161-unit mixed-use building (26 affordable units) with subterranean garage; a four-story, 79-unit mixed-use building (13 affordable units) with subterranean garage; a two-story restaurant building; and a public park with a children’s play structure, splash pad, interactive play equipment, informal stages and seating areas, and flexible open space.
DTSC recommends and requests consideration of the following comments:
1. According to the Phase II Subsurface Investigation Report conducted by Citadel, concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) were detected in the shallow soil vapor with the exception of tetrachloroethene (PCE). Reported concentrations of VOCs did not exceed the Screening Levels for commercial/industrial use. PCE was reported in all of the soil vapor samples at concentrations ranging from 4.9 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m³) to 210 µg/m3. Since testing was only conducted for commercial screening levels and the proposed Project will include residential developmental, DTSC recommends the City of Thousand Oaks enter into a voluntary agreement to address contamination on the property or receive oversight from a self-certified local agency, DTSC or the Regional Water Quality Control Board. If entering into one of DTSC’s voluntary agreements, please note DTSC uses a single standard Request for Lead Agency Oversight Application for all agreement types. Please apply for DTSC oversight using this link: Request for Agency Oversight Application. Submittal of the online application includes an agreement to pay costs incurred during agreement preparation. If you have any questions about the application portal, please contact the relevant Regional Brownfield Coordinator for your Project.
2. DTSC recommends all imported soil/fill material be tested to ensure all COCs meet screening levels as outlined in DTSC's Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual. Furthermore, DTSC advises referencing the DTSC Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material Fact Sheet if importing soil/fill is necessary. To minimize the possibility of introducing contaminated soil/fill material, there should be documentation of the origins of the soil/fill material and, if applicable, sampling be conducted to ensure that the imported Krystin Rice
March 17, 2026
soil/fill material is suitable for the intended land use. The sampling should include analysis based on the source of the soil/fill and knowledge of prior land use.
DTSC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the DEIR for the Downtown Thousand Oaks Project. Thank you for your assistance in protecting California’s people and environment from the harmful effects of toxic substances. If you have any questions or would like clarification on DTSC’s comments, please respond to this letter or via email for additional guidance.
Sincerely,
Tamara Purvis
Associate Environmental Planner
HWMP - Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
Krystin Rice
March 17, 2026
cc: (via email)
Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation
State Clearinghouse
[email protected]
Glenn Lajoie
Principal,
Director of Environmental Planning, Project Manager
CSG Consultants, Inc. / Consulting Firm
[email protected]
Dave Kereazis
Associate Environmental Planner
HWMP-Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
Scott Wiley
Analyst II
HWMP - Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 31
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER A-1
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), HWMP, Permitting Division, CEQA Unit Tamara Purvis, Associate Environmental Planner
March 17, 2026
A1-1 The commenter summarizes the Draft EIR’s project description and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment findings regarding Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and tetrachloroethene (PCE) . The commenter notes that reported concentrations of VOC did not exceed commercial/industrial acceptable screening levels; however, as the project would include residential uses, the commenter recommends that the City of Thousand Oaks enter into a voluntary agreement to address contamination on the project site or receive oversight from a self -certified local agency, including DTSC and the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Boar d. The commenter concludes by summarizing the overall voluntary agreement processes.
This comment is acknowledged and will be provided to City decision- makers for consideration. No further response is required.
A1-2 The commenter recommends that all imported soil/fill material be tested to ensure all Certificates of Compliance meet screening levels outlined in DTSC’s Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual.
Furthermore, the commenter advises referencing the DTSC Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material Sheet if importing soil/fill is necessary. The commenter also recommends documentation of the origins of the soil/fill material (i.e., to minimize the possibility of introducing contaminated soil/fill material) and, if applicable, sampling be conducted to ensure that the imported soil/fill material is suitable for the intended land use, which should include analysis based on the source of the soil/fill and knowledge of the prior land use.
Imported soil/fill material would be required to comply with all required applicable federal, State, and local regulations governing the handling and placement of soil, including those requirements administered by DTSC, the Regional Water Quality Board, and Ventura County Environmental Health . Nonetheless, this comment is acknowledged and will be provided to City decision-makers for consideration. No further response is required.
Outlook
Re: SCH # 2025090621-Downtown Thousand Oaks Project
FromKrystin Rice <[email protected]>
Date Thu 3/19/2026 5:15 PM
To Lin, Alan S@DOT <[email protected]>
Cc OPR State Clearinghouse <[email protected]> Hi Alan,
Thanks for your email.
The link on the Appendix O page will take you to the full document (located on the right-hand side).
