Attachment 2 2026 ATP — Thousand Oaks City Council, March 24, 2026

ATTACHMENT #2
DPW: 590-30\ev\Council\2026\032426\2026 ATP Att 2.pdf

Table of Contents Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................................................................................... iiTable of Contents ............................................................................................................................................................................. iii List of Figures .................................................................................................................................................................................. v List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................................................... vi Appendix ......................................................................................................................................................................................... vi Glossary ......................................................................................................................................................................................... vii Chapter 1 - Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1Background and Scope....................................................................................................................................................................2Bicycling and Walking Benefits ........................................................................................................................................................ 2 Study Area ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Objectives and Goals ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Planning Context ............................................................................................................................................................................. 7 State of Practice ............................................................................................................................................................................ 10Chapter 2 - Existing Conditions..................................................................................................................................................................19Existing Conditions Overview.........................................................................................................................................................20Existing Bicycle Facilities ............................................................................................................................................................... 20 Existing Pedestrian Facilities ......................................................................................................................................................... 23 Land Use and Activity Centers ....................................................................................................................................................... 25 Roadway Conditions ...................................................................................................................................................................... 27 Transit Routes................................................................................................................................................................................ 33 Transportation Mode Share ............................................................................................................................................................ 35 Demographics................................................................................................................................................................................36Chapter 3 - Needs Analysis ......................................................................................................................................................................... 37Analysis Overview..........................................................................................................................................................................38Collision Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................................... 38 First and Last Mile Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................ 41 Composite Demand Maps .............................................................................................................................................................. 43 Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) ............................................................................................................................................... 47 Street Light Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................................... 49 Community Engagement................................................................................................................................................................ 51 Chapter 4 - Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................................... 72Recommendations Overview ......................................................................................................................................................... 73 Bicycle and Pedestrian Treatments ................................................................................................................................................ 73 Bicycle and Pedestrian Recommendations .................................................................................................................................... 85 Programs ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 111 Chapter 5 - Implementation ....................................................................................................................................................................... 125 List of Figures Figure 1-1: Study Area....................................................................................................................................................................................5Figure 2-1: Existing Bike Facilities ................................................................................................................................................................ 22 Figure 2-2: Existing Pedestrian Facilities ...................................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 2-3: Land Use ....................................................................................................................................................................................26Figure 2-4: Street Classification .................................................................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 2-5: Average Daily Trips ..................................................................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 2-6:Speed Limits...............................................................................................................................................................................31Figure 2-7:Highway Intersections.................................................................................................................................................................32Figure 2-8: Transit Routes ............................................................................................................................................................................ 34 Figure 3-1: Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions 2020-2024 .............................................................................................................................40Figure 3-2: First and Last Mile Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................42Figure 3-3: Propensity for Pedestrian Activity ................................................................................................................................................ 45 Figure 3-4: Propensity for Bicyclist Activity....................................................................................................................................................46Figure 3-5: Level of Traffic Stress ................................................................................................................................................................. 48 Figure 3-6:Street Light Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................................50Figure 3-7: Map Submittal Concerns.............................................................................................................................................................65Figure 4-1: Proposed Bicycle Recommendations..........................................................................................................................................88Figure 4-2: Proposed Intersection Improvements..........................................................................................................................................98Figure 4-3: Downtown Area Pedestrian Recommendations ........................................................................................................................102Figure 4-4: Pedestrian Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................................103Figure 4-5: Facilities for Bicycles and New Mobility.....................................................................................................................................109Figure 4-6: Public Bicycle Parking Locations .............................................................................................................................................. 110 List of Tables Table 3-1:Top 10 Bicycle Collision Corridors.................................................................................................................................................39Table 3-2: Composite Demand Maps – Propensity for Bicyclist and Pedestrian Activities.............................................................................. 44 Table 4-1: Corridor Recommendations – Pavement Program ........................................................................................................................ 89 Table 4-2: Corridor Improvements – Future Funding .....................................................................................................................................91Table 4-3: Projects Currently in Design (Corridors) ........................................................................................................................................ 96 Table 4-4: Intersection Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................... 99 Table 4-5: Projects Currently in Design (Intersections) ................................................................................................................................101Table 4-6: Sidewalk Projects .......................................................................................................................................................................104Table 4-7: Cost Estimates for Pedestrian Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 106 Table 5-1:Funding Sources ........................................................................................................................................................................127 AppendixAppendix A: Feedback Form ResultsAppendix B: Recommended Improvements Project Improvement Appendix B-I: Recommended Improvements Appendix B-II: Project Scoring Rubrics

City of Thousand Oaks Active Transportation Plan Update Chapter 3 – Needs Analysis ATTRACTORSActivity Centers known to attract bicyclists and pedestrians DESTINATION LOCATION DATA OPENSTREETMAP DATA Shopping Centers & Commercial Land UsesParksBus Stops Community Attractions (City Hall, Library, Art Centers)Neighborhood Access PointsGreenbelt Access Points Healthcare Schools Class 1 Access Points GENERATORSDemographic characteristics that address potential pedestrian and bicyclist volume within the study area CENSUS DATA ACS 2023 SMART LOCATION DATABASE Junior resident densitySenior resident densityDisabilityHousehold Income Population Density Public Transit to work Bicycle to workWalk to workVehicle OwnershipHealth and Equity FactorsBike/PedBike/PedPed OnlyBike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Bike OnlyPed OnlyBike/PedBike/PedBARRIERS FOR BICYCLESFeatures likely to discourage or detract people from bicyclingTRAFFIC & ROAD CONDITION DATASpeedAbsence of Bicycle FacilityBicycle-Related CollisionsMajor CrossingSlopeBARRIERS FOR PEDESTRIANSFeatures likely to discourage or detract people from walkingTRAFFIC & ROAD CONDITION DATASpeedMissing SidewalkMissing Curb RampsPedestrian Related CollisionsMajor CrossingsSlopeTable 3-2:Composite Demand Maps – Propensity for Bicyclist and Pedestrian Activities

