Recommendation 8: Nesting Bird Avoidance
To protect nesting birds that could occur on or near the Project site, the City should include a measure that precludes ground and vegetation disturbing Project activities between February 15 and August 31. If Project activities during this period must occur, the City should conduct a complete survey for nesting bird activity within a 500-foot radius of the Project site. If any nests are found, they should be protected by a protective buffer between Project activities and the nest. The buffer should be adequately large to prevent disturbance to the breeding birds. The City should have a biological monitor onsite to evaluate the effectiveness of the buffer and increase its width as needed.
Prior to
Project
activities
City
Recommendation 9: Evaluation of Effects on Aquatic Species Analysis of the effects of the Project should include the potential of the Project to result in reduced flows that may affect California red-legged frog and other amphibian and aquatic species, as well as the potential to affect the health of riparian vegetation that provides important habitat for least Bell’s vireo and other sensitive birds.
Prior to
adopting ND City
Recommendation 10: Mitigation of Effects on Aquatic Species If the City’s re-evaluation determines such impacts could occur, the City should develop mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation measures should be feasible, effective, implemented, and fully enforceable. Mitigation measures should emphasize avoidance and minimization of Project-related impacts. For unavoidable impacts, onsite habitat restoration or enhancement should be discussed in detail. If onsite mitigation is not feasible or would not be biologically viable and therefore inadequate to mitigate the loss of biological functions and values, offsite mitigation through habitat creation and/or acquisition and preservation in perpetuity should be addressed.
Prior to
adopting ND City
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9F2A8272-9E0D-4F2C-B5BB-6A6C93003AD9
VENTURA COUNTY
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
Memorandum
TO: Helen Cox, Sustainability Division Manager DATE: April 22, 2024
FROM: Nicole Collazo, Air Quality Specialist, VCAPCD Planning Division
SUBJECT: Notice of Availability and Notice of Intent to Adopt an Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the City of Thousand Oaks Climate and Environmental Action Plan (RMA 24-008)
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) staff has reviewed the subject Notice of Availability and Notice of Intent to adopt an Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the City of Thousand Oaks ’ Climate and Environmental Action Plan ( CEAP, or P lan). The Plan includes policies and programs to reduce reliance on fossil fuels with the co -benefits of improving air quality and building resilience during climate change induced extreme heat events, wildfires and other risks. The C EAP includes a greenhouse gas inventory, forecast and targets, along with greenhouse gas emissions measures to be implemented, and an assessment of climate vulnerability and adaptation. The Lead Agency for the project is the City of Thousand Oaks.
Comments on the CEAP
1) Page 37, Measure BE1.1 A note about timing of this mea sure, to consider the tim e required for a public review process in the amendment of the Cit y’s e nergy standards and the syncing with the 3-yr Building Code cycle for an implementation year of 2026 for proposed measure. 2) Page 38, Measure BE1.2. Same as comment 1.
3) Page 39, Measure BE1.3. Same as comment 1.
4) Page 40, Measure BE1.4. Consider adding incentiv es, credits, and/or fee waivers to help “encourage developers to build L EED-certified buildings at the Gold or P latinum Level” under Implementation Actions for the proposed measure.
5) Page 40, Goal BE2. The title o f Goal BE2 can be confusing to the public and possibly misleading. The proposed goal’s applicability is only for renovations above a specified threshold.
We recommend the title be changed t o reflect that this goal is only for existing residential buildings with ren ovations ( for ex. “Reduce G HG emissions in Renovations of Existing Buildings and Operations”).
6) Pa ge 40, Me asure BE2.1. It is not clea r if this measur e is applicable to single -family dwellings, multi -family dwellings, or both . In addi tion, the specified square footage threshold has not been identified or included in the measure , yet the GHG emissions reductio n has been quantified, which implies a threshold has been assumed.
7) Page 41, Measure BE2.2. It is not cl ear if this proposed measure is for commercial, industrial, mixed-use, or a combination of these land uses.
8) Page 42, Measure BE2.4. If the proposed measure ’s implementation target year is 2024, in which we c urrently are in, it is recommended this measure is inclu ded in t he City’s next fiscal year budget for ’24-’25, and expedite program upon budget approval in order to ensure measure implementation occurs in 2024.