For your convenience, here is a direct link to Appendix O:
https://toaks.gov/corecode/storage/uber_resource/uploaded_pdfs/corecode/Appendix%20O_Traffic%20and%20VMT%20Stud y_967.pdf
Krystin Rice
Planning Division Manager
Community Development Department
City of Thousand Oaks
805-449-2335
From: Lin, Alan S@DOT <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2026 4:04 PM
To: Krystin Rice <[email protected]>
Cc: OPR State Clearinghouse <[email protected]> Subject: SCH # 2025090621-Downtown Thousand Oaks Project
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Krystin Rice,
From the OPR website below, there is only one page for the Appendix O. could you send the complete traffic and VMT study to Caltrans for our review and update this information to OPR as soon as possible?
Downtown Thousand Oaks Project
Thank you!
Alan Lin, P.E.
Transportation Engineer, Civil
LDR, Division of Planning
State of California
Department of Transportation
Mail Station 16
100 South Main Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
213-269-1124 Mobile
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” DISTRICT 7 100 SOUTH MAIN STREET, SUITE 100 | LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 PHONE (213) 897-0362 | FAX (213) 897-0360 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov April 17, 2026Krystin Rice, Planning ManagerCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Thousand Oaks2100 East Thousand Oaks Boulevard Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 RE: Downtown Thousand Oaks Project SCH # 2025090621 Vic. VEN-101/PM 1.634, VEN-23/PM R3.731 GTS # VEN-2025-00677-DEIR Dear Krystin Rice: Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above-referenced environmental document. The proposed project involves a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of a 5.33-acre portion of the project area to Mixed-Use and increase the height within that area, Proposed Land Use Designations; amendment of the Civic Arts Plaza Specific Plan (SP No. 11) to facilitate development of a new pedestrian-oriented downtown, including mixed-use residential, a hotel, commercial, office, and entertainment uses; partial reconstruction of the existing City Hall; public amenities such as a park plaza and outdoor amphitheater; and supporting infrastructure, including new roadways, reconfigured utilities, and stormwater management improvements; a Tentative Tract Map consolidating 14 existing parcels into 9 new lots; a Development Permit for construction of four new buildings, including a seven-story, 142-key hotel; a seven-story, 161-unit mixed-use building (26 affordable units) with subterranean garage; a four-story, 79-unit mixed-use building (13 affordable units) with subterranean garage; a two-story restaurant building; and a public park with a children's play structure, splash pad, interactive play equipment, informal stages and seating areas, and flexible open space; a Special Use Permit for the sale and consumption of alcohol; and a ProtectedTree Permit for the removal and replacement of protected trees, as well as the encroachment into the protected zone of protected trees. The proposed project would be constructed in five phases which are anticipated to commence in 2027 and be completed by 2032.
Krystin Rice, Planning Manager April 17, 2026Page 2
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment. Senate Bill 743 (2013) has codified into CEQA law and mandated that CEQA review of transportation impacts of proposed development be modified by using Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the primary metric in identifying transportation impacts for all future development projects. As a reminder, all environmental document should include Vehicle Miles Traveled. You may referencethe Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) for more information: https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/#guidelines-updatesAs noted in Caltrans’ comment letter dated October 9, 2025, safety and multi-modal conflict analyses were requested for several key intersections near State facilities. These include:a. US-101/Hampshire Rd.b. US-101/Rancho Rd.c. SR-23/Hillcrest Dr. Caltrans concurs with the findings of the Traffic, Circulation, and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Study dated January 28, 2026, indicating that the US-101/Hampshire Road and US-101/Rancho Road off-ramps (Items a and b above) are projected to adequately accommodate the additional trips generated by the proposed project. For accuracy, please confirm that the queuing analysis utilized the “existing signal timing” at Caltrans-controlled intersections. Additionally, we acknowledge that the project is anticipated to contribute 4 AM and 13 PM peak hour trips at the SR-23 off-ramp/Hillcrest Drive, which is not expected to result in any substantial changes to off-ramp queuing conditions.Overall, the Residential VMT and Service Population VMT impacts would be less than significant. However, based on the Employee VMT Summary (Table 14), the citywide work-based VMT per employee in Thousand Oaks is 22.62. The Project TAZ generates 24.29 VMT per employee without the Project and 26.37 VMT per employee with the Project, both above the citywide threshold. The employee component is therefore anticipated to result in a potentially significant VMT impact under CEQA. To address these impacts, the Project will implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and VMT reduction strategies in accordance with CAPCOA recommendations and CEQA guidelines. Measures include carpool/vanpool programs, trip reduction information, increased residential density, reduced parking requirements, pedestrian and bicycle improvements, and provision of affordable housing. These strategies are expected to reduce home-based VMT by 22% and work-based VMT by 14%. However, the Project’s VMT would remain above the CEQA threshold and not be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Thus, VMT-related impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Krystin Rice, Planning ManagerApril 17, 2026Page 3