City of Thousand Oaks Active Transportation Plan Update Chapter 3 – Needs Analysis Arbor Earth Day Workshop Voting Board for Bicycle Concerns

City of Thousand Oaks Active Transportation Plan Update Chapter 3 – Needs Analysis Arbor Earth Day Workshop Voting Board for Pedestrian Concerns

City of Thousand Oaks Active Transportation Plan Update Chapter 4 – Recommendations Pedestrian TreatmentsWhile many Thousand Oaks streets feature sidewalks, varying widths and gaps in ADA-compliant curb ramps persist (as documented in the City’s ADA Transition Plan). Similarly, although many intersections offer signals and marked crosswalks, long block lengths can tempt pedestrians to jaywalk. The following treatments improve safety and convenience by providing clearly defined, accessible crossing points. Enhanced Crosswalk Markings High-visibility crosswalk patterns such as continental or ladder striping guide pedestrians along intended paths and alert drivers to potential crossing areas. These bold markings can be applied at new or existing crosswalks to reinforce driver yielding and increase pedestrian awareness. Curb Extensions Curb extensions or bulb-outs project the sidewalk into the roadway at intersections, shortening crossing distances and improving pedestrian visibility. By reducing walking time and minimizing vehicular conflict points, bulb-outs enhance safety and calm traffic. Careful placement is required to avoid conflicts with adjacent bike lanes or separated bikeways; where both facilities are needed, half-length extensions or specialized ramps can preserve bicycle access (an example can be seen in the section – Enhanced Bicycle Treatments). Mid-block Crossings Mid-block crossings establish safe, convenient crossing points between signalized intersections, especially on long blocks or in locations where detours are onerous. When paired with supplemental devices such as Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons, flashing LED signs, and refuge islands (raised medians that offer pedestrians and cyclists a secure waiting area if they cannot travel the full roadway), mid-block crossings effectively channel pedestrian flows and reduce unsafe, unmarked crossings. Lighting Installing lower-mounted, pedestrian-focused luminaires enhances visibility of sidewalks, crossings, and non-motorized road users. Well-designed fixtures not only improve safety but can also serve as public art or interactive elements that enrich the streetscape.

Electronically Enhanced Crosswalk Curb ExtensionMid-block crossing/refuge islandwith overhead RRFB on Thousand Oaks Boulevard

City of Thousand Oaks Active Transportation Plan Update Chapter 4 – Recommendations Table 4-1: Corridor Recommendations – Pavement ProgramIDStreet NameExisting FacilityTypeBetweenLength (miles) Proposed Improvements5Total Score PP-1 Thousand Oaks Blvd None Wilbur Rd Moorpark Rd 0.43 Install Class II Bike Lanes (buffered). 77.05 PP-2 Newbury Rd None Borchard Rd Giant Oak Ave 0.93 Install Class II Bike Lanes. 69.70 PP-3 Reino Rd None Lynn Rd Potrero Rd 0.18 Install Class II Bike Lanes (buffered). Narrow travel lane width to accommodate bicycle lanes. Install green bike crossings through major intersections to guide riders and alert turning vehicles. Also, enhance street light coverage. 67.07 PP-4 Michael Dr None Nellie Court Newbury Rd 0.80 Install Class III Bike Route sharrow markings and "Bike Route" signage.65.83 PP-5 Haaland DrClass II Bike LaneLos Padres DrRancho Rd0.61Upgrade existing Class II Bike Lanes to Class II Bike Lanes (buffered).61.59PP-6 Kelley RdNoneNewbury RdLynn Rd0.60Install Class III Bike Route sharrow markings and "Bike Route" signage.61.54PP-7 Via RioNoneVia Las BrisasKimber Dr0.77Remove on-street parking and install Class II Bike Lanes (buffered). Narrow travel lanes to accommodate bicycle lanes.61.345Improvements listed are conceptual. Further study to determine feasibility and/or additional community outreach may be required.

City of Thousand Oaks Active Transportation Plan Update Chapter 4 – Recommendations IDStreet NameExisting FacilityTypeBetweenLength (miles)Proposed Improvements5Total ScorePP-8 Felton St None Wendy Dr Lynn Rd 0.31 Install Class III Bike Route sharrow markings and "Bike Route" signage. Also, enhance street light coverage. 56.88 PP-9 Via Las Brisas Class II Bike LaneBorchard Rd Lynn Rd 1.40 Convert existing Class II Bike Lanes to Class II Bike Lanes (buffered) by converting #2 travel lane.53.57 PP-10Rancho Dos VientosClass II Bike LaneVia RinconBorchard Rd0.20Upgrade existing Class II Bike Lanes to Class II Bike Lanes (buffered). Narrow travel lane width to accommodate buffered bicycle lanes.52.68PP-11 Lynn Rd Class II Bike Lane Rancho Dos Vientos Reino Rd 1.67 Install Class II Bike Lanes (buffered). Narrow travel lane width to accommodate bicycle lanes. Improve bicycle crossings at major intersections by extending bike lane markings through the junction. 48.99 PP-12Lakefield RdNoneTownsgate RdHampshire Rd0.16Remove on-street parking and install Class II Bike Lanes (buffered).47.07 City of Thousand Oaks Active Transportation Plan Update Chapter 4 – Recommendations Table 4-2: Corridor Improvements – Future FundingIDStreet NameExisting Facility TypeBetweenLength (miles) Proposed Improvements6Total Score FF-1 Hampshire Rd None Thousand Oaks Blvd Willow Ln 0.20 Install Class II Bike Lanes (buffered). Modify existing median or parkway to accommodate bicycle lanes. 84.52 FF-2 Thousand Oaks BlvdClass III Bike RouteMoorpark Rd Erbes Rd 1.50 Implement Class II Bike Lanes by narrowing the width of the travel lane, parking lane, and/or sidewalk. Consider removal of parking or striped center turn median where feasible. Enhancements may vary based on the context of individual street segments. Provide green pavement markings and/or signage at conflict points (e.g. driveways, merges) to increase visibility. Upgrade traffic signals with bicycle detection and bike boxes, where feasible, to enhance safe crossings at intersections.79.66 FF-3 Thousand Oaks BlvdClass III Bike RouteDuesenberg DrVia Merida1.30Implement Class II Bike Lanes by narrowing the width of the travel lane, parking lane, and/or sidewalk. Consider removal of parking or striped center turn median where feasible. Enhancements may vary based on the context of individual street segments. Provide green pavement markings and/or signage at conflict points (e.g. driveways, merges) to increase visibility. Upgrade traffic signals with bicycle detection and bike boxes, where feasible, to enhance safe crossings at intersections.79.546Improvements listed are conceptual. Further study to determine feasibility and/or additional community outreach may be required.

