Agenda Related Items - Meeting of March 26, 2024
Supplemental Packet Date: March 26, 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.
2:30 p.m.
Supplemental Information:
Any agenda related public documents 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 41
PAGES ARE RELATED TO
ITEM 10.A.
TO: City Council
FROM: Al Adam, Mayor
DATE: March 26, 2024
SUBJECT: Ex Parte Communication, Agenda Item 10A –
Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) and Residential Capacity Transfer (355 West Janss Road)
In compliance with Thousand Oaks Municipal Code Section 1-10.08, the purpose of this memo is to convey that I was contacted as shown below regarding the subject agenda item:
On Monday, March 18 th, 2024 I met with Lynn Burdick and neighbors at the proposed location. They shared their concerns regarding the proposed project.
I also spoke with Amy Commans last week about the proposed project.
CMO:470-90\H:\COMMON\Ex Parte Communication\2024/03 26 24 Ex Parte Memo Adam Agenda Item 10A 1 TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: David Newman, Mayor Pro Tem
DATE: March 26, 2024
SUBJECT: Ex Parte Communication, Agenda Item 10A –
Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) and Residential Capacity Transfer (355 West Janss Road)
In compliance with Thousand Oaks Municipal Code Section 1-10.08, the purpose of this memo is to convey that I was contacted as shown below regarding the subject agenda item:
I met with a group of residents from the community to discuss the proposed project.
These residents included:
Jacqueline B. (Surname unknown)
Barbara Ballenger
Lynn Burdick
Lisa DiLallo
Dave and Terri G. (Surname unknown)
Marilyn (Surname unknown)
Wes Myers
Christine Scholle
Jack Talbot
In addition, I discussed the project with Patricia Jones and Jackson Piper (separately).
Lastly, I spoke with Amy Commans, Tom Coh en, Dave Rand and Nick Johnson about the proposed project.
CMO:470-90\H:\COMMON\Ex Parte Communication\2024/03 26 24 Ex Parte Memo Newman Agenda Item 10A
2 TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Bob Engler, Councilmember
DATE: March 26, 2024
SUBJECT: Ex Parte Communication, Agenda Item 10A –
Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) and Residential Capacity Transfer (355 West Janss Road)
In compliance with Thousand Oaks Municipal Code Section 1-10.08, the purpose of this memo is to convey that I was contacted as shown below regarding the subject agenda item:
Last week, I met with Lynn Burdick and neighbors about the project. They shared their concerns about the proposed project.
I met with Amy Commans, and others from her team last week to talk about the proposed project.
I also spoke with other various citizens within the community who shared their thoughts about the project. Some were in favor, and some were not.
CMO:470-90\H:\COMMON\Ex Parte Communication\2024/03 26 24 Ex Parte Memo Engler Agenda Item 10A 3 TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kevin McNamee, Councilmember
DATE: March 26, 2024
SUBJECT: Ex Parte Communication, Agenda Item 10A –
Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) and Residential Capacity Transfer (355 West Janss Road)
In compliance with Thousand Oaks Municipal Code Section 1-10.08, the purpose of this memo is to convey that I was contacted as shown below regarding the subject agenda item:
I spoke with Lynn Burdick and Robert Markurelli twice about the proposed project.
They shared their concerns and said they were not in favor of the project.
I also spoke with Amy Commans, Tom Cohen and Nick Johnson last week to talk about the proposed project.
CMO:470-90\H:\COMMON\Ex Parte Communication\2024/03 26 24 Ex Parte Memo McNamee Agenda Item 10A 4 TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mikey Taylor, Councilmember
DATE: March 26, 2024
SUBJECT: Ex Parte Communication, Agenda Item 10A –
Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) and Residential Capacity Transfer (355 West Janss Road)
In compliance with Thousand Oaks Municipal Code Section 1-10.08, the purpose of this memo is to convey that I was contacted as shown below regarding the subject agenda item:
Last week I met with Lynn Burdick and neighbors at the proposed location. They shared their concerns regarding the proposed project.
I also met with Amy Commans, Tom Cohen, and Nick Johnson last week to talk about the proposed project.
CMO:470-90\H:\COMMON\Ex Parte Communication\2024/03 26 24 Ex Parte Memo Taylor Agenda Item 10A 5 From: Scott Kolwitz
To: Laura Maguire; Sandra Delgado; Dominga Zambrano
Cc: Fabiola Zelaya Melicher; Stephen Kearns; Justine Kendall; Lori Goor Subject: FW: Los Robles Cancer Center Project - Summary of Senate Bill 330 "No Net Loss" Provisions Date: Monday, March 25, 2024 5:10:28 PM
Attachments: image001.png
SB 330 letter to City (3.25.24).pdf
Hello City Clerk Team,
Here’s a letter to include in tomorrow’s Supplemental Packet.
Sincerely,
Scott
From: Dave Rand <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 4:55 PM
To:
Scott Kolwitz <[email protected]>
Cc: Patrick Hehir <[email protected]>; Thomas Cohen <[email protected]>; Commans Amy <[email protected]>
Subject: Los Robles Cancer Center Project - Summary of Senate Bill 330 "No Net Loss" Provisions
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.
Scott:
Please add the attached to the administrative record for the proposed Cancer Center project proposed at 400 East Rolling Oaks Drive.
Thank you.
Dave
Dave Rand
Partner
Phone: 213.557.7222 Direct: 213.557.7224
Cell: 818.983.6155
633 W. Fifth Street, Suite 5880, Los Angeles, CA 90071
Email:
[email protected]
Web: www.rpnllp.com
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
6 +++++++++++++++++++++++
This e-mail message is intended only for the personal use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or include attorney work product privileged material, and as such is privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message.
To comply with IRS regulations, we advise you that any discussion of Federal tax issues in this e-mail was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used by you, (i) to avoid any penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) to promote, market or recommend to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
7 633 West Fifth Street
Suite 5880
Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.557.7222
www.rpnllp.com
Dave Rand
213.557.7224
[email protected]
March 25, 2024
VIA EMAIL
Scott Kolwitz
Senior Planner
Community Development Department
City of Thousand Oaks
2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
Re: Los Robles Cancer Center Project and Senate Bill 330 "No Net Loss" Provisions Dear Mr. Kolwitz:
As you know, this firm represents HCA Health Care – Los Robles Hospital (“Applicant”) in connection with the proposed development of a new comprehensive cancer center (“Cancer Center component”) at 400 East Rolling Oaks Drive (“Cancer Center site”), as well as the concurrent rezoning of the Applicant-owned property at 355 West Janss Road (“Janns Road site”) (collectively, the Cancer Center component and the rezoning of the Janns Road site constitute the single “Project” being proposed by the Applicant). The purpose of this letter is to provide additional information to the City regarding the Project’s compliance with the requirements of Senate Bill (“SB”) 330, in consideration of the number of comments received regarding this topic during both the Project’s draft environmental impact report (“Draft EIR”) public comment period as well as the recent Planning Commission hearing regarding the Project.