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Accordingly, Caltrans recommends that the City incorporate additional Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures or evaluate strategies from Caltrans’ Transportation Demand Management Toolbox to further reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) impacts, consistent with CEQA requirements:https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/district-4/documents/d4-transportation-planning-local-assistance/ldr/final-draft-2023-ldr-tdm-toolbox-071923-a11y.pdfPlease be advised that any activities conducted within the State right-of-way will require an Encroachment Permit from Caltrans. Furthermore, any modifications to State facilities must comply with all applicable mandatory design standards and specifications. Any transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or materials that require the use of oversized transport vehicles on State highways will need a Caltrans transportation permit. Any large-size truck trips should be limited to off-peak commute periods for the construction phase and operation phase. Construction truck loads should be covered with a tarpaulin cover. Storm water run-off is a sensitive issue for Los Angeles County. Please be mindful that projects should be designed to discharge clean run-off water. A truck and construction traffic management plan may be required for projects near US-101 on/off-ramps, and any lane closures or detours impacting freeway access must be coordinated with Caltrans. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Alan Lin, the project coordinator, at (213) 269-1124 and refer to GTS #VEN-2025-00677-DEIR.Sincerely, ANTHONY HIGGINSActing LDR/CEQA Branch Chief email: State Clearinghouse
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 37
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER A-2
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), LDR, Division of Planning Alan Lin, P.E., Transportation Engineer - Civil
March 17, 2026
A2-1 The commenter states that only one page is available for review regarding Draft EIR Appendix O, Traffic Circulation, and VMT Study, and requests a complete copy of the appendix. The commenter also requests that the appendix be updated on OPR’s website (i.e., CEQAnet). A direct link to the City’s website is provided on CEQAnet, which provides public access (i.e., availability for review and download ) to the Draft EIR and associated appendices, including Appendix O, for the duration of the 45-day public review period pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15087 and 15105 . Nonetheless, a s depicted in Comment Letter A -2, the City of Thousand Oaks has provided a direct link via email to Appendix O for the commenters' review. For the purposes of CEQA, no further response is necessary.
A2-2 The commenter generally concurs with the findings of the Draft EIR Appendix O. The commenter also requests confirmation that “existing signal timing” was utilized at Caltrans -controlled intersections. This comment is acknowledged and confirmed. The use of “existing signal timing” was utilized at Caltrans -controlled intersections within Draft EIR Appendix O.
A2-3 The commenter generally summarizes the impact determinations of Draft EIR Section 5.14, Transportation.
The commenter further notes that because some impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, additional Transportation Demand Management measures are recommended for incorporation. This comment is acknowledged and will be provided to City decision-makers for consideration. No further response is required.
A2-4 The commenter states that activities conducted within the State right-of-way would require an encroachment permit from Caltrans . Furthermore, any modifications to State facilities must comply with all applicable mandatory design standards and specifications. This comment is acknowledged, and the Applicant would comply with all required Caltrans permitting requirements and standards.
A2-5 The commenter states that any transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or materials that require the use of oversized transport vehicles on State highways would need a Caltrans transportation permit.
Moreover, any large-sized truck trips should be limited to off-peak commute periods for the construction phase and operation phase. Lastly, construction truck loads should be covered with a tarpaulin cover. This comment is acknowledged, and the Applicant would comply with all required Caltrans pe rmitting requirements and standards.
A2-6 The commenter states that the project should be designed to discharge clean runoff water and that a truck and construction traffic management plan may be required for projects near Ventura Freeway (Highway 101) on/off ramps. Moreover, any lane closures or detours impacting freeway access must be coordinated with Caltrans. As analyzed in Draft EIR Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant with implementation of best management practices (BMPs) and compliance with regulatory requirements, including compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Program ( NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order 2022-0057-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002) and Municipal Stormwater Permitting Program, and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Nonetheless, this comment is acknowledged, and the Applicant would comply with all required Caltrans permitting requirements and standards.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 40
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER A-3
Ventura County Public Works Agency – Watershed Protection, Water Resources Division, Groundwater Resources Section (VCPWA)
John Gauthier, Groundwater Specialist
April 13, 2026
A3-1 The commenter summarizes the Draft EIR’s project description and states that VCPWA records indicate that two wells (i.e., 01N19W14D07S and 01N19W14D04S) are located within the project site with “Cannot Locate” status. The commenter states that , in accordance with Ventura County Ordinance 4468, the Applicant must confirm the status of the “Cannot Locate” wells and bring them into compliance with Ventura County Ordinance 4468, either by using or destroying these wells. Moreover, the commenter states that if, during any phase of the proposed project, any wells are discovered, they must be reported to the VCPWA prior to any modification, abandonment, or destruction.
As analyzed in Appendix I, Phase I ESA , of the Draft EIR, the Environmental Data Resources ( EDR) database search included review of federal, State, regional, and local regulatory databases that identify known wells and other potential environmental concerns . Based on the EDR search, no federal, State, regional, or local wells were determined to occur on -site; refer to Appendix K, EDR Radius Map Report, of Appendix I. Nonetheless, this comment is acknowledged . If any wells are located on -site during ground -disturbing activities , the Applicant would comply with all required VCPWA permitting requirements and standards as applicable, including Ventura County Ordinance 4468.
