of Thousand Oaks
-----Original Message-----
From: Karen MarƟn <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2024 10:13 AM
To: ScoƩ Kolwitz <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Yesterdays emails
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.

All of them. Any communicaƟon that we have had about the hospital and your responses to my queries.

Thanks!
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 22, 2024, at 10:06 AM, ScoƩ Kolwitz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hello Karen,
> I am in receipt of mulƟple emails that you sent Wednesday through today. The email you sent this morning at 7:28 AM states " Please include ALL the emails including this one." To make sure we are including all of your intended emails, please conﬁrm the aƩached emails received yesterday and today are the emails you wish for us to include in the City Council's next Supplemental Packet. >
> Sincerely,
3 > ScoƩ
>
> ScoƩ Kolwitz | Senior Planner
> Community Development Department
> 2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
> Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
> Email: [email protected]
> Oﬃce: (805) 449-2319
> City of Thousand Oaks
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen MarƟn <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2024 7:28 AM
> To: ScoƩ Kolwitz <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Yesterdays emails
>
> 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. >
>
> My most recent emails concerning your response. I think it is only fair that I be allowed to “document” my source which is Thousand Oaks planning commission’s EIR 2005 hospital expansion. To not acknowledge that sound study is ludicrous and unacceptable. Please include ALL the emails including this one.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Mar 21, 2024, at 8:00 PM, ScoƩ Kolwitz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Karen,
>> Your email was included in the City Council's Supplemental Packet 1 (PDF pages 11-12 of 14) posted online today: hƩps://toaks.primegov.com/public/portal
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> ScoƩ
>>
>> ScoƩ Kolwitz | Senior Planner
>> Community Development Department
>> 2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
>> Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
>> Email: [email protected]
>> Oﬃce: (805) 449-2319
>> City of Thousand Oaks
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Karen MarƟn <[email protected]>
4 >> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 5:11 PM
>> To: ScoƩ Kolwitz <[email protected]>
>> Subject: Yesterdays emails
>>
>> 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. >>
>>
>> I want to be clear about the emails we have had. I would like all that formaƟon documented in the package.
>> Thanks in advance.
>> Karen MarƟn
>

5 1
From: Karen Martin <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 3:00 PM
To: Scott Kolwitz
Subject: Re: HCA cancer center
Attachments: image005.jpg
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
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.

Sorry, but how can the same spot be
6 dB less 20 years later. That is my burning question. Thanks in advance.

Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 20, 2024, at 1:43 PM, Scott Kolwitz <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Karen Martin,
The City Clerk’s office forwarded your Cancer Center email to us.

We have reviewed your email and questions. Your questions were previously submitted and answered via the Cancer Center’s Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments. For your convenience, here’s a direct link to the referenced FEIR section:
https://www.toaks.org/home/showpublisheddocument/51942/638453422456170000 In particular, please see PDF pages PDF pages 239-243 of 306 (your prior email) and 245-246 of 306 (our prior responses).

We assume you would like your email dated March 18, 2024 4:45 PM to be included in the “Supplemental Packet” for the March 26
th City Council agenda packet. Please reply to this email if you do not want your letter included in the Supplemental Packet.

Sincerely,
ScoƩ
Scott Kolwitz | Senior Planner
Community Development Department
2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
Email: [email protected]
Office: (805) 449-2319
City of Thousand Oaks
6 2

From: City Clerk's Office <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 10:18 AM
To: Scott Kolwitz <[email protected]>; Justine Kendall <[email protected]> Subject: FW: HCA cancer center

Hello,

Please see the comment below. We were going to include this in the packet, but it appears the resident has questions for the project managers.

Thank you,

Sandra Delgado
, MPPA, CMC, CPMC
Deputy City Clerk
City of Thousand Oaks
(805) 449-2152

From: Karen Martin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 8:27 PM
To: City Clerk's Office <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: HCA cancer center

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.

Will I get an answer?

On Mar 18, 2024, at 5:15 PM, City Clerk's Office <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Ms. Martin,

We have received your message and we will be including this in what we refer to as the “Supplemental Packet” for the March 26
th City Council agenda packet.

Thank you,

City Clerk Department
City of Thousand Oaks
2100 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
(805) 449-2151
[email protected]

From: Karen Martin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 4:45 PM
7 3
To: City Clerk's Office <[email protected]>
Subject: HCA cancer center

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.

I have lived across the street from Los Robles for 30+ years. In 2005, I levied for mitigation for traffic noise and speed at that time and again with the helipad enlargement that allowed Black Hawk helicopter landings in a residential area.

In 2005 when the noise levels were found to be over acceptable limits (73.4 dB)

I was told houses couldn’t be built in our area now but the noise we dealt with daily was “grandfathered” and that the hospital was an entitlement project for the good of everyone.

Now you have produced another noise study 20 years later that indicates the noise levels have dropped six decibels! Talk about alternative facts. 8 4
Each decibel is a significant, noticeable, and exponential effect on noise levels. I have not noticed a six times decrease in traffic noise. In fact, since the “Fast and Furious” franchise, there is more of a race track feel to the noise. Speeds have increased as well as heavy truck traffic.

How is it you can use the West Janss lot for homes?
How can the planning commissioner suggest at the planning commission meeting prior to voting to pass this project on to city council for approval that The Hospital Corporation of America should build condominiums for their interns?? Is this saying the quiet part out loud?
Is there a plan to change the zoning from low density residential in the future? The lack of believability of this one factor brings the entire project into question.

Karen Martin, Thousand Oaks

9 1
From: Karen Martin <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 4:37 PM
To: Scott Kolwitz
Subject: Your study
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.

Sent from my iPhone
10 1
From: Karen Martin <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 4:37 PM
To: Scott Kolwitz
Subject: Your study
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.

Sent from my iPhone
11 1
From: Karen Martin <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 4:39 PM
To: Scott Kolwitz
Subject: Your study
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.

Sent from my iPhone
12 1
From: Karen Martin <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 4:35 PM
To: Scott Kolwitz
Subject: Re: HCA cancer center
Attachments: image005.jpg
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.

Really? So I just read your re
sponse that you can’t document the sound study in 2005!! It’s in your archive. It’s your sound study! If I can’t reference your own sound study, you are dealing in alternative facts. Please place my response and dissatisfaction with your explanation.

Would the city accept a private sound study?
What parameters would city council require?
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 20, 2024, at 3:00 PM, Karen Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

Sorry, but how can the same spot be 6 dB less 20 years later. That is my burning question. Thanks in advance.

Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 20, 2024, at 1:43 PM, Scott Kolwitz <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Karen Martin,
The City Clerk’s office forwarded your Cancer Center email to us.