9) Page 45. Some of the incentiv e programs funded by the California Air Resources Board are administered by APCD. Please include APCD in the funding resources . A link to ou r incentives programs can be found here.
10) Page 51, Measure TR1.5. It is not clear if the study has already b een completed, a s the implementation year is 2023 and the perf ormance metric states “City to compl ete study on additional bus routes, and take recommended actions. Increase ridership by 20% by 2030”.
11) Page 64, Measure EN1.1. The implementation action of the proposed measure does not explain how the location s will be identified as having “elevated a ir pollution ”. P lease con sult with APCD and include more information in this measure as to how these levels will be identified in helping to choose the urban tree canopy map. Heaviest air pollution levels may occur on high travelled roadways and truck routes, heavy LOS, and/or industrial districts that use solvents, such as in the biochemistry and manufacturing facilities.
Comments on the IS-ND
1) Page 42. The parag raph regarding construction emissions has the following statement “Additionally the projects included in the measures an actions would not typically warrant substantial construction emission due to their minimal scale, keeping their emissions below construction thresholds for review under CEQA”. We recommend removing this statement as it is not certain that future projects as part of CEAP measures will n ot go over 25 lbs ./day ROC NOx for construction. Most of the project ’s construction NOx emissions come from grading and site preparation and use of off -road diesel-powered construction equipment. Proposed measures such as BE -3.3, TR -1.3, TR -1.4, and SW -1.2 (if constructing a new food recovery storage facility) can have significant construction emissions if they occur over undeveloped land, such as grading to create bike lanes, EV infrastructure, and solar arrays.
2) Page 5 9. If the City ’s CEAP will not me et the stat e’s equivalency GHG reduction target for 2045, it may not be consistent with the most recent applicable state plan, the 2022 Scoping Plan Update, which sets to reduce 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045, as directed by A B 1279. The discussion concludes consistency with the “applicable GHG reduction pans, including the California Climate Change Scop ing Plan and the California Climate Change Scoping Plan Updates”.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the project. If you have any questions, you may contact me at [email protected].
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.”
STATE OF CALIFORNIA------- CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 7
100 S. MAIN STREET, MS 16
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
PHONE (213) 266-3562
FAX (213) 897-1337
TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
Making Conservation
a California Way of Life
April 23, 2024
Helen Cox
City of Thousand Oaks
2100 Thousand Oaks Blvd
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
RE: City of Thousand Oaks Climate and
Environmental Action Plan (CEAP):
Negative Declaration (ND)
Vic. US-101, SR-23
GTS # 07-VEN-2024-00584
SCH # 2024030627
Dear Helen Cox:
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above-referenced project. The proposed Climate and Environmental Action Plan sets forth climate and environmental goals, policies, and implementation actions to protect the environment and address the challenges of climate change. Actions address the sectors responsible for climate change -related emissions - energy, buildings, transportation, solid waste, and water, and include measures to adapt and increase resilience, to the impacts of climate change. The Plan reflects the community's current vision for Thousand Oaks and includes measures to implement environmental and climate -related policies contained in the City's recent ly adopted General Plan. The City of Thousand Oaks is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The closest state facilities are US-101 and SR -23. After reviewing the project’s documents, Caltrans has the following comment:
Caltrans will require an Encroachment Permit for work performed within the State Right - of-way. Caltrans recommends that large-size truck travel be limited to off-peak commute hours. Caltrans requires a permit for any heavy construction equipment and or materials that require the use of oversized transport vehicles on State highways.
Caltrans recommends that the Project limit construction traffic to off -peak periods to minimize the potential impact on State facilities. If construction traffic is expected to cause
Helen Cox
April 23, 2024
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.”
issues on any State facilities, please submit a construction traffic control plan detailing these issues for Caltrans’ review.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Jaden Oloresisimo , the project coordinator, at [email protected] and refer to GTS # 07-VEN-2024-00584.
Sincerely,
MIYA EDMONSON
LDR/CEQA Branch Chief
cc: State Clearinghouse
City of Thousand Oaks
Climate and Environmental Action Plan (CEAP) Responses to Comments on the IS-ND
Final Initial Study – Negative Declaration
Responses to Comments on the IS-ND
The Draft IS-ND was circulated for a 30-day public review period that began on March 18, 2024, and ended on April 23, 2024. The City of Thousand Oaks received three comment letters on the IS-ND.