A3-2 The commenter states that a Tesla -brand battery energy storage system (BESS) is located in the southeast portion of the project site and expresses concern that a spill or leak could affect water resources if not properly contained. The commenter recommends installation of secondary containment structures sized and designed to prevent potential releases from impacting stormwater, soils, or groundwater.
As discussed in Draft EIR Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials , a Tesla-brand BESS is located in the southeast portion of the 2100 East Thousand Oaks Boulevard property. The BESS is connected to one of the two main switchboards, which provides roughly half of the power for the site. The BESS is used to shift loads to avoid drawing power from the utility during the highest cost time of use period and can power the loads on the switchboard for up to seven hours. The BESS is not expected to have adver sely affected the 2100 East Thousand Oaks Boulevard property. Nonetheless, this comment is acknowledged and will be provided to City decision-makers for consideration. No further response is required.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 42
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER A-4
County of Ventura, Resources Management Agency, Planning Division (COVRMA) Philip Hess, RMA/Planning/EDR Coordinator
March 18, 2026
A4-1 The commenter provides a copy of the distribution list identifying the County of Ventura departments to which the Draft EIR was circulated for review and comment. This comment is acknowledged. Refer to Response to Comments A3-1 and A3 -2 regarding responses to VCPWA and Response to Comments A5 -1 through A5 -8 regarding responses to the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD).
VENTURA COUNTYAIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICTMemorandumTO: Krystin Rice, Planning Manager, City of Thousand Oaks DATE: April 20, 2026FROM: Nicole Collazo, Air Quality Specialist, Planning DivisionSUBJECT: Notice of Availability of an Environmental Impact Report for the City of Thousand Oaks Downtown Thousand Oaks Project (RMA 25-031-1)Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) staff have reviewed the subject Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which analyzed the environmental impacts of creatinga pedestrian-oriented downtown, including new construction facilitating mixed-use residential, a hotel, commercial, office, and entertainment uses, partial reconstruction of the existing City Hall, development of public amenities such as a park plaza and outdoor amphitheater, as well as supporting infrastructure such as new roadways, reconfigured utilities, and stormwater management. The project location is 2100 East Thousand Oaks Blvd. The Lead Agency is the City of Thousand Oaks (City).VCEIR. 1) Page 5.1-9, Construction Staging Areas. It appears one of the construction staging areas will be located at 110 South Conejo School Road, which is immediately adjacent to the CVUSD Preschool (EIR Page 3-29). It is highly recommended that this staging area be relocated to an area not immediately adjacent to sensitive receptors, as children attending preschool are typically between 3 and 5 years old and are still in the developmental stages with higher breathing rates and suffering more acute symptoms of inhaling tail pipe construction emissions containing diesel particulate matter (DPM), a toxic air contaminant (TAC) designated by the state and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2) MM AQ-1. The mitigation measure to reduce onsite nitrous oxides (NOx) operationalemissions from area sources by requiring electrically powered landscaping equipment may be eligible for VCAPCDs Lawn & Garden Equipment Exchange Program. Vouchers are being awarded on a first-come, first-served basis. More on this program can be found here.3) Page 3-23, etc., Demolitions. The proposed demolition activities will require an asbestos survey of all materials being disturbed (includes concrete and survey triggered when demolition is more than 100 sq. ft.). The survey will tell VCAPCD if asbestos abatement and
notification to the District would be required . The local building department should require the AB3205 sign off from VCAPCD prior to issuing any building permits and the air district will not sign off on an AB3205 Form unless a survey is conducted for the disturbance of 100 sq ft or more. More information on demolition, asbestos abatement, and the AB3205 form can be found here or at our Compliance Division at 805-303-3708. In addition, please add VCAPCD Rule 62.7, Asbestos- Demolition and Renovation, to the list of VCAPCD rules located on Page 5.2-11 of the EIR. 4) Page 3-34, On Site Crusher. The EIR states that Crush-demolished concrete on-site to be used as recycled concrete aggregate base. VCAPCD would like to remind the City that the crusher must have either an air district permit or a statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) registration, as they are considered sources of dust and air emissions. In addition, the crusher must adhere to applicable rules, such as Rule 55, Fugitive Dust, and Rule 51, Nuisance, in order to reduce fugitive-blown dust from crusher operations. Inspectors may be dispatched for dust complaints from sensitive receptors nearby, including drivers along the 101 freeway if a dust plume impedes driver visibility. A note about PERP engines, if they are used for the project and operating over 12 months, they must have a stationary air permit with the district as such an emission source would be considered stationary and no longer portable. The PERP also has notification requirements to the air district that must be adhered to, such as notifying the air district a certain number of days prior to the equipment operating and possible inspections conducted by VCAPCD staff. Each PERP would have registration requirements located in each registration permit found with the registrant. 