I. Overview of SB 330 and Applicability to Project
As described in the Draft EIR, SB 330, also commonly known as the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, was adopted by the California Legislature in October 2019 to help address California’s housing shortage.
SB 330 included amendments to the State’s Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), Planning and Zoning Law, and Permit Streamlining Act, setting new provisions statewide for the review and approval of housing development projects by local jurisdictions, as well as provisions pertaining to the preservation of the existing residential zoning capacity to develop housing in these jurisdictions. Effective January 1, 2020, SB 330 is now extended until January 1, 2030, with the passage of SB 8.
Among other things, SB 330 generally prohibits local jurisdictions from “downzoning” or reducing the residential development capacity of a site where housing is currently an allowed use.
Specifically, Government Code Section 66300(b)(1)(A) precludes a local jurisdiction from changing the general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning of a parcel or parcels of property that would individually or cumulatively reduce the site’s residential development capacity 8 Scott Kolwitz
Senior Planner
March 25, 2024
below what was allowed under planning and zoning regulations as they existed on January 1, 2018. SB 330 only provides two exceptions from this downzoning prohibition: when a jurisdiction obtains approval of a proposed housing moratorium ordinance from the State’s Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) (Government Code Section 66300(b)(1)(B)(ii), or when a jurisdiction concurrently changes the development standards, policies, and conditions applicable to another parcel or parcels within the jurisdiction to ensure that there is no net loss in residential capacity for the jurisdiction (Government Code Section 66300(h)).
To allow the development of the Cancer Center component of the Project, the Cancer Center site’s General Plan land use designation is proposed to be changed from Neighborhood Very Low to Commercial Neighborhood, and its zoning designation is proposed to be changed from Rural-Exclusive (R-E-1AC) to Commercial Office (C-O). As described in the Draft EIR, these proposed changes will reduce the residential development capacity of the Cancer Center site by nine dwelling units, which under SB 330, triggers application of the no net loss requirements described above. The City is not proposing a moratorium on housing development that could be reviewed and approved by HCD; therefore, the only manner in which the City would be able to comply with SB 330 in connection with the Cancer Center site’s downzoning is to concurrently change the development standards, policies, and conditions applicable to another parcel or parcels to ensure no net loss of residential development capacity occurs in the City.
As noted above, the Applicant owns the Janss Road site, which is currently subject to a General Plan land use designation of Institutional and a zoning designation of Public, Quasi-public, and institutional Lands and Facilities. To offset the nine-unit reduction in residential development capacity associated with the General Plan and zoning designation changes proposed for the Cancer Center site and achieve compliance with SB 330, the Draft EIR describes proposed changes to the Janss Road site’s General Plan designation to Neighborhood Low 1 and its zoning designation to Residential Planned Development, maximum 4.5 dwelling units per acre. As described in the Draft EIR, the new General Plan and zoning designations for the Janss Road site would establish a residential development capacity of nine dwelling units at this property, thereby offsetting the reduction in residential dwelling unit capacity reflected by the rezoning of the Cancer Center site.
For the reasons described below, the City’s rezoning of the Janss Road site and corresponding Draft EIR analysis presents a highly conservative approach to SB330 compliance – meeting both the letter and the intent of statute’s no net loss requirements. Moreover, the State of California’s Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) has concurred that the City’s re-zoning efforts comply with SB 330’s requirements.
II. The Draft EIR Conservatively Assumes that SB 330’s No Net Loss Requirements Applies to the Project.
As noted above, SB 330 both addresses jurisdictional actions related to housing development capacity (e.g., the above-described prohibition of downzoning residentially zoned properties without concurrent rezoning elsewhere) and specifically governs the approval of new individual housing development projects (e.g., it imposes requirements to provide affordable replacement units in new projects that require the demolition of existing protected dwelling units). SB 330 also includes language exempting “a housing development project located within a very high fire hazard severity zone 9 Scott Kolwitz
Senior Planner
March 25, 2024
[“VHFHSZ”]” from its provisions.1 Both the Cancer Center and Janss Road sites are located within a designated VHFHSZ, indicating the presence of elevated risk of fire and wildfire.
Under various State and local planning and zoning regulations outside of SB 330, the development of new or expanded residential uses (such as those that could be facilitated by a residential rezoning effort) tend to be restricted within VHFHSZs due to elevated fire risk. Accordingly, the Legislature’s likely intent when drafting SB 330 was to exempt all such rezoning efforts within VHFHSZs from SB 330’s no net loss provisions. Under this reading of the statute, the fact that the Cancer Center site is located within a VHFHSZ would exempt the Project’s proposed rezoning from SB 330’s no net loss provisions.
However, despite a plausible argument that all VHFHSZ properties are statutorily exempt from SB 330’s concurrent rezoning/no net loss provisions, the City elected to apply the more conservative interpretation of SB 330, and undertake the concurrent rezoning of the Janss Road site to ensure that the reduction in residential development capacity at the Cancer Center site did not result in any net loss of residential development capacity for the City.
III. SB 330 Does Not Require a Housing Development Project to be Proposed at the Janss Road Site.
Multiple Draft EIR public comments were received regarding the Project’s compliance with SB 330, including comments implying that because the development of the Janss Road site with new housing units was not imminently foreseeable, the City’s concurrent downzoning/upzoning effort was not consistent with SB 330. However, SB 330’s no net loss requirement regarding residential development capacity is just that – the preservation of a jurisdiction’s capacity to accommodate housing development. This provision of SB 330 does not contemplate or require the immediate development of new housing units in connection with a concurrent downzoning/upzoning process to maintain residential capacity; it simply requires that a jurisdiction maintain the same overall capacity to develop housing as that which existed on January 1, 2018. As demonstrated by the Draft EIR, the proposed General Plan and zoning designation changes for the Janss Road will directly offset the reduction in residential development capacity at the Cancer Center site, thereby achieving no net loss in capacity, as well as compliance with the SB 330.
Had the Legislature intended to require that an applicant seeking to concurrently rezone a site under SB 330 also demonstrate the foreseeable development of new housing units on that site, it could have included such a requirement in the statute. As noted above, SB 330 amended many different portions of the State’s housing laws, including portions of the HAA that pertain to State Housing Element law, including that law’s requirement that jurisdictions plan for their future housing needs by identifying a “suitable sites inventory.” Such inventories must include properties where housing is not only a permitted use, but where housing development projects can foreseeably be developed within the timing of the jurisdiction’s Housing Element cycle, either due to a property owner’s expressed interest in developing housing, or due to the absence of physical/operational constraints on such housing development occurring. The Legislature is therefore fully aware that such foreseeability/feasibility
1 California Government Code (“CGC”) Section 66300(e)(4). 10 Scott Kolwitz
Senior Planner
March 25, 2024
requirements exist in current State housing laws, yet they consciously declined to include such requirements as part of SB 330’s no net loss provision.
