Agenda Related Items - Meeting of May 21, 2024
Supplemental Packet Date: May 21, 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 staff if you desire to use this device. Upon request, the agenda and documents in this agenda packet, can be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist City staff in assuring reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service.
5:00 p.m.
Supplemental Information:
Any agenda related public documents received and distributed 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 Supplemental 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
15 PAGES ARE
RELATED TO ITEM
10.A.
Amy Commans, Vice President Community, Employer & Government Relations | 805-370-4292 [email protected]
May 21, 2024.
City Council
City of Thousand Oaks
2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
RE: Support for Cherry Tree Capital Partners Mixed Use Development
Dear Mayor Adam, Mayor Pro Tem Newman and honorable Councilmembers Engler, McNamee and Taylor:
On behalf of Los Robles Health System, I am writing in support of the proposed mixed-use development by Cherry Tree Capital Partners.
This thoughtfully proposed multi-unit housing development on Thousand Oaks Boulevard will address the crucial housing shortages facing our residents, especially our low- and middle- income families, seniors and essential workers. This meaningful development fosters inclusive, sustainable urban growth and supports a diverse population.
Your favorable vote tonight demonstrates your commitment to meeting the needs of our residents and our businesses while aligning us with city goals that will provide long term benefits to the city of Thousand Oaks. Our city needs safe and attractive living options for incomes of varied tiers and I am confident this will bring us one step closer to that goal.
On behalf of Los Robles Health System, we thank you for your efforts to support a healthy, flourishing, and forward-thinking City of Thousand Oaks, and urge a strong vote in favor of moving this project forward.
Sincerely,
Amy Commans
V.P. Community, Employer & Government Relations
1 860 Hampshire Road
Suite P
Westlake Village, CA 91361
May 21, 2024
Carlos Contreras, Senior Planner
City of Thousand Oaks
Community Development Department
Planning Division
2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
Subject: 500 E. Thousand Oaks Boulevard Addendum
May 21, 2024 Comments from the Mitchell M. Tsai Law Firm on behalf of the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters (“WSRCC”)
Dear Mr. Contreras:
I reviewed the May 21 2024 letter from the Mitchell M. Tsai Law Firm on behalf of the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters (“WSRCC”) on the 500 E. Thousand Oaks Boulevard Mixed Use Project (Project). This letter is the same letter that was submitted prior to the Planning Commission hearing on April 22. 2024 with some minor additions. Meridian Consultants provided the City with written responses to these comments on April 22, 2024 which were provided to the Planning Commission prior to the public hearing held on that date. Responses to the comments in the May 21, 2024 comment letter are provided below.
Comment 1: Use of Local Construction Workers May Reduce Environmental Impacts.
Response: Comments in this letter state that requiring the use of local construction workers will reduce the vehicle miles traveled (VMT ) generated by this proposed Project. These comments reference an attached March 8, 2024 letter from Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”) addressing local hire requirements and considerations for greenhouse gas modeling . As discussed in these comments and in the SWAPE letter, the use of local construction workers may reduce the trip lengths for trips by construction workers, which would result in a marginal decrease in VMT and associated Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions during construction of the proposed Project.
The example provided of the potential reduction in GHG emissions from requiring the use of local construction workers provided in the March 8, 2021 correspondence from SWAPE is for a project in Claremont in Los Angeles County. The default worker trip length for the South Coast Air Basin for Urban 2 Mr. Carlos Contreras
May 21, 2024
locations used on the emissions modeling for that project is 14.7 miles. By assuming that trip lengths for construction worker trips could be reduced to 10 miles by requiring that all construction workers live within 10 miles of the site, construction related emissions could be reduced by 17%.
As identified in Table 3.8 -3 in the Addendum, the total estimated GHG emissions over the 3 year construction period for the Project is 1,098 MTCO2e per year. For buildings in general, it is reasonable to look at a 30-year time period because this is a typical interval before a new building requires its first major renovation. As identified in Table 3.8.4 Operational GHG Emissions in the Addendum, the construction emissions, when amortized over a 30-year period, represent approximately 1% of the total GHG emissions estimated for the Project. A 17% reduction in these construction related GHG emissions would represent a very marginal decrease in the overall GHG emissions for the Project.
The Addendum analyzes the significance of the increase in GHG emissions from construction and operation of the proposed Project. The GHG impacts of the project are not significant and, for this reason, no mitigation measures, including requiring the use of local construction workers, are required.
Comment 2: The City should impose training requirements during construction to prevent community spread of COVID-19 and other infectious diseases.