5) Page 5.2-24, AQMP Consistency. The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) consistency analysis was conducted correctly by using the methodology located in the Ventura County Assessment Guidelines (AQAG) Section 4 with population forecasts and comparisons. However, it determined an inconsistency with the AQMP based on the project emissions quantified using the 25 lbs./day ROC and NOX thresholds, which is part of the significance determination methodology outlined in AQAGs Section 5, Estimating Ozone Precursor Emissions, as part of the criteria for regional attainment or Impact AQ-2, also found in the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. VCAPCD recommends not combining the two different impact criteria significance determinations and change the AQMP consistency criteria (Impact AQ-1) to less than significant based on methodology outlined in the AQAG that determined to impact to the Citys projected population forecasts. 6) Page 5.2-39. MERV 13. The EIR states MERV 13 air filters would reduce PM10 concentrations by 95 percent, which would drastically lower the maximum cancer risk from DPM. Therefore, carcinogenic exposures from the trucks traveling on Highway 101 are calculated to be within acceptable limits and would not exceed VCAPCD threshold of 10 in one million. It is not clear if the HRA quantified the maximum cancer risk with incorporating of the MERV 13 system. VCAPCD recommends this be one if it already has not to ensure the mitigated emissions and risks calculated are below the threshold to reduce exposure of pollutants to nearby sensitive receptors affected. 7) Page 5.2-40, Table 5.2-10. It appears there are two tables labelled as Table 5.2-10. One located on Page 5.2-37 and the other on Page -40. This may be a typographical error. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the EIR. If you have any questions, you may contact me at [email protected].
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 46
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER A-5
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD)
Nicole Collazo, Air Quality Specialist
April 20, 2026
A5-1 The commenter provides a general introduction, summarizing the project description of the proposed project.
Responses to specific comments are provided in Response to Comments A5-2 through A5-8 below.
A5-2 The commenter notes that one of the proposed construction staging areas is located immediately adjacent to a preschool and recommends relocating the staging area away from sensitive receptors due to potential diesel particulate matter (DPM) exposure risks to young children. This comment is acknowledged and will be provided to City decision-makers for consideration. No further response is required.
A5-3 The commenter notes that MM-AQ-3, which requires electrically powered landscaping equipment to reduce operational NOX emissions, may be eligible for VCAPCD’s Lawn & Garden Equipment Exchange Program. This comment is acknowledged. Participation in the program is voluntary, and vouchers are awarded on a first‑come, first‑served basis. Therefore, reliance on program availability has not been incorporated into MM- AQ‑3. It should be noted that MM-AQ-3 has been revised to exclude zero-emission VOC cleaning supplies. This revision has been made based on the negligible reduction associated with zero-emission VOC cleaning supplies and the City’s determination that the requirement would not be feasible to enforce. CalEEMod has been updated to exclude zero-emission VOC cleaning supplies; refer to A ttachment 1 , Revised Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Energy Data . Text and emissions revisions are provided in Section 4 .0, Errata.
A5-4 The commenter states that demolition activities would require an asbestos survey for disturbed materials exceeding 100 square feet and that AB 3205 sign -off from VCAPCD would be required prior to issuance of building permits. Draft EIR Section 5.2.2, Regulatory Setting, has been updated to include Rule 62.7; refer to Section 4.0, Errata. No changes to the Draft EIR impact analysis or conclusions are required.
A5-5 The commenter notes that any on -site concrete crusher would require an air district permit or Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) registration and must comply with applicable fugitive dust and nuisance rules. This comment is acknowledged. The project would comply with all VCAPCD rules and regulations, including permit requirements and PERP registration. No changes to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
A5-6 The commenter states that the Air Quality Management Plan ( AQMP) consistency analysis correctly applied the population ‑based methodology in Section 4 of the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines (AQAG) and appropriately determined consistency with the AQMP’s population growth assumptions. However, the commenter notes that the Draft EIR identified an AQMP inconsistency based on exceedance of the 25 pounds per day NO
X and ROG thresholds, which VCAPCD characterizes as part of the criteria pollutant significance methodology in AQAG Section 5 and CEQA Appendix G (Impact Statement AQ‑2), rather than the AQMP consistency determination. VCAPCD recommends that these two significance determinations not be combined and that Impact Statement AQ‑1 (AQMP consistency) be revised to less than significant based on consistency with the AQMP’s population forecasts.