We have reviewed your email and questions. Your questions were previously submitted and answered via the Cancer Center’s Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments. For your convenience, here’s a direct link to the referenced FEIR section:
https://www.toaks.org/home/showpublisheddocument/51942/638453422456170000 I n particular, please see PDF pages PDF pages 239-243 of 306 (your prior email) and 245- 246 of 306 (our prior responses).

We assume you would like your email dated March 18, 2024 4:45 PM to be included in the “Supplemental Packet” for the March 26th City Council agenda packet. Please reply to this email if you do not want your letter included in the Supplemental Packet.

Sincerely,
ScoƩ
Scott Kolwitz | Senior Planner
13 2
Community Development Department
2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
Email: [email protected]
Office: (805) 449-2319
City of Thousand Oaks

From: City Clerk's Office <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 10:18 AM
To: Scott Kolwitz <[email protected]>; Justine Kendall <[email protected]> Subject: FW: HCA cancer center

Hello,

Please see the comment below. We were going to include this in the packet, but it appears the resident has questions for the project managers.

Thank you,

Sandra Delgado
, MPPA, CMC, CPMC
Deputy City Clerk
City of Thousand Oaks
(805) 449-2152

From: Karen Martin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 8:27 PM
To: City Clerk's Office <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: HCA cancer center

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.

Will I get an answer?

On Mar 18, 2024, at 5:15 PM, City Clerk's Office <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Ms. Martin,

We have received your message and we will be including this in what we refer to as the “Supplemental Packet” for the March 26 th City
Council agenda packet.

14 3
Thank you,

City Clerk Department
City of Thousand Oaks
2100 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
(805) 449-2151
[email protected]

From: Karen Martin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 4:45 PM
To: City Clerk's Office <[email protected]>
Subject: HCA cancer center

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.

In 2005 when the noise levels were found to be over acceptable limits (73.4 dB)

I was told houses couldn’t be built in our area now but the noise we dealt with daily was “grandfathered” and that the hospital was an entitlement project for the good of everyone.

Now you have produced another noise study 20 years later that 15 4
indicates the noise levels have dropped six decibels! Talk about alternative facts.

Each decibel is a significant, noticeable, and exponential effect on noise levels. I have not noticed a six times decrease in traffic noise. In fact, since the “Fast and Furious” franchise, there is more of a race track feel to the noise. Speeds have increased as well as heavy truck traffic.

How is it you can use the West Janss lot for homes?
How can the planning commissioner suggest at the planning commission meeting prior to voting to pass this project on to city council for approval that The Hospital Corporation of America should build condominiums for their interns??
Is this saying the quiet part out loud?
Is there a plan to change the zoning from low density residential in the future?
The lack of believability of this one factor brings the entire project into question.

Karen Martin, Thousand Oaks

16 1
From: Karen Martin <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 4:42 PM
To: Scott Kolwitz
Subject: Your study
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.

Sent from my iPhone
17 1
From: Karen Martin <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 4:40 PM
To: Scott Kolwitz
Subject: Your study
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.

Sent from my iPhone
18 1
From: Karen Martin <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 5:11 PM
To: Scott Kolwitz
Subject: Yesterdays emails
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.

I want to be clear about the emails we have had. I would like all that formaƟon documented in the package.

Thanks in advance.

Karen MarƟn
19 1
From: Karen Martin <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 4:38 PM
To: Scott Kolwitz
Subject: Your study
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.

Sent from my iPhone
20 1
From: Karen Martin <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2024 7:28 AM
To: Scott Kolwitz
Subject: Re: Yesterdays emails
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.

My most recent emails concerning your response. I think it is only fair that I be allowed to “document” my source which is Thousand Oaks planning commission’s EIR 2005 hospital expansion. To not acknowledge that sound study is ludicrous and unacceptable. Please include ALL the emails including this one.

Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 21, 2024, at 8:00 PM, ScoƩ Kolwitz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hello Karen,
> Your email was included in the City Council's Supplemental Packet 1 (PDF pages 11-12 of 14) posted online today:
hƩps://toaks.primegov.com/public/portal
>
> Sincerely,
> ScoƩ
>
> ScoƩ Kolwitz | Senior Planner
> Community Development Department
> 2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
> Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
> Email: [email protected]
> Oﬃce: (805
) 449-2319
> City of
Thousand Oaks
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen MarƟn <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 5:11 PM
> To: ScoƩ Kolwitz <[email protected]>
> Subject: Yesterdays emails
>
> 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.
>
>
> I want to be clear about the emails we have had. I would like all that formaƟon documented in the package. > Thanks in advance.
> Karen MarƟn
21 1
From: Karen Martin <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 4:41 PM
To: Scott Kolwitz
Subject: Your study
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.

Sent from my iPhone
22 1
From: Karen Martin <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2024 7:36 AM
To: Scott Kolwitz
Subject: Re: HCA cancer center
Attachments: Your study; Re: HCA cancer center; Your study; Your study ; Your study; Your study; Your study; Your study; Your study
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.

So a change of 6 decibels i
s definitely audibly louder.

Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 21, 2024, at 7:58 PM, Scott Kolwitz <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Karen,
In response to your emails sent yesterday afternoon (below and attached), please see the response prepared by our acoustical consultant:

The commenter refers to a table (Table 4, Project Contribution to Roadway Noise Levels) presented as part of a noise study conducted in 2005 for a different project and attempts to make a direct comparison with measured noise levels conducted in 2023 for the subject project (Table 4.9-3, Measured Noise Levels – Janss Road Site). This is inappropriate for several reasons; the primary reason being that the modeled results in Table 4 are presented in terms of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise metric, as is fitting when assessing community noise/land use compatibility. As discussed in Section 4.9.1 of the subject project’s noise section 4.9, the CNEL noise metric is a way of expressing noise levels using a 24-hour weighted average in which noise occurring during evening (7 P.M. to 10 P.M.) and nighttime (10 P.M. 7 A.M.) hours carries a 5 dB and 10 dB penalty. In contrast, the short-term measured noise levels in Table 4.9-3 are expressed as Leq (i.e., unweighted energy-averaged) levels. Thus, the commenter is comparing noise levels that are using different noise metrics; literally “apples and oranges”.

Secondarily, the details as to the specific locations and distances from the roadways modeled in 2005 by others and summarized in the referenced tables are not known to us and most likely do not correspond to the measured locations that were conducted in 2023; another reason that the comparison is flawed.

Finally, in response to the statement presented as fact that: “Each decibel is a significant, noticeable, and exponential effect on noise levels. I have not noticed a six times decrease in traffic noise.” This statement is not an accurate representation of sound and noise. In fact, in the community environment (i.e., outside of controlled conditions such as an acoustics laboratory), a change in noise level of 1 decibel (dB) is inaudible to the typical human listener. A change in noise level of 3 dB is typically considered to be barely noticeable, and a 5-dB change is clearly audible. An increase in noise level of 10 dB is typically required before the average 23 2
listener indicates that the perceived noise level has doubled (Caltrans 2013). Reference:

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). September, 2013. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. Division of Environmental Analysis, Environmental Engineering, Hazardous Waste, Air, Noise, Paleontology Office. September, 2013.