Response: Control of infectious diseases, while an important from a public health perspective, is not an impact as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). For this reason, the recommendations in this comment are not relevant to the Addendum to the Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan EIR prepared for this Project to meet the environmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Comment 3: The project requires preparation and circulation of its own Supplemental EIR.
The comments provided state that the proposed Project conflicts with various aspects of the Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan and this reflects substantial changes from the Specific Plan that require major revisions to the Thousand Oaks Boulevard Speci fic Plan EIR requiring the preparation of a Supplemental EIR instead of an Addendum. These comments acknowledge that the Project includes State Density Bonus Law concessions that allow additional density than allowed by the Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan.
These comments also state that the assessment of impacts to biological resources is outdated and inadequate because this assessment relies on biological surveys conducted for the Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan EIR in 2011 and the updated information on biological resources provided in Appendix K to the Addendum prepared as required by the mitigation measures adopted for the Thousand 3 Mr. Carlos Contreras
May 21, 2024
Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan is not sufficient to support the conclusion that the Project will not result in significant impacts to sensitive species.
Additionally, the comments state that the Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan EIR did not contemplate the removal of 33 trees, 22 of which are protected oak trees.
Response: This comment does not fully reflect the standards in Sections 15162 - 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, which state that preparation of a Supplemental EIR is required when there are circumstances requiring major revisions to the prior EIR, in this case the Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan EIR, due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
The Addendum provides comprehensive analysis of the Project that supports the conclusions in the Addendum that the Project will not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of significant effects previously identified in the certified Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan EIR. For this reason, preparation of a Supplemental EIR is not required by CEQA or the CEQA Guidelines.
This portion of the May 21, 2024 letter contains some additional comments not included in the April 22, 2024 letter. Specifically, the May 21 letter states “ an addendum is reviewed under the fair argument standard, similar to the FEIR it is an addendum to”. This statement is incorrect. When reviewing an agency's decision not to require an SEIR, the "low threshold" fair argument test "for requiring the preparation of an EIR in the first instance is no longer applicable; instead, agencies are prohibited from requiring further environmental review unless the stated conditions are met." ( Friends of Davis v. City of Davis (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1017-1018 [ 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 413].) Thus, in reviewing decisions made pursuant to section 21166, courts "are not reviewing the record to determine whether it demonstrates a possibility of environmental impact, but are viewing it in a light most favorable to the City's decision in order to determine whether substantial evidence supports the decision not to require additional review." ( 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 1021 .) Mani Bros. Real Estate Group v. City of Los Angeles , 153 Cal.App.4th 1385, 1398 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007).
The comments suggest that an Addendum was prepared instead of completing a comprehensive environmental review of the Project as required by CEQA. As stated above, the conclusions in the City’s Addendum are based on a comprehensive review of the specific at tributes and impacts of the proposed 500 E. Thousand Oaks Boulevard Project, as suggested in these comments , as the Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan EIR did not consider the specific attributes and impacts of the proposed Project. 4 Mr. Carlos Contreras
May 21, 2024
The Addendum, with the supporting site and project specific studies included in the appendices, is close to 1,500 pages in length. The technical studies included in the appendices providing evaluation of the proposed Project include the following: Air Qua lity/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Impact Analysis, Mobile Health Risk Assessment, Arborist Report, Phase I Archeological Resources Report, Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, EDR Radius Map Report, Preliminary Drainage Report and Stormwater Quality Analysis, Noise Study, Transportation Analysis and Wildfire Technical Study . These studies and the additional information and analysis in the Addendum fully supports the conclusions that the proposed Project will not result in any new significant impacts or substantial increase in the severity of significant impacts identified in the Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan EIR. The City’s preparation of an Addendum is consistent with the standards in Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines.
With regard to biological resources, the Arborist Report in Appendix C and the Nesting Bird Survey, Cooper’s Hawk Assessment, and Roosting Bats Assessment and Emergence Survey in Appendix K of the Addendum provide current information on the conditions of the Project Site. As described in these studies, the Project Site contains
highly disturbed non -native grassland habitat containing non- native ornamental trees and native oak trees subject to regulation under the City’s Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance. The Project Site is bordered by the U.S. 101 Freeway and existing developed areas and is not connected to any native open space areas. The non -native grasslands on the site have limited value as habitat for wildlife species and, as documented in the survey of the Project Site, the site does not contain any active bird nests or serve as roosting habitat for raptors or bats.