As discussed above, Impact Statement AQ -1 evaluates AQMP consistency in accordance with the AQAG and concludes that the project is consistent with the underlying population growth, land use patterns, and regional planning assumptions. Notwithstanding, Impact Statement AQ-2 concludes that the project is significant and unavoidable due to the exceedance of the NO
X VCAPCD threshold for operational emissions. The AQAG
specifically states that an exceedance of the NOX VCAPCD threshold would “ individually and cumulatively
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 47
jeopardize attainment of the federal one-hour ozone standard, and thus have a significant adverse impact on air quality in Ventura County.” 4 Because the purpose of the AQMP is to achieve and maintain attainment of the ozone standard, the NOX VCAPCD threshold exceedance would directly conflict with the AQMP. Therefore, although the AQAG’s AQMP consistency criteria do not rely on VCAPCD numeric thresholds, Impact Statement AQ‑1 conservatively concludes the impact would be significant and unavoidable because the project ’s NOX exceedance would directly conflict with the purpose of the AQMP to achieve and maintain ozone attainment.
No changes to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
A5-7 The commenter requests clarification on whether the Health Risk Assessment (HRA) quantified cancer risk after incorporation of MERV 13 filtration systems and recommends doing so if it has not already been evaluated.
The pollutant concentrations modeled in AERMOD represent the exposure levels outdoors. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Risk Assessment Guidelines conservatively do not include indoor exposure adjustments for residents.5 However, the typical person spends the majority of their time indoors rather than remaining outdoors in the same location for 24 hours a day.6 Therefore, the AERMOD outdoor pollutant concentrations are a conservative representative of actual exposure at the project site.
Additionally, C alifornia Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 6 requires new development to use MERV 13 air filtration on space conditioning systems and ventilation systems that provide outside air to the occupiable space of a dwelling. Therefore, the maximum cancer risk estimates presented in the Draft EIR reflect unmitigated outdoor exposure conditions and do not credit reductions associated with MERV 13 filtration systems. This information has been added to Section 4.0, Errata.
A5-8 The commenter notes that two tables are labeled as Table 5.2 -10 and suggests this may be a typographical error. The City acknowledges the typographical error identified by VCAPCD. The table numbering has been corrected in Section 4.0, Errata. This correction does not affect the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR.
4 Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines, Section 3.3.1 Criteria Pollu tants, (Page 3-2), https://www.vcapcd.org/wp-content/uploads/pubs/Planning/VCAQGuidelines.pdf, accessed April 28, 2026. 5 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, March 2015, https://oehha.ca.gov/sites/default/files/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, accessed April 28, 2026. 6 California Air Resources Board Research Division and University of California, Berkeley, Activity Patterns of California Residents, May 1991. The study indicates that, on average, adults and adolescents in California spent almost 15 hours per day inside their homes, and 6 hours in other indoor locations, for a total of 21 hours (87 percent of the day). Approximately two hours per day were spent in transit, and just over one hour per day was spent in outdoor locations.
Via Email
March 9, 2026
Krystin Rice, Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Thousand Oaks
2100 East Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
[email protected]
Re: Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report, Downtown Thousand Oaks Project (SCH 2025090621)
Dear Ms. Rice:
This comment is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) prepared for the Downtown Thousand Oaks Project (SCH 2025090621), which proposes the construction of a seven-story, 142-key hotel, a seven-story, 161-unit mixed-use building with subterranean garage, and a four-story, a 79-unit mixed-use building with subterranean garage, located at 2100 East Thousand Oaks Boulevard in the City of Thousand Oaks (“Project”).
SAFER is concerned that the DEIR fails as an informational document and fails to impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s impacts. SAFER requests that the Community Development Department address these shortcomings in a revised draft environmental impact report (“RDEIR”) and recirculate the RDEIR prior to considering approvals for the Project.
SAFER reserves the right to supplement these comments during the administrative process. Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist., 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121 (1997).
Sincerely,
Richard Drury
Lozeau Drury LLP
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 49
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER O-1
Lozeau Drury LLP, on behalf of Supports Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) Richard Drury, Partner
March 9, 2026
O1-1 The commenter is writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER). The commenter states that the Draft EIR fails as an informational document and fails to impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the project’s sign ificant environmental impacts. As such, the commenter requests that the City address the shortcomings in a revised environmental document and recirculate the document for public review prior to considering project approval. The commenter also states that they reserve the right to supplement their comments during the administrative process.
The commenter generally states that the Draft EIR has shortcomings but does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge specific information provided in the Draft EIR. It is unclear what revisions the commenter is requesting in a revised document. Therefore, for the purposes of CEQA, no further response is necessary. The commenter also states that they reserve their right to supplement their comments during the administrative process. This comment is noted, and no further response is necessary.
Sent via electronic mail to [email protected]
April 6, 2026
Krystin Rice
Community Development Dept.
Planning Division
2100 Thousand Oaks Blvd.,
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
RE: Downtown Thousand Oaks Project (CEQA-2025-70005) – Draft EIR Comments
Dear Ms. Rice,
Southern California Edison (SCE) is pleased to submit the following comments on the Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), for the Downtown Thousand Oaks Project (CEQA -2025- 70005).
SCE’s Electrical Facilities
SCE provides electric service to the City of Thousand Oaks and maintains electrical transmission and distribution facilities, as well as substations and supporting appurtenances in the City of Thousand Oaks.