Sincerely,
Scott

Scott Kolwitz | Senior Planner
Community Development Department
2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
Email: [email protected]
Office: (805) 449-2319
City of Thousand Oaks

From: Karen Martin <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 3:00 PM
To: Scott Kolwitz <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: HCA cancer center

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.

Sorry, but how can the same spot be 6 dB less 20 years later. That is my burning question. Thanks in advance.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 20, 2024, at 1:43 PM, Scott Kolwitz <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Karen Martin,
The City Clerk’s office forwarded your Cancer Center email to us.

We have reviewed your email and questions. Your questions were previously submitted and answered via the Cancer Center’s Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments. For your convenience, here’s a direct link to the referenced FEIR section:
https://www.toaks.org/home/showpublisheddocument/51942/638453422456170000 I 24 3
n particular, please see PDF pages PDF pages 239-243 of 306 (your prior email) and 245- 246 of 306 (our prior responses).

We assume you would like your email dated March 18, 2024 4:45 PM to be included in the “Supplemental Packet” for the March 26
th City Council agenda packet. Please reply
to this email if you do not want your letter included in the Supplemental Packet.

Sincerely,
Scott

Scott Kolwitz | Senior Planner
Community Development Department
2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
Email: [email protected]
Office: (805) 449-2319
City of Thousand Oaks

From: City Clerk's Office <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 10:18 AM
To: Scott Kolwitz <[email protected]>; Justine Kendall <[email protected]> Subject: FW: HCA cancer center

Hello,

Please see the comment below. We were going to include this in the packet, but it appears the resident has questions for the project managers.

Thank you,

Sandra Delgado
, MPPA, CMC, CPMC
Deputy City Clerk
City of Thousand Oaks
(805) 449-2152
25 4

From: Karen Martin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 8:27 PM
To: City Clerk's Office <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: HCA cancer center

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.

Will I get an answer?

On Mar 18, 2024, at 5:15 PM, City Clerk's Office <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Ms. Martin,

We have received your message and we will be including this in what we refer to as the “Supplemental Packet” for the March 26 th City
Council agenda packet.

Thank you,

City Clerk Department
City of Thousand Oaks
2100 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
(805) 449-2151
[email protected]

26 5
From: Karen Martin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 4:45 PM
To: City Clerk's Office <[email protected]>
Subject: HCA cancer center

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.

In 2005 when the noise levels were found to be over acceptable limits (73.4 dB)

I was told houses couldn’t be built in our area now but the noise we dealt with daily was “grandfathered” and that the hospital was an entitlement project for the good of everyone.

Now you have produced another noise study 20 years later that indicates the noise levels have dropped six decibels! Talk about alternative facts.
27 6

How is it you can use the West Janss lot for homes?
How can the planning commissioner suggest at the planning commission meeting prior to voting to pass this project on to city council for approval that The Hospital Corporation of America should build condominiums for their interns??
Is this saying the quiet part out loud?
Is there a plan to change the zoning from low density residential in the future?
The lack of believability of this one factor brings the entire project into question.

Karen Martin, Thousand Oaks

28 1
From: Karen Martin <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 4:42 PM
To: Scott Kolwitz
Subject: Your study
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.

Sent from my iPhone
29 1
From: Karen Martin <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2024 9:30 AM
To: Scott Kolwitz
Subject: Distance Attenuation: How Sound Reduces with Distance 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.
https://www.acoustical.co.uk/distance-attenuation/how-sound-reduces-with-distance-from-a-point-source/ So the 2005 study had
the measurement taken ON THE SIDWALK, not in the planter ( farther from the source of noise) 30 2
and 4.5 ft elevation in 2005 vs. 6 ft elevation in the current study. Higher and increase distance equals lower decibels reading.

The Cancer Center study also took only two 10 minute readings after lunch rush, on a Thursday, and no school in session while the 2005 study took four 20 minute readings at morning and evening rush hour. Too bad you couldn’t figure out how the noise levels were less. You aren’t comparing apples to apples. Neither study because nags into account the increase in helipad traffic as the Hospital Corporation of America is now a Trauma Center. 31 From: Mark Ortgies <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 10:53 AM
To: City Clerk's Office <[email protected]>
Subject: Support - Item 10A

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.

I am writing to express our support for the proposed Comprehensive Community Cancer Center. A dedicated center would combine vital resources and state-of-the-art medical equipment for patients and their families in one place - conveniently adjacent to numerous doctors’ offices and facilities.

Thousand Oaks Surgical Hospital, which SCOI Physicians have been on staff for over 20 years, makes it an ideal neighbor for the proposed center.

The Physicians of Southern California Orthopedic Institute, in alliance with UCLA Health, urge you to support the proposed Comprehensive Community Cancer Center.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Mark Ortgies

Mark Ortgies
Director Provider Relations
Southern California Orthopedic Institute
in alliance with UCLA Health
30870 Russell Ranch Road #330
(818) 901-6600 Ext. 4301
(818) 207-8646 cell

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 32 On Mar 23, 2024, at 6:01 PM, Eric & Theresa Quandt <[email protected]> wrote:

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.

Dear Council member,

After living in Thousand Oaks for more than 30 years, we are appalled to see the apparent blatant disregard for our city’s general plan that was adopted to preserve our rural, uncongested neighborhoods.

After seeing the monstrosity that went up at 299 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd- Santel Apartments- we are severely concerned that developers and their money will turn the beautiful Conejo Valley into another San Fernando Valley in the name of progress and bringing business to the area.

Please REJECT the proposal to rezone residential land at Rolling Oaks Drive on Tuesday, March 26. Please look to the multitude of vacant buildings already in commercial zones for the new cancer center.

Please honor the general plan, and honor your promise to serve the citizens.

Respectfully,

Eric and Theresa Quandt
Thousand Oaks residents since 1991

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important

33 From: Judy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 11:57 AM
To: Al Adam <[email protected]>; David Newman <[email protected]>; Bob Engler <[email protected]>; Kevin McNamee <[email protected]>; Mikey Taylor <[email protected]> Cc: Scott Kolwitz <[email protected]>; City Clerk's Office <[email protected]> Subject: Item 10 - 2022-70733-Z Zone Change Request for Comprehensive Cancer Center

[Some people who received this message 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.

Dear City Council Members

I am writing in opposition to the application for zone changes by HCA Health Care-Los Robles Hospital, which will be discussed Tuesday March 26, at the Thousand Oaks City Counsel meeting.