City of Thousand Oaks Active Transportation Plan Update Chapter 4 – Recommendations IDStreet NameExisting Facility TypeBetweenLength (miles)Proposed Improvements6Total ScoreFF-4 Thousand Oaks Blvd Class III Bike Route Conejo School Rd Duesenberg Dr 0.90 Implement Class II Bike Lanes by narrowing the width of the travel lane, parking lane, and/or sidewalk. Consider removal of parking or striped center turn median where feasible. Enhancements may vary based on the context of individual street segments. Provide green pavement markings and/or signage at conflict points (e.g. driveways, merges) to increase visibility. Upgrade traffic signals with bicycle detection and bike boxes, where feasible, to enhance safe crossings at intersections.78.31 FF-5 Moorpark RdClass III Bike RouteWilbur RdHWY 1010.63Upgrade existing Class III Bike Route to Class II Bike Lanes (buffered) where feasible. Where width is constrained, consider median removal for Class II Bike Lanes. Install green bike crossings through major intersections to guide riders and alert turning vehicles.78.15FF-6 Thousand Oaks BlvdClass III Bike RouteErbes RdConejo School Rd0.40Implement Class II Bike Lanes by narrowing the width of the travel lane, parking lane, and/or sidewalk. Consider removal of parking or striped center turn median where feasible. Enhancements may vary based on the context of individual street segments. Provide green pavement markings and/or signage at conflict points (e.g. driveways, merges) to increase visibility. Upgrade traffic signals with bicycle detection and bike boxes, where feasible, to enhance safe crossings at intersections.76.98 City of Thousand Oaks Active Transportation Plan Update Chapter 4 – Recommendations IDStreet NameExisting Facility TypeBetweenLength (miles)Proposed Improvements6Total ScoreFF-7 Lawrence Dr None Rancho Conejo Blvd Hillcrest Dr 2.29 Remove on-street parking and install Class II Bike Lanes (buffered). 74.90 FF-8 Wilbur RdNoneMoorpark RdHillcrest Dr0.56Convert curbside travel lane to Class II Bike Lanes (buffered).74.47FF-9 Hillcrest DrNoneMoorpark RdHodencamp Rd0.43Install Class II Bike Lanes (buffered). Narrow travel lane width to accommodate bicycle lanes, modify existing median, and/or remove on-street parking to accommodate bicycle lanes. 74.17FF-10Borchard RdNoneReino RdMichael Dr1.50Install Class II Bike Lanes or Class II Bike Lanes (buffered) where feasible. Narrow travel lane width and/or modify existing median to accommodate bicycle lanes. Also, enhance street light coverage.73.42FF-11Hillcrest DrClass III Bike RouteSR 23Erbes Rd0.75Remove on-street parking and install Class II Bike Lanes (buffered).72.01FF-12Moorpark RdClass III Bike RouteGreenmeadow AveRolling Oaks Dr0.39Narrow the existing median and/or convert #2 travel lane to Class II Bike Lanes (buffered).68.43FF-13Reino RdClass III Bike RouteOld Conejo RdBorchard Rd0.93Install Class II Bike Lanes (buffered). Remove on-street parking where feasible and/or narrow median lane width to accommodate bicycle lanes. Install green bike crossings through major intersections to guide riders and alert turning vehicles.68.25 City of Thousand Oaks Active Transportation Plan Update Chapter 4 – Recommendations IDStreet NameExisting Facility TypeBetweenLength (miles)Proposed Improvements6Total ScoreFF-14 Janss Rd None Norwich Ave SR-23 0.88 Install Class II Bike Lanes (buffered). Narrow travel lane width and/or median to accommodate bicycle lanes. Also, enhance street light coverage.67.51 FF-15Borchard RdClass II Bike Lane4502 Via MarianoLos Vientos Dr0.54Upgrade existing Class II Bike Lanes to Class II Bike Lanes (buffered).67.44FF-16 Old Conejo Rd None Reino Rd Wendy Dr 0.75 Reconstruct road shoulder to widen separation of bike lane and through traffic (both sides). Narrow travel lane width to accommodate bicycle lanes. This improvement may involve removal or relocation of trees and underground utilities.As an alternative, the City should consider partnering with Ventura County to provide bike facilities connecting Reino Rd and Wendy Dr on roadways south of Old Conejo Rd.67.13 FF-17Wendy DrClass II Bike Lane (buffered)Kimber DrErinlea Ave1.53Convert existing Class II Bike Lanes (buffered) to a Class IV Separated Bikeway. Narrow travel lane width and/or median to accommodate separated bikeway.66.54FF-18Pederson RdClass II Bike Lane (buffered)Olsen RdRustic Glen Dr1.55Convert existing Class II Bike Lanes (buffered) to a Class IV Separated Bikeway. Narrow travel lane width and/or median to accommodate separated bikeway.63.17FF-19Via Las BrisasClass II Bike LaneBorchard RdLynn Rd1.40Upgrade Class II Bike Lanes (buffered) to Class IV Separated Bikeway.53.57 City of Thousand Oaks Active Transportation Plan Update Chapter 4 – Recommendations IDStreet NameExisting Facility TypeBetweenLength (miles)Proposed Improvements6Total ScoreFF-20 Westlake Blvd Class II Bike Lane Triunfo Canyon Rd Village Glen 0.96 Install Class II Bike Lanes (buffered). Narrow travel lane width to accommodate bicycle lanes.53.33 FF-21Sunset Hills BoulevardClass II Bike LaneOlsen RdSR-230.70Convert existing Class II Bike Lanes to Class IV Separated Bikeway by converting #2 travel lane to separated bike lane.53.19FF-22 Westlake Blvd Class II Bike Lane Avenida De Los Arboles Thousand Oaks Blvd 4.05 Install Class II Bike Lanes (buffered). Narrow travel lane width to accommodate bicycle lanes. Install green bike crossings through major intersections to guide riders and alert turning vehicles.49.06 FF-23Lynn RdClass II Bike LaneWildwood AveAvenida De Los Arboles0.31Install Class II Bike Lanes (buffered). Narrow travel lane width to accommodate bicycle lanes.48.98FF-24Triunfo Canyon RdNoneTownsgate RdHampshire Rd0.17Remove on-street parking and install Class II Bike Lanes (buffered).48.11 City of Thousand Oaks Active Transportation Plan Update Chapter 4 – Recommendations Corridor In-Design ProjectsThe City also has a set of projects currently “in-design” that reflect near-term opportunities to advance network connectivity and safety. The corridor in-design projects in Table 4-3 are generally further along in development, may be positioned to move into construction sooner, and should be coordinated with the recommended projects to avoid rework and to maximize benefit. Table 4-3: Projects Currently in Design (Corridors) ID Street/ Intersection NameFacility TypeBetween Length (Miles)Proposed Improvements CID-1 Erbes Rd Class II Bike Lane Pederson Rd Avenida De Los Arboles 0.40 Upgrade existing Class II Bike Lanes to Class II Bike Lanes (buffered). CID-2Lynn Rd Class II Bike Lane (buffered) Reino Rd Gainsborough Rd 5.24 Upgrade existing Class II Bike Lanes (buffered) to Class IV Separated Bikeway. CID-3Kanan RdClass II Bike LaneWestlake BlvdFalling Star Ave2.45Upgrade existing Class II Bike Lanes to Class II Bike Lanes (buffered).CID-4Parkview Dr Class II Bike Lane Knightsbridge Ave Avenida De Los Arboles 0.25 Upgrade existing Class II Bike Lanes to Class II Bike Lanes (buffered). CID-5Hillcrest DrNoneLynn RdMoorpark Rd1.22Install Class IV Separated Bikeway or Class II Bike Lanes. The City continues to evaluate possible options and partnerships to implement bike facilities along this roadway segment.CID-6Janss RdClass II Bike LaneNorwich AveKirk Ave0.10Extend Eastbound Class II: Bike Lane.CID-7 La Granada DrClass II Bike LaneJanss RdErbes Rd0.15Extend Class II: Bike Lanes.