The Legislature’s decision to not require that a concurrent rezoning effort under SB 330 be contingent on the foreseeable development of housing units on the new residentially designated site reflects an appropriate balancing of housing policy with other desirable policies. For example, as is the case with the current Project, the removal of existing residential zoning may be sought to facilitate the development of a needed medical facility that will serve the surrounding community. Similarly, the redesignation of residentially zoned property could also be necessary and desirable to allow the development of other public benefit projects, such as an educational institution or a community park or recreational center. If in conjunction with such contemplated rezonings, SB 330 required an applicant to not only concurrently rezone another parcel to a residential designation to maintain overall residential capacity within the jurisdiction (which is itself a tremendous burden that few applicants are able to achieve), but also propose an actual housing development project on that rezoned site in the immediate term (which would be beyond the capabilities of nearly any applicant that would be proposing a medical facility, educational institution, or community recreational facility), it would present such a significant additional burden for the applicant that the initially proposed public benefit project would likely be abandoned.
Therefore, SB 330’s omission of any requirement to demonstrate the foreseeable production of new housing units in conjunction with a no net loss rezoning effort is not only clear from a reading of the statute, but also aligns with the Legislature’s consideration of other housing laws and balancing of public policies.
IV. The Draft EIR Conservatively Analyzes the Potentially Foreseeable Environmental Effects of a Residential Development Project at the Janss Road Site.
Although a specific housing project is not required to be proposed at the Janss Road site by SB 330 or any other State law, as explained above, the Draft EIR nevertheless conservatively analyzed and disclosed the foreseeable potential environmental impacts of a nine-unit single-family home future residential development, which represents the most potentially impactful form of development at the site. Environmental analysis of a potential residential development at the Janss Road site at this early stage is consistent with CEQA’s requirements to study the potential for foreseeable impacts at the earliest possible opportunity, and further reflects the highly conservative approach taken by the City.
V. SB 330 Does Not Require an Exact Match Between Rezoning Sites.
Several Draft EIR comments were receiving objecting to the differences in size and location between the Cancer Center and Janss Road sites, claiming that any disparities between the sites somehow resulted in a lack of compliance with SB 330. However, nowhere does SB 330 require perfect symmetry between two sites undergoing a concurrent rezoning process with regard to their development characteristics, such as size, location, topography, or other features. Such an exceedingly high rezoning bar would be almost impossible to practically achieve. SB 330 only speaks to the preservation of residential development capacity in connection with such concurrent rezoning actions. 11 Scott Kolwitz
Senior Planner
March 25, 2024
As described in the Draft EIR, the proposed rezoning of the Cancer Center site (from R-E-1AC to C-O) would result in a reduction in residential capacity of up to nine single-family dwelling units, as only single-family dwelling units are permitted to be developed within the R-E-1AC zone. To ensure no net loss in the City’s residential development capacity, the Janss Road site is proposed to be rezoned from PL to RPD-4.5U, which if it were developed with single-family dwellings, would accommodate up to nine single-family dwellings, thereby offsetting the maximum loss of potential residential development capacity at the Cancer Center site. As described above, for purposes of conservative environmental analysis, the Draft EIR assumed nine single-family dwelling units would be developed at the Janss Road Site, as that form of residential development would result in the largest unit sizes and greatest amount of site disturbance. However, the proposed RPD-4.5U zoning designation for the Janss Road site is far more flexible than the Cancer Center site’s R-E-1AC, as it permits duplex and multifamily dwelling units to be developed, in addition to single-family units. Furthermore, the RPD-4.5U zone provides more permissive development standards (such as reduced setbacks and increased height) for multifamily housing developments, and these development standards could be further reduced through potential application of State Density Bonus Law in connection with a permitted multifamily use at this site.
Accordingly, contrary to the comments received on the Draft EIR, the proposed concurrent rezoning not only meets SB 330’s statutory requirement to preserve residential development capacity, the proposed rezoning of the Janss Road site facilitates the development of additional housing typologies within the City, thereby diversifying the City’s ability to meet its diverse housing needs.
VI. HCD Has Reviewed the City’s Proposed Rezoning and Determined It Complies with SB 330.
Recently, HCD’s Housing Accountability Unit (“HAU”) staff received a request for technical assistance regarding the City’s proposed rezoning actions in connection with the Project. Based on correspondence uploaded to the City Council agenda today, the HAU conducted its own review of the Project and the proposed concurrent rezoning. Upon completion of this review, HAU staff informed the City that the proposed rezoning of the Cancer Center and Janss Road sites would comply with SB 330 and would not violate the statute’s no net loss provisions, and that the request for technical assistance was being closed.2 Accordingly, HCD, which is tasked with interpreting and enforcing the requirements of SB 330, has determined that the City’s actions regarding the Project would not result in any violations of State housing laws.
2 March 21, 2024 E-Mail Correspondence from Helen Eldred, HCD Housing Policy Analyst, to Scott Kolwitz, City of Thousand Oaks.
12 Scott Kolwitz
Senior Planner
March 25, 2024
In conclusion, for the reasons provided above, the City’s actions with regards to the Project and the rezoning of both the Cancer Center site and Janss Road site are fully compliant with SB 330, as well as with CEQA.
Thank you very much, and please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Dave Rand
Dave Rand
Partner
of RAND PASTER & NELSON, LLP
13 You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: Lori Goor
To: Sandra Delgado; Laura Maguire; Monica Murrietta
Cc: Commans Amy
Subject: FW: Comprehensive Cancer Center - Letter of Support Date: Monday, March 25, 2024 7:47:00 PM
Attachments: image001.png
3.18.2024 Letter of Support_LR Cancer Center.pdf
Hi Ms. Murietta,
I see the email I forwarded in Supplemental Packet #1, but not it’s accompanying letter. I will ensure this email and the accompanying letter is included in tomorrow’s Supplemental.
Our apologies,
Lori Goor
From: Monica Murrietta <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 7:02 PM
To:
Lori Goor <[email protected]>
Cc: Commans Amy <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Comprehensive Cancer Center - Letter of Support
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.
Hi, good evening Ms. Goor: I just reviewed the agenda and supplemental packets for the March 26th City Council meeting. I did not see my letter in the packet, which was originally sent on March 18th. I will be at the Council meeting on Tuesday night and will register as a speaker. Thank you very much, Monica
Monica Murrietta, Executive Director
Cancer Support Community Valley/Ventura/Santa Barbara
4195 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd., Suite 107
Westlake Village, CA 91362
Ofc: 805.379.4777 ext. 237
Cell: 805.701.8150
[email protected]
From: Monica Murrietta
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 1:46 PM
14 To: [email protected]
Cc: Commans Amy <[email protected]>
Subject: Comprehensive Cancer Center - Letter of Support
Hello Ms. Goor: We respectfully send this letter to Mayor Adam and City Councilmembers McNamee, Engler, Newman and Taylor in support of the Los Robles/HCA Comprehensive Cancer Center. Thank you for your time, Monica
Monica Murrietta, Executive Director
Cancer Support Community Valley/Ventura/Santa Barbara
4195 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd., Suite 107
Westlake Village, CA 91362
Ofc: 805.379.4777 ext. 237
Cell: 805.701.8150
[email protected]
15 Our mission is to ensure that all people impacted by cancer are empowered by knowledge, strengthened by action and sustained by community.