The commenter and the page number on which the commenter’s letter appears are listed below.
Letter No. and Commenter Page No.
1 Victoria Tang, Environmental Program Manager, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), South Coast Region
2 2 Nicole Collazo, Air Quality Specialist, Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD), Planning Division
8 3 Miya Edmonson, LDR/CEQA Branch Chief, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), District 7
10 The comment letters and responses follow. The comment letters have been numbered sequentially and each separate issue raised by the commenter has been assigned a number. The response to comments identifies first the number of the comment letter, and then the number assigned to each issue (Response 1.2, for example, indicates that the response is for the second issue raised in comment Letter 1). No changes to the IS-ND were made.
City of Thousand Oaks
Climate and Environmental Action Plan (CEAP) Responses to Comments on the IS-ND 2 Letter 1
COMMENTER: Victoria Tang, Environmental Program Manager, CDFW DATE: April 23, 2024
Response 1.1
The commenter describes CDFW’s role as a Trustee Agency. The commenter states that their comments have been prepared pursuant to the CDFW’s authority as a Trustee Agency under Fish and Game Code Section 711.7a and 1802, Public Resources Code Section 21070, and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15386a. The commenter also states that CDFW may need to exercise regulatory authority as the proposed Project may result in “take.” The commenter states that CDFW recommends the Project obtain appropriate authorization under the Fish and Game Code.
This comment is noted, and specific concerns raised by the commenter are addressed below. No further response is required.
Response 1.2
The commenter describes the proposed project, location, and objectives as outlined in the IS-ND.
The commenter also provides a summary of the biological setting of Thousand Oaks based on information contained in the Thousand Oaks 2045 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report, including special status plant and animal species and critical habitat present or with the potential to occur within the city.
This comment is noted, and specific concerns raised by the commenter are addressed below. No further response is required.
Response 1.3
The commenter states that implementation of measures contained in the CEAP may occur in areas containing sensitive plant or wildlife species and ground disturbance during construction of these measures could result in significant impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species, including Crotch’s bumble bee. The commenter suggests that surveys for special status species, including nesting birds and Crotch’s bumble bee, and avoidance, minimization, and compensatory measures, if applicable, are warranted.
As described in the Description of the Plan in the IS-ND, projects implemented in support of the CEAP would be reviewed for consistency with the General Plan 2045, other applicable regulatory land use actions, and would be subject to any required environmental assessment that would be completed prior to approval of any individual project (or measure). Projects would be subject to environmental review under CEQA, and individual impact analyses will identify required plan- or project-specific mitigation measures where applicable. If applicable, these mitigation measures may include General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures BIO-1 Conduct Pre-construction Bird Surveys and Implement Avoidance and Minimization Measures, BIO-2 Special Status Bat Species Habitat Assessment Survey and Emergence Survey(s), and BIO-3 Conduct Pre-construction Crotch’s Bumblebee Surveys and Implement Avoidance Measures. Therefore, implementation of the CEAP will comply with the commenters suggestions for surveys when applicable and warranted.
City of Thousand Oaks
Climate and Environmental Action Plan (CEAP) Responses to Comments on the IS-ND
Final Initial Study – Negative Declaration
Response 1.4
The commenter summarizes the CEQA Guidelines as they pertain to the requirement for Lead Agencies to implement mitigation measures to avoid damage to the environment. The commenter also notes that impacts to California Endangered Species Act-listed species and their habitat may result in a mandatory finding of significance pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15065.
This comment is noted, and specific concerns raised by the commenter are addressed below. No further response is required.
Response 1.5
The commenter summarizes the conclusion of the IS-ND that the CEAP would have less than significant impacts on special status species. The commenter states that implementation of some CEAP measures may be ministerial, and would not require CEQA review, including evaluation of project impacts on fish and wildlife. The commenter states that the evaluation and mitigation of potential effects on special status species has been deferred to a later time, rather than being analyzed in the IS-ND.
Please refer to Response 1.3, which describes how projects implemented in support of the CEAP would be reviewed for consistency with the General Plan 2045, other applicable regulatory land use actions, and would be subject to any required environmental assessment that would be completed prior to approval of any project. Ministerial projects would still comply with City regulations and CFDW regulations and therefore, potential impacts to sensitive species would be evaluated as needed depending on the type of project and location.