General Order 131-D
The construction, modification, and relocation of transmission lines, or electrical facilities that are designed to operate at or above 50 kilovolts (kV) may be subject to the California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC) General Order 131-D
1. If the construction, modification, or relocation of
transmission lines results in significant environmental impacts, they should be identified and discussed in the Draft EIR. If not, SCE may be required to pursue a separate, mandatory CEQA review through the CPUC, which could delay approval of the SCE transmission line portion of the project for two years or longer.
Permit to Construct (PTC) & Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) In addition, please note that SCE is subject to California Public Utilities Commission General Order 131-D (GO 131-D). Electric facilities between 50kV and 200kV are subject to the CPUC’s Permit to Construct (PTC) review. For facilities subject to PTC review, or for over 200kV electric facilities subject to Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) requirements, the CPUC reviews utility PTC or CPCN applications pursuant to CEQA and serves as Lead Agency under CEQA
SCE appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Downtown Thousand Oaks Project (CEQA- 2025-70005) SCE looks forward to working and collaborating with the City of Thousand Oaks. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at [email protected] or 661.751.7453.
Regards,
1 http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/Graphics/589.PD
Stevi N Luevano
Third Party Environmental Reviews
Major Projects Division, EHSQ
Southern California Edison
2244 Walnut Grove
Rosemead CA 91770
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 52
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER O-2
Southern California Edison (SCE), Third Party Environmental Reviews, Major Projects Division, EHSQ Stevi N Luevano, Senior Specialist
April 6, 2026
O2-1 The commenter states that the construction, modification, and relocation of transmission lines, or electrical facilities that are designed to operate at or above 50 kilovolts (kV) , may be subject to the California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC) General Order 131 -D. Additionally, if the construction, modification, or relocation of a transmission line results in significant environmental impacts, these impacts should be identified and discussed in the Draft EIR. If impacts are not identified and discussed, the commenter states that separate, mandatory CEQA review through the CPUC may be required.
The proposed project would not result in the construction, modification, or relocation of SCE transmission lines or electrical facilities. As analyzed in Draft EIR Section 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems , the project would only construct new on -site private underground electrical lines, which would connect to the existing SCE electrical service line running east-west within the Thousand Oaks Boulevard right-of-way. All newly installed electrical service lines would comply with existing regulations per the 2025 Electrical Code and California Code of Regulations Title 24. Furthermore, all electrical facility installation and connection to the existing system would be done in coordination with and under the approval of SCE. The project would also be requir ed to submit a signed Method of Service agreement to SCE and pay engineering fees for an electric service study to be completed, in order to determine the infrastructure necessary to support the project’s operation. Financial responsibility for any updates or additional facilities would be in accordance with SCE’s rules and tariffs. All new development that requires new electricity lines to be installed would be required to pay applicable fees assessed by SCE to extend electricity lines to serve the project site. Additionally, the proposed project would not interfere with SCE’s access or operation of its current and future facilities. The estimated electrical demand of the project during operation would represent an insignificant percentage of SCE’s projecte d and planned capacity for annual sales. Overall, impacts to SCE electrical services would be less than significant.
O2-2 The commenter states that electrical facilities between 50 kV and 200 kV are subject to the CPUC’s Permit to Construct (PTC) review. For facilities subject to PTC review, or for over 200 kV electric facilities subject to Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) requirements, the CPUC reviews utility PTC or CPCN applications pursuant to CEQA and serves as lead agency under CEQA.
As analyzed in the Draft EIR and described in Response to Comment O2 -1 above, the project would only construct new on-site private underground electrical lines, which would connect to the existing SCE electrical service line running east-west within the Thousand Oaks Boulevard right-of-way. The proposed project would not necessitate the construction of electrical facilities between 50 kV and 200 kV and would not be subject to CPUC review. As such, no further response is necessary.
Outlook
" Notice of Availability Downtown Thousand Oaks Project" From Eddie Saremi <[email protected]>
Date Thu 3/12/2026 2:49 PM
To Krystin Rice <[email protected]>; Akbar Alikhan <[email protected]>; Kevin Kohan <[email protected]>; Nicholas Saremi <[email protected]>
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Krystin ,
We have received City Of Thousand Oaks "Notice Of Application " for Downtown Thousand Oaks Project dated March 5, 2026 by mail.
In this proposal we have noticed that our property ( Parcel Number 670-0-182-050 , 1868 East Thousand Oaks Blvd. ) has been mentioned
to be a part of City Of Thousand Oaks Downtown Master plan.
Unfortunately , even though we are pro development we have not come to any final agreement despite of multiple periods of negotiations
with City Of Thousand Oaks at this current time.
We have an established dental practice of over 35 years in this town (23 years in this current location : 1868 Thousand Oaks Blvd)
and by giving up our parking spaces , it will directly impact our dental practice and business which we can not afford.