4195 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd., #107, Westlake Village, CA 91362 www.CancerSupportVvsb.org [email protected] O:(805) 379-4777 F:(805) 371-6231 March 18, 2024
City of Thousand Oaks City Council
2100 Thousand Oaks Blvd.
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
Dear Honorable Mayor Al Adam and Councilmembers McNamee, Engler, Newman and Taylor:
On behalf of our Board of Directors and staff, I would like to express our full support for the planned comprehensive Los Robles Cancer Center, located at 400 East Rolling Oaks Drive.
A comprehensive cancer center can help to deliver cancer care with a multidisciplinary approach, providing an entire team of cancer specialists in one location to deliver personalized treatment to patients. The collaborative process is beneficial to both patients and the family, reducing the many burdens of cancer.
A local comprehensive cancer center has been needed in the Conejo Valley. It could improve the quality of life for cancer patients and their caregivers and reduce the need for possible travel outside of the area to seek out other resources. Many of our participants and families express to us the stress of needing to travel outside of the area and the burden on the family – time off work, cost of travel and stress of added traffic. This again reinforces the value of a local, comprehensive program.
On a personal note, I was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2019 and received my care near home, at the Ventura Coastal Cancer Center at Community Memorial Hospital. My oncologist, radiology oncologist, infusion center and cancer resource center were all within the same building. The close proximity made it so convenient for multiple appointments within the center on the same day. My oncologist and radiation oncologist would frequently stop by while I was in the infusion center, or I’d see them in the hallway periodically, able to have a short conversation in between my appointments or theirs. These encounters always gave me and my daughter comfort, strengthening the patient/physician relationship and increased my feelings of my cancer team being part of my healing community.
Thank you for considering these points when making important community decisions to care for our cancer patients and their families with an understanding of their stressful situations and how we can all work together to ease their burdens.
Respectfully,
Monica E. Murrietta
Executive Director
16 From: Sally Friedl
To: Lori Goor
Subject: Comprehensive Cancer Center
Date: Monday, March 25, 2024 7:08:38 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 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.
Honorable Mayor Adam & Thousand Oaks City Councilmembers Bob Engler, Kevin McNamee, David Newman & Mikey Taylor –
(c/o Lori Goor via email at [email protected]
)
I live in Thousand Oaks and I am writing to express support for a proposed cancer center to enhance medical services and treatments available to people living in the Conejo Valley.
My husband, Jim Friedl, Sr., died in 2016 after battling cancer for about five years.
He was treated at Los Robles Regional Medical Center, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and UCLA Santa Monica Medical Center at different times and stages of the disease. This meant he spent his final working years and a precious few retirement years driving to Doctor appointments, medical treatments and procedures in Los Angeles – a place with internationally-renowned traffic problems.
A trip to LA for a 1-hour appointment could
consume most of a day. And we knew he did not have many days left. When he could not drive himself, I would drive and together we would spend hours in a car – rather than enjoying our home or local community.
My understanding is that Los Robles Regional Medical Center and UCLA Health are working together to bring a comprehensive array of cancer treatments into one center in the Conejo Valley.
A comprehensive cancer center will not only provide more medical resources for those battling a terrible disease but will likely lessen the added burden for many Conejo Valley residents from having to drive to far-flung locations for doctor visits and treatments.
I know my
family story is not unique. As I get older, I’m discovering this situation is quite common. Right now, I have a single friend who frequently requires treatment at Cedars and has no spouse or family to drive her there.
In addition to the benefit to the cancer patients and the care-giving families and friends, a comprehensive cancer center will provide an added economic benefit to our local economy.
As a former local small business owner, I certainly can appreciate the additional jobs as well as business support services that will enhance our community.
Thank you for your consideration and for your service to the community.
Sincerely,
Sally Bannerman-Friedl
Thousand Oaks
3/25/24
17 From: Kelvin Parker
To: Laura Maguire; Lori Goor; Justine Kendall; Scott Kolwitz Subject: Fwd: Comprehensive Cancer Center
Date: Tuesday, March 26, 2024 7:10:08 AM
Attachments: Letter of Support LRHS Cancer Center.pdf
FYI
Kelvin Parker
Community Development Director
City of Thousand Oaks
From: Van Ommeren, Ryan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 4:27:38 PM
To: Kelvin Parker <[email protected]>
Subject: Comprehensive Cancer Center
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 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.
Hi Kelvin,
A letter of support from California Lutheran University regarding tomorrow’s Council vote is attached.
Please let me know if you received (and if I should have forwarded this to you).
Ryan Van Ommeren
18 CalLutheran.edu
Office (805) 493-3145
Fax (805) 493-3456
Office of the Provost
60 West Olsen Road #1400
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
March 25, 2024
Honorable Council Members
City of Thousand Oaks
2100 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd.
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
Subj: Letter of Support for Comprehensive Cancer Center
Dear Honorable Council Members:
Please know that California Lutheran University fully supports the construction and operation of the Comprehensive Cancer Center being as planned by the Los Robles Health System.
California Lutheran University supports City Council approval of the Center, as it both creates a state-of-the art medical facility within the City, and it provides great benefit to individuals in our community currently forced to endure significant stress and challenges in commuting to treatment centers well out of the local region.
We urge the Council to vote for project approval on March 26, 2024, and we thank you for your thoughtful consideration.
Sincerely,
Leanne Neilson, PsyD
Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
California Lutheran University
60 W. Olsen Rd.
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
19 From: Josh Gray <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2024 10:09 AM
To: City Clerk's Office <[email protected]>
Cc: Danielle Borja <[email protected]>; Nate Swanson <[email protected]> Subject: Public Comment for Tonight's Meeting
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 morning,
I’ve attached the Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce’s written comment for tonight’s City Council meeting on item 10A.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you!
Josh Gray l Director of Government Affairs & Tourism
Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce
600 Hampshire Road #200 | Westlake Village, CA 91361
D: 805.267.7506
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 20 2024 BOARD OF DIRECTORS
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Dianne Mckay
Chair of the Board
Mustang Marketing
Rondi Guthrie
Chair Elect
Athens Services
Ed Sahakian
Chair Emeritus
Ventura County Credit Union
Eva Gomez
Treasurer
California State University Channel Islands
Matt Midura
Secretary
Good Cause Marketing Partners
Jake Demirchyan
Director-at-Large
Caruso
Lisa Safaeinili
Director-at-Large
Westminster Free Clinic
Kimberly Tharpe
Director-at-Large
Citizens Business Bank
Danielle Borja
President / CEO
Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce
DIRECTORS
Debbie Adrian
Warner Pacific Insurance Services
Leanne Alva
Connect Escrow, Inc.