The Thousand Oaks Boulevard EIR identifies that oaks are present on properties in the Specific Plan Area and that future development allowed by the Specific Plan may result in impacts to oak trees and that these impacts would be significant. A mitigation m easure adopted for the Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan Project requires that all subsequent individual development projects comply with the City’s Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance, which requires that replacement oak trees be planted to mitigate for the impact of removing oak trees. The Arborist Study inventories the trees on the site, including 34 oak trees consisting of 24 Coast live oak, 8 Valley oak and 2 Holly oak trees. The Project avoids impacts to 3 of these oak trees, including 2 large oak trees on the corner of Thousand Oaks Boulevard and Lombard Street incorporated into a public park area. The Project will encroach into the protected zone of 6 oak trees that will also remain on the site and requires the removal of 22 oak trees. In accordance with the mitigation requirements in the City’s ordinance, 64 24-inch and 36-inch oak trees will be planted as part of the Project to mitigate the impacts to oak trees to less than significant.
The May 21, 2024 letter contains additional comments on the analysis of the impact of the Project on the trees present on the sites. These comments reference December 2023 comments from the City’s consulting arborist.
John Burke, on the Arborist Report prepared for the Project, and questions whether the City had the Arborist 5 Mr. Carlos Contreras
May 21, 2024
Study revised in response to these comments. The final review letter from Mr. Burke, dated April 5, 2024, states that all questions on the four previous versions of the report had been answered. These comments incorrectly state that the City instructed Mr. Burke to ignore any further review on February 8, 2024. This comment related to a version of the Arborist Report sent to Mr. Burke which was not the la test version. Mr.
Burke completed review of the final version of the Arborist Report on April 5, 2024.
The only remaining comment in the April 5 , 2024 final review letter from Mr. Burke requested confirmation that Tree #17 was located on the Project Site and information on why this tree could not be transplanted. Tree No. 17 was mapped on site and is part of a larger grouping of trees located against the eastern edge of the Project Site as shown in the Tree Location Map from Appendix A to the Arborist Report attached to this letter.
This tree was determined to be in fair health and structural condition as id entified in the attached Tree Information Matrix Map from Appendix C to the Arborist Report. As stated in the Arborist Report, only trees with good health and good structure were recommended for relocation. Furthermore, a tree of this size (3 stem, 1 inch per stem, 3 inches total diameter) can be purchased from a nursery for a lower cost and the nursery tree would have a higher success rate of establishment. For these reasons, relocation of this tree was not recommended.
1 The City required a complete and comprehensive analysis of the potential impact of the Project on trees present on the Project Site . As summarized above, the City utilized the services of an outside independent arborist to review the Arborist Report for the Project and required 5 sets of revisions to this report before determining it was adequate and complete and met the City’s standa rds. Contrary to the assertions in these comments, the conclusions in the Addendum are based on this site specific study and not on the information and analysis in the 2012 Thousand Oaks Specific Plan EIR.
Contrary to the statements in these comments, the Project Site was considered in the analysis in the 2012 Specific Plan EIR on the potential impact of development in the Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan, which identified 707 oak trees within the Specific Plan Area at that time and concluded that potential impacts to oak trees would be mitigated to less than significant by complying with the standards in the Thousand Oaks Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines. The Arborist Study prepared for t he Project, and the Project, meets these standards and, for this reason, will not result in new or substantially more significant impacts than were identified in the Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan EIR.
This information supports the conclusion in the Addendum that the Project will not result in any significant impacts on biological resources.
1 Personal Communication, Christopher Kallstrand, Arboriculture Team Lead, Dudek, May 21, 2024. 6 Mr. Carlos Contreras
May 21, 2024
Please contact me with any questions related to these responses.