City of Thousand Oaks Active Transportation Plan Update Chapter 4 – Recommendations Table 4-4: Intersection RecommendationsIDIntersection Street NamesProposed Improvements7Total Score1 Erbes Rd / Hillcrest Dr Add transition lanes on the eastbound and westbound approaches of Hillcrest Dr. Modify median to accommodate transition lanes. Consider tightening curb radii to prompt westbound right-turning vehicles to slow down. 77.71 2 Erbes Rd / Thousand Oaks Blvd Extend Class II Bike Lane and add transition lanes across intersection. Add leading pedestrian interval (LPI) on pedestrian crossings. 76.71 3 Moorpark Rd / HWY 101Add transition lanes to guide bicyclists through lane on/off ramps.74.484Moorpark Rd / Wilbur Rd Add transition lanes on eastbound and westbound approaches of Wilbur Road. Modify median to accommodate transition lanes. Implement a leading pedestrian interval (LPI) on pedestrian crossings. Consider curb extensions (bulb-outs) on Wilbur Rd crosswalk and tighten curb return radii to slow right turns and reduce crossing distance. 74.38 5Reino Rd / Borchard RdAdd transition lanes on Reino Road and Borchard Road (both sides). Implement a leading pedestrian interval (LPI) on pedestrian crossings. Consider tightening curb radii to prompt southbound right-turning vehicles to slow down.72.276Moorpark Rd / Avenida De Las Flores Add transition lanes on the westbound approach of Avenida De Las Flores. Implement a leading pedestrian interval (LPI) on pedestrian crossings. 70.077Camino Manzanas / Gainsborough RdAdd a transition lane on the westbound approach of Gainsborough Rd.69.748Wendy Dr / HWY 101 Add transition lanes to guide bicyclists through lane on/off ramps. 68.707Improvements listed are conceptual. Further study to determine feasibility and/or additional community outreach may be required.

City of Thousand Oaks Active Transportation Plan Update Chapter 4 – Recommendations IDIntersection Street NamesProposed Improvements7Total Score9 Rancho Conejo Blvd / Hillcrest Dr Add transition lanes on the eastbound and westbound approaches of Hillcrest Dr and southbound approach of Rancho Conejo Rd. 68.54 10 La Granada Dr / Janss Rd Add transition lanes to guide bicyclists through the intersection. Consider addition of pedestrian crossing signs, especially for eastbound right-turning vehicle movements. 68.31 11Moorpark Rd / Avenida De Los ArbolesAdd transition lanes on the eastbound and westbound approaches of Moorpark Rd.66.5812 Moorpark Rd / Olsen Rd Add transition lanes on the northeastbound and southwestbound approaches of Olsen Rd. Modify median to accommodate transition lanes. 65.95 13 Lynn Rd / Janss Rd Extend bicycle lanes and add transition bicycle lanes on Janss Rd east of Lynn Rd to complete connection to Lynn Road. Consider tightening curb radii to prompt eastbound left-turning vehicles to slow down.65.73 14SR 23 / Janss Rd Add transition lanes to guide bicyclists through on/off ramps. 64.4715Hampshire Rd / HWY 101Add transition lanes to guide bicyclists through on/off ramps. Modify median to accommodate transition lanes. 54.62 City of Thousand Oaks Active Transportation Plan Update Chapter 4 – Recommendations Intersection In-Design ProjectsSimilar to the corridor in-design projects, the City also has a set of projects currently “in-design” that reflect near-term opportunities to advance network connectivity and safety. Table 4-5 presents the intersection in-design projects. Table 4-5: Projects Currently in Design (Intersections)IDStreet NameProposed ImprovementsROWIID-1 Lynn Rd / HWY 101 Add transition lanes to guide bicyclists through lane on/off ramps, add fences on the bridge. City and Caltrans IID-2 Avenida De Los Arboles / Avenida De Las Plantas Install a traffic signal, bike transitions, and curb extensions. CityIID-3 SR-23 Northbound Off-ramp / Olsen RdAdd bike transitions and bike push button for the eastbound direction.City and CaltransIID-4 Lynn Rd / Hillcrest Dr Add transition lanes to guide bicyclists through the intersection. City