Emily Capretta
Proactive Sports
Tom Cohen
Cohen Land Use Law
Marja Cross
Janss Marketplace
Elizabeth Dritz
Takeda
Mike Dutra
Candu Graphics
Kinsie Flame
Jacob Flame’s Tang Soo Do University
Rick Gibson
Pepperdine University
Vikas Kaushik
TechAhead
William Koehler
Law Offices of William D. Koehler
Lauren Lerch
Your CBD Store
Ruben Maciel
The SL Group
Andrea McClellan
Boy Scouts of America -Ventura County Council
David McGovern
Hyatt Regency Westlake
Michelle Menzel
GreatWay Roofing
Aaron Mercer
Express Employment Professionals
Lucia Minaya
The Oaks Shopping Center
Mark Ortgies
Southern California Orthopedic Institute
Drew Pletcher
Pletcher Law, APC
Niki Richardson
TOArts
Ryan Van Ommeren
California Lutheran University
Ryan Selvin
Selvin Property Management
Gabriella Sherman, MD
Los Robles Health System
600 Hampshire Road # 200 • Westlake Village, CA 91361
T: (805) 370-0035 • conejochamber.org
March 26, 2024
Thousand Oaks City Council
2100 Thousand Oaks Blvd
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
Re: Los Robles Health System Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center
Dear Mayor Adam and Councilmembers,
On behalf of the 700+ members of the Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce, I am writing to express our strong support for the proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center.
This project is a significant investment of time, talent, and resources by Los Robles Health System and their partners for our community to provide individuals and families fighting cancer the ability to focus on what matters most - their health.
A dedicated center coalesces the resources and state-of-the-art medical equipment in one place, critically eliminating bureaucracy for patients needing to coordinate appointments and updates amongst numerous doctors’ offices and facilities. Putting healthcare professionals in one place for patients also has the added benefit of additional collaboration amongst the whole care team, providing a more holistic approach to individual patient care.
From an economic development perspective, the cancer center reinforces the city’s commitment to leading medical innovations by fostering our biotech hub which includes companies developing oncological solutions that this center may one day use for patients.
The project site is an ideal location with previous commercial use as a daycare location, proximity to Thousand Oaks Surgical Hospital and other existing medical office buildings and geographically close to many patients in the region. As an outpatient facility the center makes a model neighbor as traffic would not pass through residential areas, thus preserving the neighborhood character while also giving patients access to services.
We thank you for your thoughtful consideration and urge you to support the proposed Comprehensive Community Cancer Center.
Sincerely,
Danielle Borja
President/CEO, Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce
21 H. M. CRONER
31907 BENCHLEY COURT• WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91361 • (818) 889- 7712 March 15, 2024
Mayor Al Adam
City Council of Thousand Oaks
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
Dear Mayor Al Adam,
I am writing to you in support of the new Cancer Center at Los Robles Hospital.
First let me indicate my personal involvement in cancer treatment for my wife and daughter. My wife had a 2 ½ year battle with cancer. She lost the battle this past December. In the 2 ½ year battle, there were numerous times we were at the hospital for treatment or critical support. I am grateful for the timely services she received.
Our daughter, as she was graduating high school, was diagnosed with Hodgkins Disease, a cancer of the lymph system. She was treated at the Westwood campus of UCLA with a heavy dose of radiation. Th is was over 40 years ago. The radiation cured her cancer but damaged other critical parts of her body, including her heart. It was 40 years later that we lost her to heart failure. She had a very successful career in healthcare and was Vice President of the Moores Cancer Center at UCSD when she passed in 2020.
We have lived here for over 50 years. We have had occasion to utilize the services of the Los Robles Hospital and were pleased to hear that plans were underway for a new Cancer Center on the Los Robles campus. I believe this is an important addition to the medical services available at Los Robles Hospital and hope the hospital receives the full support of the Thousand Oaks City Council for this expansion.
Thank you for your review of this important matter that will have such a significant impact on our whole community.
Yours truly. ,..,.<l}._._ /)
Harry Crone~ ~
22 From: Alyssa Katz
To: Lori Goor
Cc: [email protected]; Theresa Hamel
Subject: LRHS Comprehensive Cancer Center
Date: Tuesday, March 26, 2024 11:13:33 AM
Attachments: Comprehensive Cancer Center Development Letter-Hamel, Theresa.pdf You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 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.
ATTN: Mayor Al Adam and City Council Members Kevin McNamee, Bob Engler, David Newman and Mikey Taylor
c/o Lori Goor, Senior Recording Secretary Community Development Department for the City of Thousand Oaks
Via Email: [email protected]
RE: LRHS Comprehensive Cancer Center
23 March 26, 2024
ATTN: Mayor Al Adam and City Council Members Kevin McNamee, Bob Engler, David Newman and Mikey Taylor
c/o Lori Goor, Senior Recording Secretary Community Development Department for the City of Thousand Oaks
Via Email: [email protected]
RE: LRHS Comprehensive Cancer Center
Dear Mayor Al Adam and City Council Members Kevin McNamee, Bob Engler, David Newman and Mikey Taylor,
I sincerely hope you have not been impacted by a personal cancer battle or had the devastating experience of watching a loved one on their cancer journey. Statistically though, I would have to assume that either one or both of these scenarios has occurred in your own life and if so, I am sorry. If so, you know the gut wrenching feeling of a doctor asking you to come in to go over the results of a recent test. You know of all of the uncertainty and all of the questions. You know the feeling of wanting to find out the answers and the treatment plan but simultaneously wanting to remain oblivious to the looming battle in front of you. You know of the many doctor appointments and treatment appointments that will be required for weeks, months, or maybe even years. You know of the new reality that your life or the life of your loved one will now be built around these appointments.
My best friend, Toni Whelan, a lifelong resident of the Conejo Valley, passed away from breast cancer after 4 long years of fighting. Her surgeries and years of follow up appointments took place through the UCLA health system in Los Angeles, approximately 40 miles from her home, as this was the best available option for cancer treatment. I remember her, her family, and I getting up in the middle of the night to make it to the hospital in time for a 7:00 am surgery or for early morning follow up appointments and treatments to miss the dreaded LA traffic. When you are fighting for your life you should not also have to think about fighting traffic and being so far from home.
Toni was admitted to Los Robles Hospital in July of 2022. She received excellent care and in her last weeks of life the ability for her family and friends to be able to visit her often was such a gift.
I would have loved if for the 4 years she was fighting for her to have a reputable, comprehensive cancer center close to home. The benefits to her and her family would truly have been immeasurable.
My daughter’s mother-in-law is currently battling cancer and has had to travel to Duarte and Los Angeles to receive surgeries and cancer treatments. It is so clear to me that the Conejo Valley is in need of a centralized cancer treatment facility. It seems that more and more people are being diagnosed and impacted by cancer. I believe that voting in favor of this development project will benefit our community for generations to come. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Theresa Hamel
24 From: Rick Schroeder
To: Lori Goor
Subject: Letter of Support (Item 10(A))
Date: Tuesday, March 26, 2024 11:42:16 AM
Attachments: Lt-City Council- Comprehensive Cancer Center.pdf You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 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.
Ms. Goor: Attached is our letter of support for Item 10(A)-Comprehensive Cancer Center. If you have any questions, please let us know.
Rick A. Schroeder, Esq.