Response 1.6
The commenter recommends that mitigation measures related to sensitive species are incorporated, and the IS-ND is recirculated. The commenter also recommends that the City coordinate with CDFW prior to recirculation to discuss potential impacts and mitigation measures.
Please refer to Response 1.3, which describes how projects implemented in support of the CEAP would be evaluated and if applicable, mitigation of potential impacts to sensitive species would be required if and when individual measures or projects implemented under the CEAP move. At this time, the specific location and extent of each individual project or measure is not yet known.
Therefore, as noted in Response 1.3, projects implemented in support of the CEAP would be reviewed for consistency with the General Plan 2045, other applicable regulatory land use actions, and would be subject to any required environmental assessment that would be completed prior to approval of any individual project (or measure). Recirculation of the IS-ND is not warranted.
Response 1.7
The commenter states that the City should conduct surveys for special status plants prior to authorizing any individual projects under the CEAP, and that any impacts to rare plants should be disclosed.
Please refer to Response 1.3, which describes how projects implemented in support of the CEAP will be evaluated and if applicable, mitigation of potential impacts to sensitive species, such as rare plants would be conducted as needed depending on the type of project and location.
City of Thousand Oaks
Climate and Environmental Action Plan (CEAP) Responses to Comments on the IS-ND 4 Response 1.8
The commenter states that mitigation measures to fully avoid impacts to sensitive plant species should be included, and if adverse impacts to sensitive plants cannot be avoided, the City should provide measures to compensate for those impacts. The commenter provides additional recommendations related to restoration plans.
Please refer to Response 1.3, which describes how the City will review and evaluate projects prior to approval which would include enforcing City regulations, existing measures and CDFW regulations to minimize impacts to sensitive species when projects supporting the CEAP are proposed with the specific site location, size and details of potential construction.
Response 1.9
The commenter states that prior to authorization of any individual projects under the CEAP, the City should complete an assessment of special status species within the project site, including focused species-specific surveys if suitable habitat is present.
Please refer to Response 1.3, which describes how projects implemented in support of the CEAP will be evaluated and if applicable, biological assessment for special status species would be conducted as needed depending on the type of project and location.
Response 1.10
The commenter recommends that mitigation measures to avoid impacts to sensitive species should be implemented, such as pre-construction surveys, biological monitoring, and construction worker training.
Please refer to Response 1.3, which describes how the City will enforce measures to minimize impacts to sensitive species when projects supporting the CEAP are evaluated.
Response 1.11
The commenter states that a habitat assessment for Crotch’s bumble bee should be conducted prior to project implementation.
Please refer to Response 1.3, which describes how the City will enforce measures to minimize impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee by having applicable projects comply with General Plan FEIR Measure BIO-3 Conduct Pre-construction Crotch’s Bumblebee Surveys and Implement Avoidance Measures.
Response 1.12
The commenter states that if Crotch’s bumble bee nests are identified, a no disturbance buffer zone of 15 meters should be established around each nest to reduce the risk of disturbance or accidental take.
Please refer to Response 1.3 and Response 1.11, for projects supporting the CEAP that are required to comply with General Plan FEIR Measure BIO-3, in the event Crotch’s bumblebee is observed City of Thousand Oaks
Climate and Environmental Action Plan (CEAP) Responses to Comments on the IS-ND
Final Initial Study – Negative Declaration
within a project site, consultation with the CDFW will be necessary and these buffer zone would be established.
Response 1.13
The commenter states that if any floral resources associated with Crotch’s bumble bee are removed or damaged by project implementation, those resources should be replaced as close to their original location as feasible at a 1:1 ratio.
Please refer to Response 1.3 and Response 1.11, for projects supporting the CEAP that are required to comply with General Plan FEIR Measure BIO-3, in the event Crotch’s bumblebee is observed within a project site consultation with the CDFW will be necessary and if additional mitigation such as replacing floral resources is requested then that will be implemented.
Response 1.14
The commenter states the City should include measures for pre-construction nesting bird surveys and nesting bird avoidance.
Please refer to Response 1.14, which describes how applicable projects supporting the CEAP will comply with General Plan FEIR Measure BIO-1 Conduct Pre-construction Bird Surveys and Implement Avoidance and Minimization Measures.