I would like to start by saying I think the idea of a Comprehensive Cancer Center in our city is a wonderful idea but not on the property at 400 Rolling Oaks Drive. Our city needs every available property that is currently zoned for housing to be kept for housing. I don’t feel it’s appropriate that our city would choose to allow a parking lot on the Los Robles Complex (355 West Janss Road) to be changed to Residential in exchange for the loss of true residential property (400 Rolling Oaks Drive). The property (355 W. Janss Rd.) would never be used for residential, isn’t appropriate for housing and is not an even exchange. I believe this zone change would go against SB330, which was written to prevent this type of exchange and net loss of housing. Our city is constantly talking about the need for housing and this change would not help.

I am a recent breast cancer survivor and I went to Rolling Oaks Radiology, which is located at 415 Rolling Oaks Drive, which is attached to the Thousand Oaks Surgical Center (401 Rolling Oaks Drive) for my mammogram, ultrasound and biopsy and down stairs for my MRI. I have gone there for my mammograms for 30 years. All this in the same building. I didn’t have to drive all over town, as some people have stated, to get these services. Why would you need another place right behind this address that would provide the same service? There also is the City of Hope located across the street from the Surgical Center at 425 Haaland Drive, that provides Oncology and Chemotherapy.

In the medical complex that houses Los Robles Medical Center, there is also Thousand Oaks Radiology Breast Center (227 W. Janss Road) that already does mammograms, ultrasounds, biopsies and also another building (2180 Lynn Rd) that houses MRI’s, CT’s and other testing. There also is Coastal Radiation Oncology (2230 Lynn Road). It seems that everything that you would have at a cancer center is already at their medical complex. It would make more sense to build on the property (355 W. Janss Rd.) that is already part of this complex. There is open space across the street (west) Lynn Rd. from this property and to the south, a few homes that would be impacted by the noise of construction. This is far better than the 250 plus apartments and homes that would be impacted by the noise from construction that are next to the property located at 400 Rolling Oaks Drive.

If HCA-Los Robles Hospital’s primary concern is to make this convenient for cancer patients, why not build the cancer center on the property (355 West Janss Road) that is currently used as a parking lot for the exclusive use of Medical Center employees, volunteers and vendors. This is the property that they are requesting be changed to residential planned development. This property is part of all the other medical buildings and the hospital in this big medical complex and seems a more appropriate place for a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Please consider a no vote and keep the property at 400 E. Rolling Oaks Drive as rural exclusive and save this for homes. HCA Health Care-Los Robles Hospital already has the property in their centralized complex to build the Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Sincerely
Judy Dahlstrom
Resident of Thousand Oaks
34 1
Lori Goor
From: sherrie nickeas <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2024 6:31 AM
To: Lori Goor
Cc: Commans Amy
Subject: To the Mayor and City council LRHS Comp. Cancer Center 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.

Mayor Al Adam, City Council; Kevin McNamee, Bob Engle, David Newman and Mikey Taylor,

In regards to the meeting scheduled for Tuesday March 26th. I will not be able to make the meeting unfortunately I will be at City of Hope in Duarte and I would have like to share my story. I am a 10 year cancer patient (Blood-Multiple Myeloma) and although I have been able to find good Oncologists in the area, there are no Cancer research hospitals that I can get cutting edge treatment locally. I have been getting treatments at City of Hope, such as CAR-T which is a process where they take the t-cell out in a process called Leukopherisis (I am having this procedure on Tuesday) and send the frozen cells to a pharmaceutical lab to be re-engineered to recognize and attack the specific cancer in my body. This is a very innovative, useful and cutting edge treatment for many different cancers. I have also had different treatments that again, can only be done at major cancer hospitals which we are at least an hour away from most cancer specialty hospitals. This is exactly what we need to be doing in our own community where patients can get these specialized treatments and cutting edge technology. It would make such a difference to the thousands of residents that call the Conejo Valley home.

I know from personal experience how the has affected out lives. Typically we have had to stay at a hotel or if I need to hospitalized My husband Mark has had to drive 60 miles each way to visit (he comes daily usually) I can only imagine how having the same treatment locally would make to our lives. In the end it is about supporting the local community with the best medical technology has to offer.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. Keep up the good work for the community!

Thank you,
Sherrie Nickeas
818-458-5634

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 35 1
Lori Goor
From: Mark Nickeas <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2024 10:17 AM
To: Lori Goor
Cc: Amy Commans
Subject: Los Robles Cancer Center
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.

Mayor Al and City of TO council members,

My wife and I have been residents of Westlake Village and Thousand Oaks for 40+ years. We have two children who grew up in the area, went to school in the area, and now as adults live in the area and are raising their children here too.

We have watched Thousand Oaks grow into one of the finest and most desirable residential communities in the entire United States. I am writing today to express my sincere support for the proposed Los Robles Cancer Center. My wife Sherrie was diagnosed with a blood cancer 10 years ago, and for the past 10 years we have been traveling to Los Angeles and to Duarte California to City Of Hope. Commute times always seem to take between an hour and an hour and a half no matter when your treatment time is. If there had been a treatment center locally the amount of stress put on the patient, caregiver and family would’ve been reduced immensely. It’s time that a city like Thousand Oaks has a state of the Art treatment center for this horrible disease.

Sincerely,

Mark Nickeas
818-458-5633
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 36 1
Lori Goor
From: Joni Tada <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2024 2:30 PM
To: Lori Goor
Cc: Lisa Miehl
Subject: Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center
Attachments: Proposed Cancer Center Letter.pdf
Importance: High
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.

Dear Mayor Adam and City Council Members…

As a stage 3 cancer survivor, I am extremely interested in the proposed LRHS Comprehensive Cancer Center and am submitting my attached letter for consideration at Tuesday evening’s City Council Hearing.

Thank you for reviewing my appeal as part of the City Council’s review of the plan for the Center.

Joni Eareckson Tada
Founder/CEO

818.575.1712
www.joniandfriends.org

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 37 March 23, 2024

Dear Mayor Adam and City Council Members…

As a quadriplegic who has survived stage 3 cancer twice, I am an enthusiastic supporter of the proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center adjacent to the Los Robles Thousand Oaks Surgical Center.

My two separate battles against cancer involved extensive chemotherapy and radiation. My treatment was made more challenging as a wheelchair-user, considering that the surgical hospital, chemo clinic, medical laboratory, and radiation center are dispersed in separate locations. I believe that my overall treatment could have been more accessible and less fragmented had I enjoyed all-inclusive cancer treatment ‘under one roof.’ And I feel I am speaking for all persons with disabling conditions in our community who must face cancer.

I’m convinced the proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center
would benefit our community greatly, especially for residents who struggle not only with cancer, but with physical impairments. It would be a great asset to the Conejo Valley to have a single location housing the finest resources and state-of-the-art medical care for families who must struggle with this disease. Thank you for hearing my appeal, and I trust that you, Mr. Mayor, and the City Council, will favorably view the proposed the Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Yours sincerely,

Joni Eareckson Tada
CEO/Joni and Friends

38 1
Lori Goor
From: Young, Joan <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2024 3:02 PM
To: Lori Goor
Subject: Letter to Mayor and Councilmembers re. Comprehensive Cancer Center Attachments: Letter to City of TO re_ Comprehensive Cancer Ctr.pdf 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.