Sincerely,
Tony Locacciato, AICP
Partner
Attachments:
Appendices A-C from the 500 Thousand Oaks Boulevard Project Arborist Report
7 Appendix A
Tree Location Exhibit
8 Date: 1/25/2024 - Last saved by: ckallstrand - Path: Z:\Projects\j1526500\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Arborist\Appendix A Tree Locations.mxd Tree Locations
Arborist Report for 500 Thousand Oaks Boulevard Project SOURCE: AERIAL-BING MAPPING SERVICE
0 7035
Feetn
APPENDIX A
Project Boundary
Species
Eucalyptus spp., Eucalyptus
Pinus canariensis , Canary Island Pine
Pinus halepensis, Aleppo Pine
Quercus agrifolia, Coast Live Oak
Quercus ilex, Holly Oak
Quercus lobata, Valley Oak
Washingtonia robusta, Mexican Fan Palm
9 Appendix B
Tree Impact Exhibit
10 Date: 1/25/2024 - Last saved by: ckallstrand - Path: Z:\Projects\j1526500\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Arborist\Appendix B Tree Impacts_Encroached Trees.mxd Tree Impacts- Encroachment Trees
Arborist Report for 500 Thousand Oaks Boulevard Project SOURCE: AERIAL-BING MAPPING SERVICE
0 6030
Feetn
APPENDIX B
Utilities
Project Boundary
Encroached Tree Crowns
Preserve and Removal Tree Crowns
Tree Canopy Inside Development Area
Disposition
Encroached
Preserve
Removal
11 Appendix C
Tree Information Matrix
12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N NE E SE S SW W NW Total
Area
Encroached
Upon
% of
Encroachment
1 Quercus lobata Valley Oak 1 54 54 - - - - - - - - 40 40 25 40 35 30 23 40 50 50 Fair Fair Encroached 5,161.61 146.5 2.84% 6298800.927180 1888465.287120 2 Quercus lobata Valley Oak 1 42 42 - - - - - - - - 22 27 20 35 35 28 17 35 50 50 Fair Fair Encroached 3754.54 561.8 14.96% 6298977.857340 1888446.550390 3 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 2 7 5 2 - - - - - - - 10 12 6 5 6 4 3 6 20 10 Good Fair Removal - - - 6299144.625680 1888473.558170 4 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 2 5 3 2 - - - - - - - 3 4 7 6 7 7 6 4 10 8 Good Fair Removal - - - 6299267.674310 1888328.225070 5 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 1 5 5 - - - - - - - - 10 10 6 4 4 4 6 8 20 10 Fair Fair Removal - - - 6299164.411740 1888282.063900 6 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 5 14 4 3 3 2 2 - - - - 8 8 4 5 4 5 6 7 10 10 Fair Fair Removal - - - 6299159.942760 1888277.328250 7 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 3 9 5 2 2 - - - - - - 8 8 10 8 10 8 8 10 15 10 Fair Fair Removal - - - 6299142.391810 1888276.888570 8 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 1 6 6 - - - - - - - - 5 5 4 5 8 5 10 10 10 15 Good Fair Removal - - - No tag. Neighbors property 6299261.742080 1888202.943320 9 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 5 10 2 2 2 2 2 - - - - 5 5 7 8 5 5 5 5 10 10 Fair Fair Encroached 353.32 100.47 28% No tag. Neighbors property 6299269.813470 1888175.512320 10 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 3 3 1 1 1 - - - - - - 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 7 4 Fair Fair Removal - - - 6299254.879020 1888177.178010 13 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 1 11 11 - - - - - - - - 10 0 0 0 8 10 15 20 25 15 Fair Fair Removal - - - Growing between fence on property line. 6299257.234280 1888145.169750