Response 1.15
The commenter states that implementation of CEAP Measures WA-1.1, WA-1.3, EN-2.1, AR-3.2, and AR-3.3 could result in changes to hydrology and stormwater runoff, which could result in decreased availability of water in stream and riparian habitats and associated impacts.
The purpose of the CEAP is to improve Thousand Oak’s resilience to climate change impacts such as drought and flooding. Therefore, CEAP Measures WA-1.1, WA-1.3, EN-2.1, AR-3.2, and AR-3.3 would be implemented to improve hydrology, stormwater run-off and water availability and be a beneficial impact to the environment.
Response 1.16
The commenter summarizes the CEQA Guidelines as they pertain to the requirement for Lead Agencies to implement mitigation measures to avoid damage to the environment.
This comment is noted, and specific concerns raised by the commenter are addressed above. No further response is required.
Response 1.17
The commenter summarizes the conclusion of the IS-ND that the CEAP would have less than significant impacts on riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities. The commenter states that implementation of some CEAP measures may be ministerial, and would not require CEQA review, including evaluation of project impacts on riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities. The commenter states that the evaluation and mitigation of potential effects on riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities has been deferred to a later time, rather than being analyzed in the IS-ND.
City of Thousand Oaks
Climate and Environmental Action Plan (CEAP) Responses to Comments on the IS-ND 6 Please refer to Response 1.3 and Response 1.5.
Response 1.18
The commenter recommends that mitigation measures related to riparian habitat are incorporated, and the IS-ND is recirculated. The commenter also recommends that the City coordinate with CDFW prior to recirculation to discuss potential impacts and mitigation measures.
Please refer to Response 1.3, which describes how projects implemented in support of the CEAP would be evaluated and if applicable, mitigation of potential impacts to riparian habitat would be required. Recirculation of the IS-ND is not warranted.
Response 1.19
The commenter states that the IS-ND should evaluate the potential of the project to result in reduced flows that may affect amphibian and aquatic species, as well as the potential to affect the health of riparian vegetation that provides important habitat for sensitive bird species.
The purpose of the CEAP is to improve Thousand Oak’s resilience and protect all its biological resources from climate change impacts such as extreme heat and drought. Please refer to Response
1.3, which describes how projects implemented in support of the CEAP would be evaluated and if applicable, mitigation of potential impacts to these biological resources would be required.
Response 1.20
The commenter states that the City should develop mitigation measures to reduce impacts to riparian habitat to a less than significant level, such as habitat restoration, if the City’s reevaulation of impacts determines significant impacts could occur. Habitat restoration or enhancement should be discussed in detail.
Please refer to Response 1.3, which describes how projects implemented in support of the CEAP would be evaluated and if applicable, mitigation of potential impacts to riparian habitat would be required.
Response 1.21
The commenter states that if the City implements projects in streams that will divert or obstruct the natural flow, or change the bed, channel, or bank, the City must provide written notification to CDFW pursuant to section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code.
If future CEAP-related projects would involve activities within rivers, lakes, or streams, including those associated with CEAP Measures AR-3.6 and AR-3.7, the City would provide written notification to CDFW and comply with all requirements of the Fish and Game Code.
Response 1.22
The commenter summarizes the requirements of the California Endangered Species Act and notes that if the project would result in the take of designated species, authorization from CDFW would be required.
This information is noted, and the City will comply with any applicable requirements of the California Endangered Species Act.
City of Thousand Oaks
Climate and Environmental Action Plan (CEAP) Responses to Comments on the IS-ND
Final Initial Study – Negative Declaration
Response 1.23
The commenter states that the City should report any special status species and natural communities detected during project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).
This information is noted, and the City will comply with this requirement if special status species or natural communities are encountered.
Response 1.24
The commenter states that payment of filing fees is required upon filing of the Notice of Determination for the IS-ND.
This information is noted, and the City will pay the applicable filing fees.
City of Thousand Oaks
Climate and Environmental Action Plan (CEAP) Responses to Comments on the IS-ND 8 Letter 2
COMMENTER: Nicole Collazo, Air Quality Specialist, VCAPCD, Planning Division DATE: April 22, 2024
Response 2.1
The commenter acknowledges review of the IS-ND and summarizes the proposed plan mentioning the fact that it includes a greenhouse gas inventory with a forecast, targets, emissions measures, and an assessment of climate vulnerability and adaptation.