Dear Ms. Goor:

Attached is my letter supporting the CCC here in Thousand Oaks. Thank you for including my letter
in the council packages for their meeting on March 26, 2024

Sincerely,

Joan R. Young
Westlake Village
City of Thousand Oaks

Joanie
Joan R. Young, GRI, CRB, CRS
Realtor Emeritus
DRE #00402231
Sotheby's International Realty
3075 Townsgate Rd. #100
Westlake Village, Ca
805 469 2278
[email protected]

*Wire Fraud is Real*. Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have authority to bind a party to a real estate contract via written or verbal communication.

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 39 40
41 42
1 Lori Goor
From: mai brooks md <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2024 7:26 PM
To: Lori Goor
Subject: Los Robles Cancer Center
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.

To: Mayor Al Adam and City Council Members Kevin McNamee, Bob Engler, David Newman and Mikey Taylor I am writing to express my strong support for the LR Cancer Center in our community. This would tremendously help our cancer patients and their families. LRCC would also have a positive impact on our great TO city.

Thank you so much for your consideration
Dr. Mai Brooks
Surgical Oncologist and TO Resident
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 43 Name City Item # In favor/ Opposed Comment
N/A Westlake Village 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
Present and future home buyers are
entitled to fully rely upon residential
zoning laws in face of all efforts;
whether local, state or federal to alter
such laws. If allowed then current and
future homeowners cannot rely upon
any zoning law. This is completely
against homeowners interests; that is
your number one job!!
N/A Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
The wall is too big
Tracy Adams Newbury Park 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
This land swap that is being proposed is
not above board. No one is going to
build nine houses in the parking lot of
the hospital medical buildings. Build
the cancer center over by the hospital.

Do not rezone the residential area by
the surgical center. Thank you.

Chris J Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
opposed to this due to excessive traffic
and crime and decrease in property
values. Also, opposed to removing any
Oak Trees. As a homeowner we are not
able to remove or top off the Oaks due
to the county/city ordinance.

Rob Gregg Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
Opposed to the new cancer center. We
just bought our home due to the quiet
nature of this neighborhood.

Alison Gordon Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
Keep the neighborhood quiet until
Paulette krishnan Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
This is not the place for this center. This
neighborhood cannot have this facility
due to traffic, parking issues,
environmental impact and scenery
change.

TO COUNCIL : 03/25/2024
MEETING DATE: 03/26/2024
44 Name City Item # In favor/ Opposed Comment
Narayan Krishnan Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
Why do you feel the need to build
another commercial property in a
residential neighborhood?
I am not in favor of the environmental
impact.

I am not in favor of the. Traffic impact
Why can’t this cancer center be located
by the Los Robles hospital??

Stay out of of our neighborhood
please!!!
NP resident. Newbury Park 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
No more rezoning residential areas into
commercial zones. No more
corporations invading our quiet city.

Kirk DeWitt Newbury Park 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am in favor of
this item
I have noticed how many people I know
choose to go to hospitals and
treatment centers in Los Angeles for
their cancer treatment. It is hard on
them to be so far from loved ones,
their religious communities, and their
home town. This would be a great step
forward to provide a higher level of
care right here in Thousand Oaks.

N/A Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
We don’t need more corporate zoning
or buildings!

45 Name City Item # In favor/ Opposed Comment
Nicole Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
This would put my children’s safety at
risk when going to school. I am 100%
againt this. I have been a home owner
for decades.

Ryan Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
Am not in favor of this. Would decrease
my lifestyle.

Proyag Datta Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
There is no justification for converting a
residential area into commercial when
the preapproved commercial site exists
less than 10 mins away. This sets a
dangerous precedent of encroachment
of commercial buildings into
residential areas.

N/A Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
We purchased our home in the Los
Robles neighborhood years ago due to
its proximity to open space and limited
number of homes. Since we have lived
here, TOSH and several medical offices
have been built and Haaland Dr.
completed thru to Rancho. This has
resulted in increased traffic; however,
it has been manageable and we have
even utilized TOSH. We believe,
however, that adding an additional
medical center of the proposed scale
would increase traffic, noise etc. even
more and negatively impact the
neighborhood. We believe that putting
the cancer center on the existing Los
Robles campus is more appropriate,
still providing the center to the
community but with less impact to a
residential area.
46 Name City Item # In favor/ Opposed Comment
Roland Madrid Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
Currently, there are too many vacant
commercial buildings in and around
this city. New large, unsightly buildings
are not what we need.

Kelly Sullivan Thousand Oaks 12B - Janss Marketplace Specific Plan Initiation I am opposed to this item
Kelly Sullivan
Amanda W. Agoura 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item

NO UPZONING

Pam Davis Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
We need housing and safe space for
our community.

Ellie Reed Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
This is a residential neighborhood, and
there is no reason to put commercial
buildings here. It will ruin the
neighborhood. I strongly object.

N/A Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
Please do not allow this
N/A Westlake Village 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
Terrible idea for our community. Makes
absolutely no sense. Keep residential
housing for residents not corporate
development!! Thank you
Chris Newbury Park 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
Build the building on the parking lot
they want to rezone and save are
beautiful landscape
Susan Manners Westlake Village 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
There is no reason to approve this
project in a residentially zoned
neighborhood.

We need neighborhoods to stay in tact
and stay safe! There should be no
commercial traffic or project of any
kind. There is so much commercial
space available at this time. Please do
not approve this project.

47 Name City Item # In favor/ Opposed Comment
Liz Stretton Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
They should look to reuse commercial
space that is not being used. There are
plenty of no or low use commercial
spaces in Thousand Oaks. Think
creatively people!!! Or use their
parking lot! If they can’t afford to do it
this way, then they can’t afford it !
N/A N/A 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center
(400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
Keep our residential areas safe from
corporate take over. You can’t let them
take down a beautiful Mountain. You
Wouldn’t let a residential take a
mountain Down to build a house why
should you let a corporations take a
mountain down or Hills down to build a
building? Keep our areas residential
that are zoned residential. There are so
many more commercial areas available
to build what they want.

N/A N/A 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center
(400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
We don’t need more commercial
buildings
Joanne Wade Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
Instead of re-zoning land that is zoned
for low-density residential use, make
use of the many commercial buildings
that are now barely used due to many
people working from home. Repurpose
these buildings!
Peter Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am in favor of
this item
Perfect place to expand TOs medical
centers

N/A Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
Please preserve our neighborhood and
wildlife in Thousand Oaks.

48 Name City Item # In favor/ Opposed Comment
John Burdick Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
City Council must honor the General
Plan in preserving neighborhoods.