14 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 10 55 7 7 5 6 4 4 4 3 3 12 8 5 8 10 15 18 18 15 15 Fair Fair Removal - - - Additional Stems - 4, 3,3,2 6299234.501350 1888150.640320 15 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 1 11 11 - - - - - - - - 10 0 0 0 10 15 15 15 25 15 Fair Fair Removal - - - No tag. Neighbors property 6299262.333200 1888137.136720 16 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 1 22 22 - - - - - - - - 15 10 10 10 15 15 15 20 35 25 Fair Fair Encroached 1115.50 439.94 39% No tag. Neighbors property 6299271.757890 1888121.559320 17 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 3 3 1 1 1 - - - - - - 3 3 3 3 1 2 2 3 6 5 Fair Fair Removal - - - 6299240.130400 1888106.254300 18 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 3 7 3 2 2 - - - - - - 7 8 8 8 10 9 7 7 10 8 Fair Fair Removal - - - 6299218.373570 1887957.074820 20 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 1 6 6 - - - - - - - - 8 6 6 8 5 10 15 10 20 10 Fair Fair Preserve - - - No tag. Freeway 6298883.500730 1887992.989970 21 Quercus lobata Valley Oak 1 15 15 - - - - - - - - 10 10 25 20 20 20 20 10 45 25 Fair Fair Preserve - - - No tag. Freeway 6298845.678020 1888013.821550 22 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 3 9 6 1 2 - - - - - - 12 13 10 7 7 7 8 10 15 15 Fair Fair Removal - - - 6298705.264080 1888059.199170 23 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 1 3 3 - - - - - - - - 8 4 5 7 7 4 4 6 15 10 Fair Fair Removal - - - 6298702.553980 1888059.509580 24 Washingtonia
robusta
Mexican Fan
Palm 1 12 12 - - - - - - - - 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 10 15 Fair Good Preserve - - - No tag. Neighbors property 6298611.275300 1888073.085280 25 Pinus canariensis Canary Island
Pine 1 16 16 - - - - - - - - 2 10 12 6 16 6 3 2 60 15 Fair Fair Encroached 575.89 105.77 18% No tag. Neighbors property 6298618.964490 1888091.796130 26 Pinus canariensis Canary Island
Pine 1 20 20 - - - - - - - - 5 12 14 14 15 2 2 3 60 15 Fair Fair Encroached 650.39 122.55 19% No tag. Neighbors property 6298619.018440 1888096.995110 27 Pinus canariensis Canary Island
Pine 1 22 22 - - - - - - - - 9 12 5 3 12 18 18 11 60 15 Fair Fair Encroached 871.32 64.23 7% No tag. Neighbors property 6298616.315370 1888098.652380 28 Pinus canariensis Canary Island
Pine 1 22 22 - - - - - - - - 8 9 14 13 13 10 18 9 60 15 Fair Fair Encroached 870.71 23.44 3% No tag. Neighbors property 6298601.774480 1888127.775660 29 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 2 12 6 6 - - - - - - - 10 14 11 11 6 3 3 6 30 20 Fair Fair Encroached 563.74 235.61 41% No tag. Neighbors property 6298608.977520 1888124.093150 30 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 1 3 3 - - - - - - - - 4 6 7 3 3 4 3 4 15 10 Good Fair Encroached 268.76 27.65 10% No tag. Neighbors property 6298607.388480 1888128.827610 31 Quercus ilex Holly Oak 2 8 4 4 - - - - - - - 5 7 9 7 8 5 4 3 30 10 Fair Fair Encroached 384.76 168.26 43% No tag. Neighbors property 6298579.449640 1888171.035080 32 Quercus lobata Valley Oak 2 13 7 6 - - - - - - - 17 10 11 12 3 1 6 11 30 20 Fair Fair Removal - - - 6298582.724450 1888177.047040 33 Pinus canariensis Canary Island
Pine 1 12 12 - - - - - - - - 5 6 11 12 15 10 7 6 40 15 Fair Fair Encroached 636.77 203.97 32% No tag. Neighbors property 6298574.134410 1888178.949460 34 Pinus canariensis Canary Island
Pine 1 12 12 - - - - - - - - 6 8 6 11 10 15 10 7 60 15 Fair Fair Encroached 630.32 176.60 28% No tag. Neighbors property 6298569.977060 1888186.311530 Structure DispositionTree
No.* Botanical Name Common Name Stems Combined
D.B.H (in.) Notes X Y
Individual Stem Diameters (in.) Dripline Extent (ft.) Crown Square Footage (Encroached upon trees only)Height
(ft.)
Crown
Width
(ft.)
Health
13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N NE E SE S SW W NW Total
Area
Encroached
Upon
% of
Encroachment
Structure DispositionTree
No.* Botanical Name Common Name Stems Combined
D.B.H (in.) Notes X Y
Individual Stem Diameters (in.) Dripline Extent (ft.) Crown Square Footage (Encroached upon trees only)Height
(ft.)
Crown
Width
(ft.)