City of Thousand Oaks Active Transportation Plan Update Chapter 4 – Recommendations Table 4-6: Sidewalk Projects Table 4-6: Sidewalk Projects IDNameMiles8Improvement Side9SideScore1 Moorpark Rd 0.20 W Single 70.61 2 Hillcrest Dr (E of Lynn) 0.34 N Single 70.19 3Hillcrest Dr (W of Lynn)0.59SSingle69.264Lawrence Dr 1.44 Mix10Double 67.335 Oakview Dr 0.15 Both Double 65.40 6Townsgate Rd 0.83 Both Double 63.847Quinta Vista Dr0.11BothDouble63.608Moorpark Rd 0.24 E Single 63.579Newbury Road0.84NSingle62.798Improvements listed are conceptual. Further study to determine feasibility and/or additional community outreach may be required.9“Both” indicates sidewalk improvements are proposed on both sides of the street (i.e., along both travel directions). “Mix” indicates sidewalk gaps vary by segment, with IDNameMiles8Improvement Side9SideScore10 Long Ct 0.11 Mix Double 65.75 11 Almon Dr 0.14 Both Double 61.30 12Ventu Park Rd0.32BothDouble61.2613Wildwood Ave0.22ESingle61.0714 Ave De Los Arboles 0.33 S Single 60.86 15 Borchard Rd1.24 N Single 60.45 16Via Merida 0.48 Both Double 63.7317Sunset Hills Bl0.84SSingle59.6318Old Conejo Rd 0.78 Mix Double 63.36improvements needed on alternating sides along the corridor where existing sidewalks are inconsistent. 10Sidewalks exist along portions of this corridor; the proposed project focuses on closing remaining gaps.

City of Thousand Oaks Active Transportation Plan Update Chapter 4 – Recommendations Table 4-6: Sidewalk Projects Table 4-6: Sidewalk Projects IDNameMiles8Improvement Side9SideScore19 Hampshire Rd 0.82 N Single 59.20 20 Olsen Rd (E of SR23) 1.25 Both Double 58.54 21Agoura Rd0.62SSingle58.2022 Olsen Rd (W of SR23) 1.22 S Single 57.19 23 Reino Rd 0.16 E Single 55.00 24Erbes Rd 0.42 E Single 54.5525Gainsborough Rd0.22ESingle49.9426Lynn Rd (West of Haigh Rd) 0.43 S Single 49.4227Westlake Blvd3.94WSingle1144.6311Existing decomposed granite pathway on the west side of the roadway.

IDNameMiles8Improvement Side9SideScore28 Kanan Rd 2.55 Both Double 48.62 29 Lynn Rd 0.33 W Single 48.10 30Regal Oak Dr 0.26 E Single 48.0331Potrero Rd0.68ESingle46.7232Pederson Rd 0.74 N Single 46.5733 Lynn Rd (W of Kelley)0.77 E Single 45.56 34Mountclef Blvd0.31W Single42.89 City of Thousand Oaks Active Transportation Plan Update Chapter 4 – Recommendations Pedestrian Recommendations Planning Cost EstimatesThe planning cost estimate summary shown in Table 4-7 is a compilation of individual planning cost estimates for each proposed pedestrian project presented previously in Table 4-6. Each proposed sidewalk facility was assessed from a high-level constructability perspective with a cost estimate of $400 per linear foot (LF), as provided by the City’s Capital Improvements Division. It is important to note that the costs are planning level only and design plans are needed to determine an engineer’s cost estimate. The cost may also vary substantially based on the magnitude of a variety of factors such as right-of-way acquisition, environmental, drainage, and other factors. Table 4-7: Cost Estimates for Pedestrian Recommendations IDSegmentCost121Moorpark Rd$422,4002 Hillcrest Dr (E of Lynn) $718,080 3Hillcrest Dr (W of Lynn)$1,246,0804 Lawrence Dr $3,041,280 5 Oakview Dr$633,6006 Townsgate Rd $3,505,9207 Quinta Vista Dr$464,6408 Moorpark Rd $506,8809 Newbury Road$1,774,08010Long Ct $232,32012Cost estimates are based on a unit cost of $400 per linear feet (LF) and if it designated Single or Double side.

IDSegmentCost1211Almon Dr$591,36012 Ventu Park Rd $1,351,680 13Wildwood Ave$464,64014 Ave De Los Arboles $696,960 15Borchard Rd$2,618,88016Via Merida $2,027,52017Sunset Hills Bl$1,774,08018Old Conejo Rd $1,647,36019Hampshire Rd$1,731,84020Olsen Rd (E of SR23) $5,280,000 City of Thousand Oaks Active Transportation Plan Update Chapter 4 – Recommendations IDSegmentCost1221Agoura Rd$1,309,44022Olsen Rd (W of SR23) $2,576,64023 Reino Rd $337,920 24Erbes Rd $887,04025 Gainsborough Rd $464,640 26Lynn Rd (West of Haigh Rd) $908,16027Westlake Blvd$8,321,280IDSegmentCost1228Kanan Rd $10,771,20029Lynn Rd$696,96030 Regal Oak Dr $549,120 31Potrero Rd$1,436,16032 Pederson Rd $1,562,880 33Lynn Rd (W of Kelley)$1,626,24034Mountclef Blvd $654,720