President & CEO |Many Mansions
1259 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd., Thousand Oaks, CA
91362
805.496.4948 x227 phone |805.497.1305 fax |805.432.0862 cell Cal. DRE #01999799
Cal. DRE (Many Mansions) #02003927
www.manymansions.org
25 ‘N
an=—
PXan~ion
March26,2024
CityCouncil
City ofThousandOaks
2100ThousandOaksBlvd.
ThousandOaks,CA91362
ViaE-Mail
ReItem#10(A)-ComprehensiveCancerCenter
LetterofSupport
DearMayor Adam&MembersoftheCityCouncil:
MynameisRickSchroeder,President&CEOofManyMansions,a
nonprofitaffordable housingdeveloper,owner,manager,andservice providerheadquarteredinThousandOaks.
Wesupportthe actionssoughtbytheapplicantattonight’shearing andassetforth inItem10(A).
Ourlow-incomeresidentsneedacomprehensivecancercenter
withinthecommunity.
Asyou know,ManyMansionsownsandoperatesnineaffordable
housingcommunities(456units)withintheCity ofThousandOaks.
Ourover1,000residentsareverydiverse andcomefromavarietyof backgrounds.
However,asyoucanimagine,manyofourresidentshave
experiencedseriousmedicalconditions,includingcancer.Manyofthese residents lacktransportationandsupport.Itisverydifficultforthese residentstotravelagreat distancetoreceivepropermedicaltreatment.
Asaresult,manyofourlow-incomeresidentswithcancerwouldsimply gowithoutsuchneededtreatment.
Therefore,havingacomprehensivecancercenter locatedwithin thecommunityandeasilyaccessiblewouldbenefitourresidentswholack suchtransportationandextensivesupport.
1259E.ThousandOaksBlvd•TousandOaksCA91362(805)496.4948.www.manymansions.org 26 ThousandOaksCityCouncil
March26,2024
Page2
ThelossoftheEastRollingOaksDrivesiteasresidential should notbeareasontodenythisproject.
Wesupportthedevelopment ofmoreresidential housing,
especiallyaffordablehousing,withinThousandOaks.Whileitistrue thattheEastRollingOakssiteiscurrentlyzoned‘residential,’itisunlikely thatthissitewouldeverbeusedforresidentialuse,especiallyas affordablehousing.Indeed, thissitewasnotevenincludedintherecent HousingElement.
TheredesignationoftheWestJanssRoadsiteappearstobeagood
compromisesothatthereis‘nonetloss’ofresidentialcapacity.Whileit maybedesirabletoincreasetheallowedresidentialdensityon thisWest JamsRoadsitetoencourageitsdevelopment intohousing, thisshouldnot beacondition fortheapprovaltheproposedcomprehensivecancer center.
Wesupporttheproposedaction.
Sinfely,
RickA.Schroeder,
President&CEO,
ManyMansions
cc.LoriGoor
27 From: Karen Martin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2024 2:07 PM
To: City Clerk's Office <[email protected]>
Subject: Reference sound study HCA 2005
Sent from my iPhone
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 Name (Optional) Community of Residence (Optional)Please choose the Agenda Item Number you’d like to comment onIn favor/ Opposed Comment Michael Dutra Newbury Park 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) and Residential Capacity Transfer (355 West Janss Road)I am in favor of this item The board members of the Greater Conejo Chamber of Commerce were presented the plan for the Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center in March 2024. It will be a state of the art facility helping community members battling with Cancer. Every project of growth the Los Robles Medical Center has taken on has been one of benefiting the community while keeping in mind the aesthetics of our area. The effort in the overall plan to minimize traffic in the area and create a low profile on East Rolling Oaks Drive while providing this life saving services to me seems a win- win all around. I highly recommend our city counsel to approve the center.
Thomas Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) and Residential Capacity Transfer (355 West Janss Road)I am in favor of this item I live around the corner from the proposed building site which over the last ten years has become not just an awful eyesore but an extreme fire hazard to the surrounding neighborhood. Take a stroll along the chain link fence on Los Padres across the street from the apartments and count the number of cigarette butts that litter sidewalk. Definitely a concern for the community every time the Santa Ana winds blow. I think we all know that it is extremely unlikely that a Developer would ever build residential dwellings on this property. Towering high tension electrical lines to the east and to the south, backside of Surgical Center with constant large trucks delivering supplies not to mention the extremely loud and nonstop noise from the adjacent 101 freeway.
Who would want to live there?? I urge the City Council Members not to back down to the Nimby's in this situation. Rezoning the property and approving the out-patient Cancer Center is the right thing to do for the neighbor and our community! Thank you for your consideration. I would attend the City Council meeting myself, but I attended the Oakmont Council meeting years ago and cannot put myself through that again! I don't envy you. 🤣 Thanks for what you do! no Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) and Residential Capacity Transfer (355 West Janss Road)I am opposed to this item no for zoning Michelle Menzel 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) and Residential Capacity Transfer (355 West Janss Road)I am in favor of this item As a 30-year resident of Moorpark, and a local business owner, my family has had to utilize Los Robles Medical Center oncology department for cancer treatment, as well as the City of Hope. The county has grown tremendously over the years, and although LRMC has done an amazing job serving the community within their current building, I see a vital need for us to have a specialized location to properly care for and assist cancer patients with their treatments. As I understand it, this proposed comprehensive cancer center will provide a centralized location for all cancer treatments. Unfortunately, often families have to drive (like ours) an hour or more, multiple times a month to seek treatment. As our community continues to witness a more aging population, the need for a cancer treatment facility is needed more now than ever. Cancer is a horrible disease and very difficult on patients and families, alike. I ask that you please consider the need and allow this cancer center to be built at 355 West Janns Road. Thank you! TO COUNCIL: 03/26/2024
MEETING DATE: 03/26/2024
35 Name (Optional) Community of Residence (Optional)Please choose the Agenda Item Number you’d like to comment onIn favor/ Opposed Comment Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) and Residential Capacity Transfer (355 West Janss Road) I am opposed to this item It is my understanding that there is another plot of land that could be used for this building. I am very glad that there is a desire to build a cancer center, but as a resident of the Rimrock Rd community, the chosen location would negatively impact the living experience for those on Rimrock Rd and the surrounding roads. Please construct this elsewhere since this community really values the open land, minimal commercial/medical buildings, and minimal traffic that is around this neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration and for providing us the opportunity to express our disapproval.
Matthew Burdick Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) and Residential Capacity Transfer (355 West Janss Road) I am opposed to this item This proposal is all about the rezoning of residential land. I rely on the City Council leadership to make their decision based upon how the General Plan has been laid out. Preservation of neighborhoods. Neighborhoods should not have to experience this significant impact. This has nothing to do with building a Cancer Center, as HCA has land already approved for this zoning at 355 W. Janss Road. Honor the General Plan and honor previous no rezoning votes on this same property. Thank you. Matthew
Kevin G. Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) and Residential Capacity Transfer (355 West Janss Road) I am opposed to this item Increased parking/traffic in my neighborhood.
Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) and Residential Capacity Transfer (355 West Janss Road) I am opposed to this item This proposal takes away buildable residential land.