Rezoning will set a bad precedent in
Thousand Oaks.

Ingrid Laguna Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
we need more housing, not commercial
properties taking over our beautiful
neighborhoods

Stacy Keeler Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
We should not be changing zoning that
causes Thousand Oaks to turn into an
Encino-type city! We moved here
because it was not the Valley! Do not
overstep and change this beautiful city!

Steve Newbury Park 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
We need home and families not more
commercial property

49 Name City Item # In favor/ Opposed Comment
Wendy Zimmerman Newbury Park 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
I am opposed to allowing the proposed
cancer center to be built in the midst of
homes in the Los Robles neighborhood. It
is obvious to me that the cancer center is
better situated in the Los Robles Hospital
medical complex. Using land from the
parking lot by Janss is a much more
appropriate location and compatible use
for the land. A potentially busy cancer
center does not belong in the middle of a
neighborhood of single family homes.

Further, the Los Robles hospital complex
is not an appropriate location for new
housing, especially not single family
homes as an even land swap would
require. They won't be built and don't
belong there. Please VOTE NO on this
land swap that creates incompatible
neighbors.

I am not opposed to a cancer center and
improvements to our local medical
system. I just want the cancer facility to
be built in the medical center by the
hospital, or perhaps another, more
compatible location, can be found
elsewhere that does not disrupt a
residential neighborhood. For example,
there is an apparently unused building on
the 101 side of Newbury Road across the
street from the Regency Medical Plaza
near the intersection of Haigh Street that
may serve as a viable alternative. It
already has commercial zoning. No land
swap required.
50 Name City Item # In favor/ Opposed Comment
Chuck Lech Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am in favor of
this item
The master plan and current zoning is
not final approval to build. The review
process takes many steps. Having a
first class local center will allow cancer
treatments to occur locally, not
requiring usually hours of travel per
day. Having a few non-city residents
complain about their views is not a
good enough reason to provide an
opportunity for our entire community
to have a better experience for needed
treatment facilities. Please allow this
to take place.

Jena Conove Westlake Village 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
Please maintain the charm and
community feel of our wonderful town.

No more commercial building!
N/A N/A 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center
(400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
I do not want more commercial
buildings to be built!

Margarita and David
Assael
Westlake Village 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
No to upzoning.

Ross Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
We should be protecting residential
areas of our wonderful neighborhood.

Stick to the promises made of
preserving our neighborhoods.

Judy Burris Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)

I am opposed to
this item
If the builder is willing to give back part
of their parking lot, just build the
cancer center on the parking lot.
51 Name City Item # In favor/ Opposed Comment
Maria Shaw Newbury Park 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
Thousand Oaks City Council needs to
stop rezoning property that has been
approved for single family homes to
commercial or residential/commercial
zoning. There are plenty of open
spaces in Thousand Oaks where these
buildings an be built and not within a
community where single family homes
should not have to have to contend
with overstated buildings and
commercial businesses in their
neighborhoods. We need to preserve
areas where single family residents can
have peace without the noise of
commercial businesses next door or
overbearing 5 story buildings peering
down into their private backyards. Our
city council needs to put themselves
into the properties where these zone
changes do not make sense and will
stand out as sore-thumbs within a
single family home zoning. Think what
you would want if one of these
buildings were to be erected in the
property next to your home...hummm
wouldn't like it right? Neither do we!!!

52 Name City Item # In favor/ Opposed Comment
Dennis Barnikel Westlake Village 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
We have lived in the Westlake Village
portion of Thousand Oaks for over 50
years and are astonished by this
ridiculous attempt by Los Robles
Hospital Corporation to build a
structure of any size in a residential
neighborhood. Their are numerous
empty buildings throughout our
community that would be able to be
used without destroying our way of
life. Leave our hillside and housing
properties as is and don't let corporate
entities bully us with their donations.

Julie Dimas Newbury Park 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
So many empty buildings in Newbury!
Chose one of these! Build houses not
cooperate!
Please and thank you
Deborah Bradbury Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
No more commercial buildings!
N/A Westlake Village 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am in favor of
this item
I agree we have a great need in the
community for stellar care for cancer
patients.

Also need to assist our senior
community better.

N/A N/A 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center
(400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
I am opposed to the Proposed
Comprehensive Cancer Center being
built
Sharon Wagener Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
We need residential areas, not more
commercial buildings
Arielle Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
Absolutely no to a 60,000 sq ft
commercial building!

53 Name City Item # In favor/ Opposed Comment
N/A Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
This facility will cause major traffic flow
issues in a residential area. If this
project is allowed to proceed what is to
stop other major corporations from
attempting the same thing.

Erik McGrath Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
Absolutely not necessary. The guise of
“cancer” is startling.

N/A N/A 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center
(400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
Thousand Oaks must not become the
Valley. Preserve its suburban glory

54 Name City Item # In favor/ Opposed Comment
N/A Westlake Village 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
Corporate america purchased the 4 acres
in a zoned rural low density residential
and is pushing to rezone it to
commercial! Even worse, they are
proposing to demolish and deeply grade
a gorgeous mountain side to use every
square inch, to build a 60,000 sq ft
monstrosity that will divide and loom in
our neighborhoods !! This corporation is
using the word “cancer” to manipulate
and deceive our community leaders and
attempting to convince them that we
“need” a cancer center- and it must be
here !! It’s not about cancer!! They have
some of the lowest ratings in healthcare
and have proven to be unfaithful with
their current provisions.

They are attempting to zone swap a
portion of their hospital parking lot to
residential zoning to appease SB330s
requirement for no net loss in housing ! If
they “need” this building they should
build it in their parking lot where they are
attempting to rezone residential. If they
build on their own campus, it will have
the least environmental impact and
makes the most sense!!

We are in a housing crisis!! We don’t
need more commercial buildings- we
have enough empty commercial buildings
!! The city of Ventura is rezoning
commercial to residential because we
NEED more housing!!

55 Name City Item # In favor/ Opposed Comment
Patricia Sica Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
Having had 5 cancers myself (not
counting skin cancers), I feel that we
are able to get great treatment with
individual oncologists in the
community. For me, this started 40
years ago, and if anything, we have
more options now then we did then.

Do not rezone residential for this
purpose!
Dana Miller Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
PLEASE!!! DO NOT ALLOW THIS AREA
TO BE REZONED! IT is a RESIDENTIAL

NEIGHBORHOOD AND NEEDS TO
REMAIN THAT WAY! BUILD THE

CANCER CENTER WHERE IT BELONGS---
as part of the Los Robles Campus.

Please put yourself in our shoes....if you
had lived in your house for 32 years,
and suddenly someone has the idea to
REZONE your neighborhood to build a
commercial building, thereby
increasing traffic, and reducing your
property value---HOW WOULD YOU
FEEL? Would you vote for this if it were
YOUR neighborhood being affected?
PLEASE OPPOSE!
N/A Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
There is a better place for this facility
that is co-located with a broader set of
medical capabilities which would result
in more comprehensive care for
patients while also not disrupting
residentially zoned neighborhoods.