ImplementationFirst and Last MileCIP DevelopmentMaintenance and OperationsUrban ForestryBack to NatureLow Impact DevelopmentCulture and History

A-1
A-2
A-3
Answers regarding Question 2 can be found on page A-15
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-10
A-11
A-12
A-13
A-14
Open-Ended Question Summarization This section contains summaries of responder answers to questions that have “Other” as an option, allowing for open-ended responses. Question 1 How would you best describe your relationship with Thousand Oaks?Respondents described a mix of connections to Thousand Oaks, including being cyclists (one noting participation in the “Old Kranks” riding group), parents of students, nearby residents (e.g., Westlake Village), and people who work in the city. Question 2 Are there currently students in the household? If so, what local school/College/University? Most respondents indicated they do not currently have students in the household (often answering “No,” “N/A,” or noting their children have graduated). Among those who do have students, responses spanned all levels from kindergarten and elementary through middle and high schools, as well as colleges and graduate schools. Frequently mentioned local schools included Newbury Park High School, Thousand Oaks High School, Westlake High School, Sequoia Middle School, Sycamore Canyon Middle School, Los Cerritos Middle School, Glenwood Elementary, and Conejo Elementary, along with private options like Oaks Christian. Several respondents also referenced higher education institutions such as Moorpark College (mentioned multiple times), UCSB, UCLA, CSUN, Indiana University, and other colleges/universities, including Taft College, Ventura Law School, and online programs. Question 5 Q5 Why do you typically walk? Respondents said they typically walk for everyday activities and recreation, most commonly to walk their dogs. Others mentioned walking to get out of the house, to reach nearby stores or restaurants (including walking to eat for dinner at The Oaks), and for socializing. A few noted walking for specific purposes like canvassing or training for track and cross country, and one response raised a safety concern about bicyclists using sidewalks in Dos Vientos and the need for more public awareness to keep bikes off sidewalks. A-15 Question 6 Why do you typically bike? Respondents who bike described doing so mainly for recreation and enjoyment, including social rides on city streets, biking to socialize, and for personal “quiet” time or simply for joy. A few noted biking for practical reasons, such as relying on a bike because they no longer drive. There was a responder who mentioned wanting to commute but feeling deterred by inadequate bike lanes. Several responses indicated they do not bike at all, citing not owning a bike or stating “N/A.” Question 10 Where would you like to see more pedestrian and bicycling routes to? Respondents most often asked for more pedestrian and bicycling routes that provide safer, connected alternatives to busy arterials, especially Thousand Oaks Boulevard and other major roads like Lynn, Hillcrest, Olsen, and Moorpark Road, rather than forcing people onto high-traffic streets. Many emphasized protected or separated bike lanes (not sharrows), better crossings over barriers like the 101 freeway, and “parallel” routes or trail-style facilities such as paths along flood channels, similar to examples in Simi Valley, Camarillo, Irvine, or the Ojai Valley Trail. Several comments focused on improving access to everyday destinations, particularly schools, offices, business centers (e.g., Dos Vientos/Las Brisas), high-density housing areas, and shopping, while one respondent proposed creating a continuous, car-free loop connected to the Conejo Creek Bike Path to knit neighborhoods together and reduce the city’s current sense of disconnection. Question 11 What would make it easier for you to walk more in Thousand Oaks? Respondents stated that they would walk more in Thousand Oaks if walking felt safer and more comfortable, particularly around schools and major roads. Many comments focused on traffic safety, slower, more attentive drivers; safer crosswalks and pedestrian crossings, and stronger school-area measures such as expanded school zones and reliable crossing guards before and after school, with particular concern about dangerous corridors like Borchard and crossings near schools (e.g., Lynn and areas around TOHS). Others emphasized completing and maintaining sidewalks, improving lighting for winter evenings, and adding pedestrian-friendly amenities like benches, shade, and car-light or car-free areas. Several respondents also suggested broader infrastructure changes that prioritize people over cars, including road diets, curb bulb-outs, better neighborhood connections, restricting bikes/motorized vehicles from sidewalks with signage and public awareness, and adding grade-separated options like a pedestrian bridge to improve access across busy streets and to cross the 101 freeway between Thousand Oaks and Newbury Park. A-16 Question 12 What would make it easier for you to bike more in Thousand Oaks? Respondents said biking more in Thousand Oaks would be easiest if cyclists had safer, more physically separated infrastructure and better driver behavior. The most common request was for protected/parking-protected bike lanes (often with barriers such as bollards or concrete posts) and off-street or multiuser paths, with some specifically calling for Class IV lanes, continuous bike routes, and connections beyond the city (e.g., toward Camarillo). Many comments emphasized that distracted or discourteous drivers are the biggest barrier, including concerns about motorists using bike lanes as turn lanes and “pinching” cyclists at intersections like Westlake Blvd/Agoura Rd, so respondents suggested slower speeds, fewer car lanes/road diets, and designs that prioritize people biking and walking. Additional ideas included education for new e-bikers (and general rider training), clearer signage about who should use sidewalks vs. bike lanes, improved lighting, and secure bike parking for e-bikes. Several respondents noted they don’t currently bike or already bike as much as they want, but still supported adding more bike lanes and paths.