Health
35 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 1 7 7 - - - - - - - - 12 9 10 8 8 8 3 7 30 15 Fair Fair Encroached 569.05 137.31 24% No tag. Neighbors property 6298564.785760 1888195.767290 36 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 1 6 6 - - - - - - - - 17 16 15 7 5 5 6 14 30 15 Fair Fair Removal - - - 6298590.591180 1888191.941380 37 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 1 5 5 - - - - - - - - 8 8 4 3 3 3 3 4 15 10 Fair Fair Encroached 454.75 27.08 6% 6298557.885780 1888198.359910 38 Washingtonia
robusta
Mexican Fan
Palm 1 15 15 - - - - - - - - 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 35 10 Dead Dead Removal - - - 6298560.372740 1888200.680620 39 Quercus ilex Holly Oak 1 15 15 - - - - - - - - 9 13 7 9 14 10 11 10 30 15 Good Fair Preserve - - - No tag. Neighbors property 6298542.183760 1888206.332270 40 Quercus lobata Valley Oak 1 4 4 - - - - - - - - 14 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 10 5 Poor Fair Removal - - - 6298584.473780 1888184.117010 43 Quercus lobata Valley Oak 1 4 4 - - - - - - - - 12 7 6 4 3 2 4 10 20 8 Good Fair Removal - - - 6298613.539690 1888184.082410 46 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 15 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 8 Fair Poor Removal - - - 6298653.052720 1888131.948020 47 Eucalyptus spp. Eucalyptus 1 45 45 - - - - - - - - 15 10 8 30 30 25 30 27 50 30 Fair Fair Removal - - - 6299014.781640 1888009.928610 48 Eucalyptus spp. Eucalyptus 1 25 25 - - - - - - - - 20 17 10 12 30 10 16 10 35 20 Fair Poor Removal - - - 6299044.707420 1888003.509390 49 Eucalyptus spp. Eucalyptus 4 76 45 13 12 6 - - - - - 28 28 25 35 30 25 25 18 60 40 Fair Poor Removal - - - 6299086.358210 1888023.167130 50 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 12 53 6 6 6 6 6 4 4 3 3 15 15 8 4 10 12 12 15 25 25 Fair Poor Removal - - - 6299019.443200 1888183.947520 51 Quercus lobata Valley Oak 2 9 5 4 - - - - - - - 10 5 1 2 2 8 6 5 20 15 Good Fair Removal - - - 6299016.836910 1888171.333090 52 Quercus lobata Valley Oak 2 8 4 4 - - - - - - - 8 10 10 3 5 7 8 8 8 10 Fair Poor Removal - - - 6299013.153160 1888178.046760 54 Pinus halepensis Aleppo Pine 1 9 9 - - - - - - - - 8 4 5 8 7 7 8 8 30 10 Good Good Removal - - - 6299251.060740 1888314.244030 55 Pinus halepensis Aleppo Pine 1 4 4 - - - - - - - - 3 3 5 5 5 4 4 3 20 7 Good Good Removal - - - 6299231.682110 1888329.207040 56 Pinus halepensis Aleppo Pine 1 4 4 - - - - - - - - 3 4 3 2 3 3 4 4 20 7 Good Good Removal - - - 6299250.591270 1888330.586810 57 Pinus halepensis Aleppo Pine 1 4 4 - - - - - - - - 2 2 3 6 5 5 2 2 20 7 Good Good Removal - - - 6299256.508050 1888332.632110 58 Pinus halepensis Aleppo Pine 1 4 4 - - - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 4 6 3 3 20 7 Good Good Removal - - - 6299257.345910 1888330.259670 59 Pinus halepensis Aleppo Pine 1 4 4 - - - - - - - - 3 2 2 1 1 3 3 4 20 7 Good Good Removal - - - 6299255.924100 1888327.149160 60 Pinus halepensis Aleppo Pine 2 12 8 4 - - - - - - - 10 10 10 12 12 12 15 12 35 15 Fair Fair Removal - - - 6299195.181910 1888462.253100 61 Pinus halepensis Aleppo Pine 2 16 12 4 - - - - - - - 15 15 15 15 15 8 5 5 30 20 Fair Fair Preserve - - - 6299190.759160 1888485.337670 *Tree Numbers 11, 12, 41, 42, 44, 45, and 53 were previously mapped and tagged. However, due to their non-regulation size they were removed from the database. As such, a total of 53 trees are identified within this matrices. 14 Name City Item # In favor/ Opposed Comment
Michael Dutra Newbury Park 10A In favor My name is Mike Dutra and have been a resident of the Conejo Valley for 34 years. I am on the board of the Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce, on the board of the Southeast Ventura YMCA and past President of the Rotary Club of Westlake Village. In addition, I owned Candu Graphics from 1995 to 2022 and I moved the business to the Conejo Valley in 2014 where it is still located.
So big deal, what does that have to do with the Mixed-Use Development for 500 Thousand Oaks Blvd?
1.As a business owner it is becoming harder and harder to find labor in our area.
You can go to any retail establishment, and they will agree. Houses are not affordable mainly due the amount needed for a down payment. By having more rental units available, this will attract people who can afford rent payments without the down payment.
2.Having an area with accessibility to walk or bike ride to a bar or restaurant is a key feature for younger adults. My wife and I have 5 young adults from 32 to 35. Most live outside the area because in their words “there is nothing to do”.
3.Older residents are staying in their homes longer so the inventory of houses in the area is minimal. So where can people live?
4.The enrollment in our local schools is declining with the absence of young families moving in. Also meaning less tax dollars.
So, with these thoughts I am in favor of the project at 500 Thousand Oaks Blvd.
Thank you.
15