Barbara A Ballenger Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) and Residential Capacity Transfer (355 West Janss Road) I am opposed to this item This is not the place for the cancer center. The EIR confirms the Janss Road site would be better as far as environmental impact is concerned and possible flooding into the arroyo at Rolling Oaks.
Also there has not been any NEED shown for the center to be at this site, where there are already vacant offices. It would be a precedent setting encroachment into our neighborhood. We were promised commercial would be kept north of Rolling Oaks. It would separate us from our community on Rimrock Road and our new neighborhood park. Traffic will be much worse at Rolling Oaks site and some people will try to use Haaland Dr which already is dangerous with the narrowness, above standard grading (steep hills), TOSH parking lots access and the turnaround.
The general plan prioritized housing. The Rolling Oaks site can accommodate more housing than the Janss Road site, which will never be used for housing despite the so-called swap to circumvent the No Net Loss state law. This is NOT the best land use & is against the general plan & the council's pledge to keep neighborhoods intact and prioritize housing.
Greg sincock Westlake Village 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) and Residential Capacity Transfer (355 West Janss Road) I am opposed to this item save our neighborhood 36 Name (Optional) Community of Residence (Optional)Please choose the Agenda Item Number you’d like to comment onIn favor/ Opposed Comment Willard Lubka Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) and Residential Capacity Transfer (355 West Janss Road) Neutral/Does Not Apply Dear Councilmembers, Item 10A presents you with an opportunity to do two good things for our city or to do one bad thing to our city.
Two good things:
• Approve development of a cancer center to serve our region • Approve development of critically needed affordable housing One bad thing:
• Set a precedent that you are amenable to swapping residential zoning designations from place to another in order to give the impression of a new opportunity to develop housing but where the actual purpose is purely to accommodate a business interest with no intention to develop housing.
That comes across as a fast one being pulled on our city.
Please do two good things by approving item 10A on the condition that affordable housing must be developed at the LRH location. Such housing will be a godsend for many medical facility workforce members. This conditional approval will give integrity to the proposed residential capacity transfer and will achieve progress toward addressing the city’s housing needs.
Sincerely,
W. Lubka, Thousand Oaks
Dorothy A Davis Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) and Residential Capacity Transfer (355 West Janss Road) I am opposed to this item We should honor the city plan for residential zoning in all our neighborhoods. I have lived here and invested in our town since 1965, and I love the home Thousand Oaks provides as a true respite from what could become a busy city, anxiety-ridden hometown.
Cori Cashier 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) and Residential Capacity Transfer (355 West Janss Road) I am opposed to this item Please leave our rural neighbors alone. There are many vacant buildings zoned properly in which Los Róbeles can do this.
37 Name (Optional) Community of Residence (Optional)Please choose the Agenda Item Number you’d like to comment onIn favor/ Opposed Comment Kimberly Tharpe Simi Valley 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) and Residential Capacity Transfer (355 West Janss Road) I am in favor of this item The Comprehensive Cancer Center proposed for development on Rolling Oaks Drive would be a life-saving blessing in our community not only for the residents of Thousand Oaks, but for all residents of Ventura County. As a lifetime resident of Ventura County, I have watched countless family members and friends battle cancer, most notably, two of my aunts in 2016 and 2017. One was a resident of Newbury Park and one was a resident of Simi Valley. Both of my aunts received treatment at comprehensive cancer centers 40-50 miles from their homes (Santa Monica and Duarte respectively). We all understand that 40-50 miles in Southern California means HOURS in traffic. For every appointment their husbands had to take an entire day off work or away from their other responsibilities as parents to sit in traffic. This caused financial hardship, undo stress, and most importantly, wasted time. They wasted the precious time they had left sitting in traffic traveling to receive treatment they could have received right here in town. One of my aunts succumbed to her cancer in October 2017 and the other in January 2018 and the one thing they both wished they had more of was time with their families. Not only will this Comprehensive Cancer Center provide life-saving treatment, therapy, and support, but it will give residents the gift of time. It will ease the burden of traveling for treatment - days off work, fuel, hotel stays, etc. - during one of the most financially stressful times in a family's life. My hope is that this community can understand how critical time is to a cancer patient and their family and support the development of the Comprehensive Cancer Center on Rolling Oaks Drive.
Theodore B Broome Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) and Residential Capacity Transfer (355 West Janss Road) I am opposed to this item The neighborhood in question is residential. There are several other areas that could be built on, without causing a dilemma to all of the existing residents.
Anne Broome Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) and Residential Capacity Transfer (355 West Janss Road) I am opposed to this item This area is zoned for residential housing. There are several suitable options that can be chosen and are already zoned for commercial use. This is a consolidation of several existing cancer centers.
Donna Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) and Residential Capacity Transfer (355 West Janss Road) I am opposed to this item If Thousand Oaks has any integrity at all they won’t allow the rezoning of a residential community to commercial so a huge medical center can destroy their property and peace.
Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) and Residential Capacity Transfer (355 West Janss Road) I am opposed to this item 38 Name (Optional) Community of Residence (Optional)Please choose the Agenda Item Number you’d like to comment onIn favor/ Opposed Comment Linda Northrup Camarilla 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) and Residential Capacity Transfer (355 West Janss Road) I am in favor of this item I write in support of Item No. 10A on tonight's agenda. As a cancer survivor, I can speak personally regarding the importance of comprehensive and localized cancer care. I went through my treatments for breast cancer during the pandemic which, ironically, made it easier to get all of my treatments since there was no traffic when I had to travel outside of the Conejo Valley to access care. If I had to battle traffic while also battling fatigue and nausea, I'm not sure I would have been able to get all of the care I needed in a timely fashion.
I know that housing is a priority but providing resources for the many folks who already live here is important too. The great news is that medical science has made amazing strides in treating cancer, allowing more people to survive and thrive. My response to my doctor was "I get to have chemo" not "have to" since I was fortunate that there was a treatment (albeit difficult and challenging) which allowed us to defeat this invader in my body. That being said, the road is long for those of us lucky enough to survive (my treatment phase lasted over a year) and my journey is still ongoing since the treatment left me with numerous side effects, which I am happily managing with my care team. Being able to access comprehensive care is critical for the many folks who will be fighting this battle right here in our own neighborhoods.
It is always difficult when there are environmental impacts of any kind, which is always the case with new construction like this. However, managing quality of life, including our very real battle with climate change with resources needed for medical care, is a balancing act. I have to think that the many local folks who will be accessing this center will be conserving the resources that would otherwise be used in traveling to other geographic areas to access care. My own cancer journey took me out of the area regularly because some of the care I needed just wasn't available here in the Conejo Valley.
The care I received at Los Robles, where I had all of my surgeries, was exemplary. I hope that this project will be approved for the benefit of our many neighbors and friends who will fight and win their own battles with cancer.
Thank you for considering these comments.