The City thanks VCAPCD staff for submitting their comments on the project.
Response 2.2
The commenter provides comments, suggestions, and recommendations relating to the Goals, Measures, Implementation Actions, target implementation years, and performance metrics contained within the CEAP.
The City will consider the comments provided by VCAPCD on the CEAP. However, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15204, no response is required for comments that do not raise environmental issues under CEQA or address the adequacy of the IS-ND analysis. Therefore, there is no basis for additional analysis and no further response is required (CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a)).
Response 2.3
The commenter recommends removing the statement made in Section 3, Air Quality, under criterion a and b, that explains future projects implemented due to measures and actions contained in the CEAP would not warrant substantial construction emission due to their minimal scale, which would keep emissions below construction thresholds. The commenter suggests it is not certain that future projects will not exceed ROG or NOx thresholds for construction. The commenter states that most construction NOx emissions come from grading and site preparation and require use of off- road diesel-powered construction equipment. The commenter suggests that proposed Measures BE-3.3, TR-1.3, TR-1.4, and SW-1.2 may have significant construction emissions if they were to occur over undeveloped land.
As described in the Description of the Plan in the IS-ND, projects implemented in support of the CEAP would be reviewed for consistency with the General Plan 2045, other applicable regulatory land use actions, and would be subject to any required environmental assessment that would be completed prior to approval of any project. Projects would be subject to environmental review under CEQA, and individual impact analyses will identify required plan- or project-specific mitigation measures where applicable. Therefore, construction emissions will be evaluated when specific projects are presented to and evaluated by the City. Therefore, no revisions to the IS-ND are necessary.
Response 2.4
The commenter states that the CEAP may not be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan Update if the CEAP does not meet the state’s equivalency greenhouse gas reduction target for 2045.
City of Thousand Oaks
Climate and Environmental Action Plan (CEAP) Responses to Comments on the IS-ND
Final Initial Study – Negative Declaration
The 2022 Scoping Plan Update encourages local jurisdictions to take coordinated climate action at the community scale that is consistent with and supportive of the state’s climate goals. The 2022 Scoping Plan also acknowledges the challenge local jurisdiction’s have in with meeting quantitative GHG reduction goals that align with statewide goals and therefore, recommends local jurisdiction’s focus on goals that can help implement overall state priorities and help enable key transformations.
This plan has many measures that are consistent with and support the Scoping Plan’s key strategies in sustainable transportation, a clean electricity grid, and nature-based solutions for natural and working lands. Therefore, the CEAP is consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan Update.
City of Thousand Oaks
Climate and Environmental Action Plan (CEAP) Responses to Comments on the IS-ND 10 Letter 3
COMMENTER: Miya Edmonson, LDR/CEQA Branch Chief, Caltrans, District 7 DATE: April 23, 2024
Response 3.1
The commenter thanks the City for being included in the environmental review process for the IS- ND. The commenter summarizes the proposed plan including the fact that it reflects the current vision to implement policies contained in the General Plan.
The City thanks Caltrans staff for submitting their comments on the project.
Response 3.2
The commenter identifies the closest state transportation facilities and states that an Encroachment Permit would be required for any work performed within the State’s right-of-way. The commenter recommends that truck travel be limited to off-peak hours, and states that Caltrans requires a permit for heavy equipment or construction materials requiring use of oversized vehicles on State highways.
The City understands Caltrans’ permit requirements for work performed within the State’s right-of- way and for oversized vehicles on State highways. Caltrans regulations and permit requirements would be considered for any projects implemented due to Measures contained in the CEAP that require discretionary approval by the City. No revisions to the IS-ND are necessary.
Response 3.3
The commenter requests that a construction traffic control plan be submitted if construction traffic is expected to cause issues on to State transportation facilities.
The City acknowledges Caltrans’ request for a traffic control plan during construction activities that may affect State transportation facilities. As discussed in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, under criterion f, the project would adhere to the standards set forth in the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, including the implementation of temporary traffic control plans to facilitate road users through a work zone, during any obstructions impeding access on State facilities. No revisions to the IS-ND are necessary.
City of Thousand Oaks
Climate and Environmental Action Plan (CEAP) Responses to Comments on the IS-ND
Final Initial Study – Negative Declaration
This page intentionally left blank.