56 Name City Item # In favor/ Opposed Comment
Robert E. Lazenby Newbury Park 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
I know that land development means
more revenue to the city but enough is
enough. Lets keep the residential
zoning intact and stop bending over to
the commercial development
companies who only see our area in
$$$ signs.

N/A Newbury Park 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
I am not convinced this is the intended
use/zoning of the land.

57 Name City Item # In favor/ Opposed Comment
Shana Berger Newbury Park 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
With so many available, empty commercial
sites, why are we even considering rezoning a
residential to commercial plot? With so much
push for more housing, why would you take
away the possibility for more homes in an
already lovely residential area.

Los Robles and TOSH are not close together,
seems to me that a cancer center could also
be elsewhere in Thousand Oaks and not
across the street from TOSH.

Have you even considered the light pollution
that would undoubtedly come from this
business and currently comes from TOSH into
the residential neighborhood on
Rancho/Rimrock? TOSH was supposed to
mitigate this when it was built and never did.

I've lived in the Conejo since 1979 and I'm
concerned with many of the decisions the city
is making and how those decisions affect our
area, its development, and its current
residents. Where I live, where for many many
years I had a view of a mountain which would
be dark at night. Now, I get to look at the
lights of Sage Mountain.. ALL NIGHT LONG. I'd
prefer the dark. I wonder if the city ever
considered how and where the lights from
this facility would effect the surrounding
area, not just the immediate.

I once inquired about moving my business
into a house on a very busy street with only 4
houses. Across the street all commercial and
adjacent is all commercial. I was denied and
as a small business couldn't afford to go to
the city to try for rezoning. IMHO this stretch
of Rancho should be mixed use but
apparently you need to have deep pockets to
convince the city to make that happen.

58 Name City Item # In favor/ Opposed Comment
N/A N/A 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center
(400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
Do not build this!
susan stewart Westlake Village 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
We do not need more commercial
office space - especially one that
requires rezoning and destruction of
open space in an area where people
bought homes based on the low
density and promised residential
zoning.

We are depending on our city to
protect us with good planning and to
honor zoning laws.

We hope you will up to this unjust,
corporate takeover.

J Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
This is wrong is so many ways. This city
is overpopulated and the freeways are
overcrowded. We cannot
accommodate a huge center like this in
our small community. It’s not fair to
long term residents and commuters
alike. Nearby homeowners are now
being punished with the threat of more
congestion, noise and years of
construction.

Michael Maxcy Newbury Park 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
At some point we must finally decide to
choose our natural surrounding beauty
over tax dollars. Let’s start now.

Sharon Cook Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
Save our community from Big Pharma
N/A Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
no to up zoning residential area
Linda Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
Please protect our residential
communities. Build it elsewhere!
59 Name City Item # In favor/ Opposed Comment
Johnathan Theodore Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
Please keep our community small and
do not develop any of our natural open
spaces
Kathy Newbury Park 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
I am strongly opposed to the plan to
demolish the mountainside in this
region and the plan to build
commercial buildings. We have many
vacant commercial buildings that
should be used first.

N/A Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
From comments provided by others,
there seems to be plenty of available
business property that could be used
for a cancer center. The cancer center
doesn't have to be in the proposed
area. This is zoned for residential
property and it does not need to be
converted into commercial property.

Jacqueline Berger Westlake Village 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
It is totally unreasonable to think
anyone would build or for that matter
consider living in a residential unit, in
the parking lot of a busy hospital.

Leave residential areas for housing,
neighborhoods, & a safe place for
children to play in front of their homes.

N/A Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
Residents need to be able to rely on
zoning laws to make sound housing
choices that meet the needs of their
families, and don't threaten the future
value of their property. We do not
need another health care facility in this
community, especially one that is run
by a non-local corporation that does
not have a sound reputation to
commend it.
60 Name City Item # In favor/ Opposed Comment
Nan L. Jones Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am in favor of
this item
We Support This Project
As Medical Facilities Shall ALWAYS Be
Needed ...

To Ensure Quality Life For All Residents
Residing Within Thousand Oaks. .... To
Those Near And Far -

Medical Facility's Have Always Earned
To Priority!

We, Thousand Oaks, Its' Surrounding
Cities Need NOT Additional Residential
Structures.

TIm Speed Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
No valid reason for this to happen.

There are plenty of unused properly
zoned parcels that could accomidate
the cancer center. This is a great
example of corporate greed placing
profit over people. I live on Los Padres
Dr. adjacent to the Conejo Valley Open
Space. This is a very popular street for
hikers, mountain bikers, and dog
walkers. Adding the cancer center here
would have an undesirable affect on
traffic, pollution, noise, and quality of
life the for all of the residents here and
for the outdoor enthusiasts that visit
here often. Please, please, please vote
no.

61 Name City Item # In favor/ Opposed Comment
Lindsey Burdick Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
This rezoning proposal is against what
the General Plan indicates. And, the
history on this property for the
previous zoning proposal. It was denied
in 2016. Preserve our neighborhoods.

Build the cancer center on the Janss
medical campus.

62 Name City Item # In favor/ Opposed Comment
Diego Martinez Santa Rosa Valley 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
I'm Diego Martinez and I work in
Thousand Oaks. I am not opposed to a
cancer center... the more care that we
can get for people dealing with a
horrible disease, the better. I also think
we need more housing. Ventura
County is now the most unaffordable
county in the entire US due to our lack
of new housing supply. The proposed
building footprint is about one-quarter
of the lot area. 75% of the lot area is
going to parking. That is ridiculous. We
need to loosen or remove the parking
restrictions to reduce Vehicle Miles
Traveled and increase affordability in
the area.

We can also be more creative with the
building's use. Why not make it a
cancer center AND apartment building?
You can even put in some commercial
space so residents have essential goods
closer to them. We need more creative
thinking if we want to make progress
on the housing crisis, the homelessness
epidemic, and the climate crisis.

I urge the council to oppose this
unsustainable and uncreative proposal,
reduce or remove the parking
requirements, and urge the developer
to build mixed-use (medical,
residential, and commercial).

63 Diego Martinez (CONT’D) Santa Rosa Valley
(CONT’D)
10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center
(400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) - (CONT’D)
I am opposed to
this item -
(CONT’D)
(CONT’D)
PS - Removing parking requirements
does not mean there will be zero
parking, it simply puts the amount in
the developer's hands. A developer is
not going to build a building with zero
parking. Rather than an arbitrarily
enormous number that the city forces
them to build, they will build the
amount they determine they will
actually need.

N/A Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item

I AM OPPOSED TO REZONING OF THIS

PROPERTY, NOT THE CANCER CENTER
ITSELF.