Linda Northrup
Deane L. Wolcott, M.D. Moorpark 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) and Residential Capacity Transfer (355 West Janss Road) I am in favor of this item The Conejo Valley deserves, and really needs, a comprehensive cancer center such as Los Robles Health System has proposed, to ensure both state of the art, integrated, comprehensive cancer diagnostic and treatment care, and truly individualized, patient and family-centered comprehensive supportive care. All Conejo Valley cancer patients/family members deserve academic quality cancer care which is accessible within the community. The proposed Los Robles Comprehensive Cancer Center will be a major cancer care advance for the Conejo Valley and surrounding communities.
Laura Wojciechwoski Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) and Residential Capacity Transfer (355 West Janss Road) I am opposed to this item Please Don't Allow This~! Peter J Wojciechowski Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) and Residential Capacity Transfer (355 West Janss Road) I am opposed to this item HIGHLY OPPOSED! Stephen Coyne and Pat MacLeanThousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) and Residential Capacity Transfer (355 West Janss Road) I am opposed to this item It makes no sense change zoning to build a facility in a residential area when the facility can be built on an existing parcel adjacent to the Los Robles Hospital which is owned by the hospital. It can be done with no zoning changes. The construction of the facility in the residential area will cause major disruption in the environment, and will create traffic and parking hazards. 39 Name (Optional) Community of Residence (Optional)Please choose the Agenda Item Number you’d like to comment onIn favor/ Opposed Comment Bruce Berger Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) and Residential Capacity Transfer (355 West Janss Road) I am opposed to this item Building a large commercial building in a residential neighborhood, makes absolutely no sense! We need more affordable housing in the Conejo Valley. It’s totally unreasonable to think ANYONE would build residential units on an existing hospital parking lot. Are you representing BIG business or the PEOPLE of the Conejo Valley?
Jocelyn Myers Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) and Residential Capacity Transfer (355 West Janss Road) I am opposed to this item It does not make sense to put residential zoning next to Los Robles Hospital when we already have residential zoning in our neighborhood next to TOSH.
Thank you.
Michelle Koetke Newbury Park 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) and Residential Capacity Transfer (355 West Janss Road) I am opposed to this item I am opposed to this proposal. While everyone wants cancer treatment, this does not add more services to our valley. However it flies in the face of the new housing element, the old housing element and all planning logic. It further when completed would disrupt not one but two neighborhoods. Why? Oppose this project!
Rachel REad Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) and Residential Capacity Transfer (355 West Janss Road) I am opposed to this item Hasn't California done enough to run people out of this state. For most people when buying a home, it will be the biggest investment they have made. Zoning is a huge reason people buy in certain areas. Not only is it illegal for you to change the zoning law but its Wrong. There is plenty of space in a non residential building zone for a Comprehensive Cancer Center. Stop upsetting good citizens or before long you will be left with ones that don't care at all about the lands.
Abe Hamideh Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) and Residential Capacity Transfer (355 West Janss Road) I am opposed to this item This project does not belong in this area, which was originally designated/zoned to be Scenic Section of the County of Ventura. The hospital has the capacity to build this project next to Los Robles, and/or a different area. A center here would disrupt the intended and desired balance the community sought when purchasing homes in the area and will affect the environment negatively, to say the least. HCA should explore relocating to a more appropriate and less invasive area of the County, one that is zoned for that type of use, traffic and environmental impact Jimmie Johnson Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) and Residential Capacity Transfer (355 West Janss Road) I am opposed to this item Thousand Oaks / Westlake is not Los Angeles. No Spot Zoning Please. A commercial 4-story building of 40+ feet in height and 59,000 sq. ft. does not belong in a Rural Neighborhood filled with Horses, Donkeys, Coyotes, Bob Cats and more. Don't you do it. DON'T YOU APPROVE THIS PROJECT as there would be no taking it back.
Karen Newbury Park 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) and Residential Capacity Transfer (355 West Janss Road) I am opposed to this item This center will not bring new services to the Conejo Valley which aren't already provided here.
Greg Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) and Residential Capacity Transfer (355 West Janss Road) I am opposed to this item HCA can build this at the parking lot and not impact a residential neighborhood Elizabeth Dritz Simi Valley 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) and Residential Capacity Transfer (355 West Janss Road) I am in favor of this item I have been a Ventura county resident for 30 years. From my perspective as a current cancer patient, this type of facility would be a huge benefit to all of us on our cancer journeys. My treatment, pre and post surgery, requires routine visits to 3 specialty doctors (oncologist, gastroenterologist, surgeon) that are all individually located at multiple offices across LA county.
Having a comprehensive cancer treatment center locally would be a huge sense of comfort and offer a convenience for all cancer patients within the community. 1 in 3 people will experience some form of cancer in their lifetime. So, being able to receive life saving treatments within our own community would be a huge step in the right direction for cancer care and would make the overall experience much more tolerable and manageable. Thank you for the consideration. 40 Name (Optional) Community of Residence (Optional)Please choose the Agenda Item Number you’d like to comment onIn favor/ Opposed Comment Gary Davis Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) and Residential Capacity Transfer (355 West Janss Road) I am opposed to this item Please keep Thousand Oaks General Plan 2045 and not rezone nine residential lots into a large consolidated commercial building facility with hundreds of parking spaces in our family's neighborhood. This would risk the city's reputation for integrity and trustworthiness and damage the area's livability.
D. Christopher Fall Thousand Oaks 10A - Proposed Comprehensive Cancer Center (400 East Rolling Oaks Drive) and Residential Capacity Transfer (355 West Janss Road) I am opposed to this item I live a block from Los Robles Hospital and have worked in health care for 46 years. During that time I spent 35 years employed by the State of California as an Attorney.
I am opposed only to HCA’s chosen location for this project. My opinion is that the Janss Road location is the best placement for the proposed Cancer Center based on my experience at Providence Medical Center of Tarzana and as a neighbor to the hospital. The parking lot seems a perfect place to centralize their acute care facility with this Cancer Center.
My opinion may seem against the self interest as a neighbor to the hospital, but I’m actually watching out for the Rolling Oaks families. The hospital has been a relatively poor neighbor to Conejo Hills in my opinion. In my area, HCA uses residential streets for commercial medical traffic as they see fit. Employees in the medical buildings willingly park on Tarkio and Young Streets. I would not trust any position given by HCA representatives with regard to parking or traffic at the proposed location. Any promises from HCA about traffic and parking will last about 2 -3 years and then the Rolling Oaks neighbors will be ignored in raising any such concerns.
In my various concerns about LRH voiced to the City, City Staff suggests I contact LRH administration directly. LRH Adminstration however refuse to respond to letters of concern I write, even letters personally served on them. I’ve had verbal arguments with HCA staff using Young Street for their commercial traffic so the Rolling Oaks families can expect to be ignored when promises by HCA last only a short time.
I see no reason for HCA to ruin and degrade a second Thousand Oaks neighborhood when HCA can continue to degrade my Conejo Hills area by putting this project at Lynn and Janss Road.
I think the biggest problems you have involve tying together inconsistencies in our General Plan and the Housing Element with this project. The City should not concern itself with SB330 as the State of California’s representative from Housing and Development wrote but instead identify the spot zoning problem that may well exist here. I am concerned that this project might involve unwanted litigation in the future.
Thank you.
41