A-17
B-1
B-2

B-6
Question #1: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES (0-10 POINTS)1.A: A. Map of Project Boundaries, Access, and Destinations (0 points - Required)Provide a scaled map showing the boundaries of the proposed project, the geographic boundaries of the disadvantaged community, disadvantaged communityaccess point(s), and destinations that the project is benefiting. All census tracts (or schools if using Free or Reduced-Price School Meals) must be clearly labeled.1.B. Identification of Disadvantaged Community: (0 points)B. Identification of Disadvantaged Community: (0 points)Select one of the following five options. The applicant must provide information for all Census Tract/Block Group/Place # that the project affects: Median Household Income CalEnviroScreenFree or Reduced Priced School Meals -Applications using this measure must demonstrate how the project benefits the school students in the project area. Healthy Places Index Climate and Economic Justice Screening ToolUSDOT Equitable Transportation Community Explorer Other: Regional Definition, Projects on federally recognized Tribal Land or projects submitted by Tribal Governments (federally recognized Native American tribes),Other Determinant of MHI1.C. Direct Benefit: (0-4 points)Access Improvement, Missing gap address, or Increased needed routes/connections or poor condition of an existing route for DACDoes the project provide reasonable improvements to close missing gaps; increase needed routes or connections (such as access to and/or community safety fordisadvantaged community residents to parks, greenways, open space, health care centers, transit stops, and other community assets); or address the poorconditions of an existing route? (Yes/No)Access Improvement, Missing gap address, or Increased needed routes/connections or poor condition of an existing route for all community membersDoes the project result in a convenient and logical route that residents will want to use because it offers improved access to destinations the communitycommonly utilizes? (Yes/No)Closest DAC zones access to the project areaClosest DAC zone centroid walking distance to the project area boundaryClosest DAC zone centroid biking distance to the project area boundaryThe following subsection is for combined Infrastructure/Non-Infrastructure projectsIs this a combined Infrastructure/Non-Infrastructure project? (Yes/No)Are the public outreach events and programs targeted toward the disadvantaged community? (Yes/No)This should include discussions of strategies that will be used to ensure that the non-infrastructure programming is easily accessible to the disadvantagedcommunity and relevant to their needs (e.g., development of community-relevant content, choice of venue, methods used to promote the program,materials in appropriate languages, etc.)Score of Part 1.C. 0B-7

1.D. Project Location: (0 -2 points)MeasurementScore of Part 1.D. 01.E. Severity: (0-4 points)Based on the option the applicant chooses for DAC identification (EITHER one of the options below)Median Household IncomeCalEnviroScreen 4.0 ScoreUSDOT Equitable Transportation Community Explorer Final Index ScoreHealthy Places Index 3.0 Score (Percentile - Healthy Places Index Score inputted should only be the overall HPI Score)Score of Part 1.E. 0=2 () / (100%) . 1 () / (< 100%) . 0 0% .

B-8
Question #2: POTENTIAL FOR INCREASED WALKING AND BICYCLING, ESPECIALLY AMONG STUDENTS, INCLUDING THE IDENTIFICATION OF WALKING AND BICYCLING ROUTES TO AND FROM SCHOOLS, TRANSIT FACILITIES, COMMUNITY CENTERS, EMPLOYMENT CENTERS, AND OTHER DESTINATIONS; AND INCLUDING INCREASING AND IMPROVING CONNECTIVITY AND MOBILITY OF NON-MOTORIZED USERS (0 - 52 POINTS)2.A: Statement of Project Need. Describe the community and the issue(s) that this project will address. How will the proposed project benefit non-motorized users of all ages and varyingabilities, including students, older adults, and persons with disabilities? What is the project's desired outcome, and how will the project best deliver that outcome? (0-26 points)Discuss: Community characteristics and context (e.g., urban/rural/suburban, relevant history, socioeconomic characteristics, etc.) Destinations and key connectivity the project will achieveHow the project will increase walking and/or biking The lack of mobility, if applicable -does the population have limited access to cars, bikes, and/or transit?o Does the project have an unserved or underserved demand? The local health concerns responses should focus on:o Specific local public health concerns, health disparity, and/or conditions in the built and social environment that affect the project community and can be addressed through the proposed project.Please provide detailed and locally relevant answers instead of general descriptions of the health benefits of walking and biking (i.e., walking and biking increase physical activity).o Local public health data demonstrating the above public health concern or health disparity. Data should be at the smallest geography available (state or national data is not sufficient). One potentialsource is the Healthy Places Index (HPI). For combined I/NI: discuss the need for an encouragement and education program.* Is the population of the proposed project location within the EQI Transportation-based priority population? (Yes/No)* Is the population of the proposed project location within the EQI "Access to Destinations" priority population? (Yes/No)Is the project improving the mobility of non-motorized users specifically? (Yes/No)What is the Healthy Places Index of the proposed project location? (enter a value between 0 - 100%)** Is the population of the proposed project location within the Underserved Community Indicator? (Yes/No)If this is a combined Infrastructure/Non-Infrastructure project, does it address the need for the education and encouragement program? (Yes/No)Were the student's needs within the addressed needs of the proposed project remedies? (Yes/No)Score of Part 2.A 0B-9