Lauren L Simi Valley- Business in
Thousand Oaks
10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center
(400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am in favor of
this item
I am in favor of 10A. Being in an
industry of health and wellness. We
come in contact with too many people
undergoing this awful disease (cancer).

We hear there isn't enough local care,
especially for many treatments or
support systems under one roof. I feel
this would be a great addition to our
local community. A beautifully
constructed facility, but more
important- a place that patients can go
that is local. It will take so much stress
of people having to commute or go to
multiple practices for appointments. I
fully support 10A.

N/A Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
Unfair to the homeowners. And Los
Robles is a money hungry monster that
cares more about the dollar sign than
the patients or the community it
“serve”. No thank you.

64 Name City Item # In favor/ Opposed Comment
Judy Dahlstrom Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am opposed to
this item
I am writing in opposition to the
application for zone changes by HCA Health
Care-Los Robles Hospital, which will be
discussed Tuesday March 26, at the
Thousand Oaks City Counsel meeting.

I would like to start by saying I think the
idea of a Comprehensive Cancer Center in
our city is a wonderful idea but not on the
property at 400 Rolling Oaks Drive. Our
city needs every available property that is
currently zoned for housing to be kept for
housing. I don’t feel it’s appropriate that
our city would choose to allow a parking lot
on the Los Robles Complex (355 West Janss
Road) to be changed to Residential in
exchange for the loss of true residential
property (400 Rolling Oaks Drive). The
property (355 W. Janss Rd.) would never be
used for residential, isn’t appropriate for
housing and is not an even exchange. I
believe this zone change would go against
SB330, which was written to prevent this
type of exchange and net loss of housing.

Our city is constantly talking about the
need for housing and this change would
not help.

65 Judy Dahlstrom (CONT’D) Thousand Oaks (CONT’D) 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) - (CONT’D)
I am opposed to
this item
(CONT’D)
(CONT’D)
All this in the same building. I didn’t have
to drive all over town, as some people have
stated, to get these services. Why would
you need another place right behind this
address that would provide the same
service? There also is the City of Hope
located across the street from the Surgical
Center at 425 Haaland Drive, that provides
Oncology and Chemotherapy.

In the medical complex that houses Los
Robles Medical Center, there is also
Thousand Oaks Radiology Breast Center
(227 W. Janss Road) that already does
mammograms, ultrasounds, biopsies and
also another building (2180 Lynn Rd) that
houses MRI’s, CT’s and other testing. There
also is Coastal Radiation Oncology (2230
Lynn Road). It seems that everything that
you would have at a cancer center is
already at their medical complex. It would
make more sense to build on the property
(355 W. Janss Rd.) that is already part of
this complex. There is open space across
the street (west) Lynn Rd. from this
property and to the south, a few homes
that would be impacted by the noise of
construction.

This is far better than the 250 plus
apartments and homes that would be
impacted by the noise from construction
that are next to the property located at 400
Rolling Oaks Drive
66 Judy Dahlstrom (CONT’D) Thousand Oaks (CONT’D) 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) - (CONT’D)
I am opposed to
this item
(CONT’D)
(CONT’D)
If HCA-Los Robles Hospital’s primary
concern is to make this convenient for
cancer patients, why not build the cancer
center on the property (355 West Janss
Road) that is currently used as a parking lot
for the exclusive use of Medical Center
employees, volunteers and vendors. This is
the property that they are requesting be
changed to residential planned
development. This property is part of all
the other medical buildings and the
hospital in this big medical complex and
seems a more appropriate place for a
Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Please consider a no vote and keep the
property at 400 E. Rolling Oaks Drive as
rural exclusive and save this for homes.

HCA Health Care-Los Robles Hospital
already has the property in their centralized
complex to build the Comprehensive
Cancer Center.

Michelle Koetke Newbury Park 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive)
I am in favor of
this item
This proposal would not provide any
additional benefit and flies in the face
of the logic of zoning. Abuse of power,
a shiny new thing that will hamper the
quality of life for not one but two
eventual neighborhoods. Outrageous.

What is the purpose of zoning,
planning? Vote no.
67 TO: Andrew P. Powers, City Manager
FROM:

DATE:

SUBJECT:

Kelvin Parker, Deputy Community Development Director
March 26, 2024
Item No. 12B - Janss Marketplace Specific Plan Initiation (SP-2024-70001)
This memorandum is to update the case number and applicant identified within Attachments 1-3 to “SP-2024-70001 - Newmark Merrill Companies” only. cdd:440-35\sk\H:\COMMON\City Council\CC Agenda Items\2 024\03262024\Janss SP Initiation\Supplemental 12B\12B Memorandum – Community Development Department.doc\pz (FILE ID: SP-2024-70001) 68 Wilbur Rd
La Granada Dr
Camino Dos Rios
Thousand Oaks Blvd
Janss Rd
Lynn Rd
Hillcrest Dr
Moorpark Rd
SP-2024-70001
Newmark Merrill Companies
Vicinity Map
0 2,000 4,0001,000
Feet
Site
City of Thousand Oaks
Community Development Department
101
FGG
?VN?+
&20021?&LW\&RXQFLO?&&$JHQGD,WHPV???-DQVV63,QLWLDWLRQ?6XSSOHPHQWDO2% ?:LOEXU5G:-DQVV0DUNHWSODFH6$GRF?S]
),/(,'
63

ATTACHMENT #1
69 Sear
sDr
Brazil St
Wa
rw
ick Ave
Saint C
harlesD
r
Hillcrest Dr
Conejo Blvd
Moorpark Rd
Marin St
Wilbur Rd
SP-2024-70001
Newmark Merrill Companies
Location Map
City of Thousand Oaks
Community Development Department
0 300 600150
Feet
Subject
Property
FGG
?VN?+
?&20021?&LW\&RXQFLO?&&$JHQGD,WHPV???-DQVV63,QLWLDWLRQ?6XSSOHPHQWDO2% ?:LOEXU5G#-DQVV0DUNHWSODFH6/SGI?S]
),/(,'$
63

ATTACHMENT #2
70 Hillcrest Dr
Wilbur Rd
Sears Dr
Conejo Blvd
Moorpark Rd
Marin St
SP-2024-70001
Newmark Merrill Companies
Aerial Map
City of Thousand Oaks
Community Development Department
0 150 300 45075
Feet
Subject
Property
/(
FGG
?VN?+
?&20021?&LW\&RXQFLO?&&$JHQGD,WHPV???-DQVV63,QLWLDWLRQ?6XSSOHPHQWDO2% ?:LOEXU5G:-DQVV0DUNHWSODFH6$SGI?S]
), ,'
63

ATTACHMENT #3
71

Thousand Oaks City CouncilMarch 26, 2024

Thousand Oaks City Council
March 26, 2024