2.B: Describe how the proposed project will address the active transportation need: (0-26 points) What type of active transportation need will the proposed project directly address (select one or more) of the following elements, and discuss how the project will be meeting the identified need.Proposed project addresses: Close a gap? Creation of new routes? Removal of barrier to mobility? Other improvements to existing routes?o Must provide a map identifying the location of each: gap closures and connections; new routes; and barriers and improvements.o Referencing this map, describe the existing route(s) that currently connect the affected transportation-related and community-identified destinations and why the route(s) are not adequate.o Referencing this map, describe how the project links or connects, or encourages the use of existing routes to transportation-related and community-identified destinations where an increase in active transportation modes can be realized, including but not limited to: schools, school facilities, transit facilities, community, social service or medical centers, employment centers, high density or affordable housing, regional, State or national trail system, recreational and visitor destinations or other community-identified destinations. Specific destinations must be identified. For combined I/NI projects, describe the non-infrastructure program, the population it will serve, and how the program will use education and encouragement to address the needs identified in Part A.Does the proposed improvements end up in creating or improving (existing) links or connections? (Yes/No)Does the proposed improvements end up in encouraging the use of routes to very important destinations and community-identified destinations? (Yes/No) - at least one destinationIs this a combined Infrastructure/Non-Infrastructure project? (Yes/No)If this is a combined Infrastructure/Non-Infrastructure project, does it include a non-infrastructure program that provides new skills and familiarity to the community? (Yes/No)Does the proposed improvements end up in increasing the proportion of active transportation trips by students? (Yes/No)Score of Part 2.B 0* Find the indexes here: https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=ab02f124b3f54007a59dadf2165d21fc** Find the map here: https://usdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/9806be8527b14f93be311f0fb57d336eB-10 Question #3: POTENTIAL FOR REDUCING THE NUMBER AND/OR RATE OR THE RISK OF PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST FATALITIES AND INJURIES,INCLUDING THE IDENTIFICATION OF SAFETY HAZARDS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS (0-25 Points)Describe the community-based public participation process that culminated in the project.Combined I/NI projects should address both infrastructure and non-infrastructure elements.3.A: Describe the project locations history of pedestrian and bicycle collisions resulting in fatalities and injuries to non-motorized users, which this project will mitigate. (0-12 points)Influence Area GuidanceA projects expected safety Influence Area (i.e., where a project has the potential to mitigate) must be reasonable. The project's "Influence Area" is established by the applicant, and in theTIMS ATP Tool, is depicted by the "Project Area Collision Map." The following are some general criteria to guide applicants and evaluators in determining the appropriate "Influence Area"and/or overall project area for their proposed safety improvements/countermeasures (these criteria are defined in the Caltrans Highway Safety Improvement Program Application Instructions).Prior to scoring the Safety Question, the evaluator should assess and try to confirm that the applicants project area (or Influence Area) shown in their maps is reasonable with respect to the following criteria: New Traffic Signals: crashes within 250 feet of the new signal. For intersection or mid-block crossing improvements, collisions that occurred within 250 feet of the intersection/mid-block crossing in all directions affected by the improvement may be used. Longitudinal Improvements (bike lanes, sidewalks, road diets, etc.): crashes potentially affected by and within the limits of the improvement. If the improvements represent a new route and there is no past crash and safety data available within the limits of the proposed improvements, the applicant should consider the potential for the project to eliminate or reduce existing conflict points on parallel routes. The crash data from parallel routes can be included where the new facility/route can be reasonably expected to reduce the likelihood of past crashes from reoccurring. The overall applicant data provided in the Narrative Questions and various attachments must support the use of parallel crash data.Is the crash data for the most recent 5 years and from TIMS? (Yes/No)Is there a high-injury network map available? (Yes/No)What length/area ratio of the project location is located on the high-injury network map? (Enter between 0 - 1)Is the number of annual/monthly bike and pedestrian crash data (for fatal and serious injury crashes) on an increasing trend? (Yes/No)Enter the annual rate of the fatal and serious injury crashes in the area for the past 5 yearsIs there an analysis of the underlying causes of the crashes? (Yes/No)Is the proposed improvement(s) targeted at mitigating the crashes in the project location(s) - WITH VALID REASONS? (Yes/No)Is the proposed improvement(s) considered\beneficial to the vulnerable and underserved populations? (Yes/No)Score of Part 3.A 0B-11

3.B: Safety Countermeasures (13 points max): Referencing the information provided in Part A, demonstrate how the proposed countermeasures directly address (one or more) of thefollowing underlying factors that are contributing to the occurrence (or potential occurrence) of pedestrian and/or bicyclist collisions.For projects proposing new or improved bikeways, describe the issues that were considered when evaluating and selecting the projects bikeway facility type (i.e., Class I, II, III, and/or IV).For combined I/NI projects, describe how the non-infrastructure encouragement and education programs address the safety issues identified in Part A.What is the proposed countermeasure's CMF/CRF? (enter a value between 0 - 100%)What ratio of the safety needs in the proposed project location that is address through the suggested remedy? (enter a value between 0 - 1)Is this a combined Infrastructure/Non-Infrastructure project? (Yes/No)Are the safe behaviors, educating users on safety hazards, and/or complementing infrastructure improvements encouraged by the remedy? (Yes/No)Score of Part 3.B 0 B-12
Question #4: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION and PLANNING (0-10 POINTS)Describe the community-based public participation process that culminated in the project.Combined I/NI projects should address both infrastructure and non-infrastructure elements.4.A: Use of ATP in developing and refining project scopeIs the agencys active transportation technical planning (ATP) used to develop and refine the project scope? (Yes/No)Score of Part 4.A 04.B: Consideration of both Existing and Future Needs of the project users and transportation systemIs the planning process considered the existing and future needs of the project users and transportation system? (Yes/No)Score of Part 4.B 04.C: Public OutreachPlanning LinkageWas the planning process effectively integrated into the public participation process? (Yes/No)Was the public participation and planning process utilized to identify and improve the effectiveness of the project and ensure the project is one of the highest community/regional activetransportation priorities? (Yes/No)Score of Part 4.C 04.D: Public Outreach SessionsHow many engagement events (workshops, charrettes, audits, focus groups, webinars, pop-ups) are going to be held during the project duration?How many distinct stakeholder groups are engaged? (e.g. residents, schools, CBOs, public-health dept, other agencies)Are there any documentation that supports a thorough and effective public engagement process? (agendas, sign-in sheets, minutes, PSAs, letters of support) (Yes/No)Score of Part 4.D 0The following subsection is for combined Infrastructure/Non-Infrastructure projectsIs this a combined Infrastructure/Non-Infrastructure project? (Yes/No)4.E: Are the public participation and planning process of both infrastructure AND non-infrastructure elements of the project discussed? (Yes/No)Score of Part 4.E. 0B-13 Question #5: SCOPE AND PLAN CONSISTENCY (0-3 POINTS)Describe the community-based public participation process that culminated in the project.Combined I/NI projects should address both infrastructure and non-infrastructure elements.5.A: Evaluating Layouts/MapsAre the submitted plan sheets/layouts complete, clear, and sufficiently detailed to show the full project scope (all corners, sides, cross-sections)? (Yes/No)Score of Part 5.A 05.B: Evaluating Engineers EstimateDoes the cost estimate fully match and cover every element and phase shown in the layouts and scope (including clear unit quantities)? (Yes/No)Score of Part 5.B 05.C: Evaluating the Project ScheduleIs there a complete, logically sequenced schedule (PA&ED, PS&E, ROW, CON, CON-NI) with adequate durations for each phase? (Yes/No)Score of Part 5.C 0 B-14

Thousand Oaks City CouncilMarch 24, 2026

Thousand Oaks City Council
March 24, 2026