Please consider this letter as our disagreement for any portion of our property or our common easement to be utilized as
part of
the City Of Thousand Oaks Downtown master plan until the "Saremi Family Trust" and "Saremi Johnstone Family Dentistry" have
a final mutual agreement with the City Of Thousand Oaks .
Thank you for your cooperation and understanding. We look forward to hear from you.
Eddie and Daria Saremi
805-341-4149
Saremi Johnstone Dentistry
1868 Thousand Oaks Blvd.
Thousand Oaks , Ca. 91362
805-496-7776
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 54
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER I-1
Saremi Johnstone Dentistry
Eddie and Daria Saremi, Property Owners
March 12, 2026
I1-1 The commenter notes that the property at 1868 East Thousand Oaks Boulevard is included as part of the City of Thousand Oaks Downtown Master Plan and states that no final agreement has been reached as part of ongoing acquisition negotiations. The commenter disagrees with the 1868 East Thousand Oaks Boulevard property being included as part of the City of Thousand Oaks Downtown Master Plan before a final mutual agreement with the City of Thousand Oaks.
This comment is acknowledged; however, n egotiations, compensation, and acquisition procedures are not environmental issues and are governed by separate legal processes and procedures. Moreover, the decision whether to approve the project is ultimately a policy and legislative decision of the City Council (based on a recommendation received from the Thousand Oaks Planning Commission). To that end, while property acquisition is not a CEQA environmental impact, the City of Thousand Oaks decision makers will c onsider all comments on the proposed project before taking final action. 1 From: Squarespace <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2026 6:38 PM
To: Downtown
Subject: Form Submission - Contact Us
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Sent via form submission from Downtown Thousand Oaks
Name: karina rabadan
Email:
Phone:
Message: when is city hall public hearing?
Email opt-in: I would like to receive occasional updates from the City of Thousand Oaks about the Downtown Project.
Manage Submissions
Does this submission look like spam? Report it here.
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 56
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER I-2
Karina Rabadan
March 22, 2026
I2-1 The commenter requests information regarding the city hall public hearing s for the proposed project . This comment is acknowledged. Scheduled public hearings on the proposed project include the Thousand Oaks Planning Commission hearing on May 18, 2026, and the Thousand Oaks City Council hearing on June 23, 2026.
Additionally, the commenter has been added to the City’s list for future public notices regarding the proposed project. For the purposes of CEQA, no further response is necessary.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 58
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER I-3
Ana Rabadan
March 22, 2026
I3-1 The commenter requests information regarding the city hall public hearing s for the proposed project . This comment is acknowledged. Scheduled public hearings on the proposed project include the Thousand Oaks Planning Commission hearing on May 18, 2026, and the Thousand Oaks City Council hearing on June 23, 2026.
Additionally, the commenter has been added to the City’s list for future public notices regarding the proposed project. For the purposes of CEQA, no further response is necessary.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 60
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER I-4
Kathy Zetterberg
March 26, 2026
I4-1 The commenter requests information regarding the city council meeting for the proposed project . This comment is acknowledged. Scheduled public hearings on the proposed project include the Thousand Oaks Planning Commission hearing on May 18, 2026, and the Thousand Oaks City Council hearing on June 23, 2026.
Additionally, the commenter has been added to the City’s list for future public notices regarding the proposed project. For the purposes of CEQA, no further response is necessary.
From: Dominique
To: [email protected]; Downtown
Subject: Comments on Downtown TO Development
Date: Monday, April 13, 2026 5:14:44 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I am writing to share my comments on the Downtown project that is proposed at 2100 E Thousand Oaks Blvd.
I have lived in the Conejo valley since I was in the 5th grade. I am now 63 years old.
I love living in this area because it still has the remnants of a small town feel. The parking and traffic hasn't yet become a nightmare like it is in the valley or elsewhere in Los Angeles. There are still small mom and pop owned stores that line T.O. Blvd. even though they might be in small strip malls. This is what makes our town unique.
We don't want 7 story apartment buildings and hotels being built here. The traffic that would be created on TO Blvd. would be insane. I don't know anyone who agrees with the 53 trees being cut down either. They are protected for a reason. Find a way to keep them or scrap the project. The project needs to be scaled down and completely reimagined if it should proceed at all. I know that I am not in the minority on this matter. Please hold a public hearing and make sure that it is posted with plenty of time so that people can come and make their voices heard.
Thank you,
Dominique Simon
Tel:
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 62
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER I-5
Dominique Simon
April 13, 2026
I5-1 The commenter states that 7-story apartment buildings and hotels aren’t needed and that the traffic created as a result of those structures would be substantial. As analyzed throughout Draft EIR Section 5.0, Environmental Analysis, and Section 6.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant and unavoidable environmental impacts with the implementation of recommended mitigation, other than air quality and transportation. Despite compli ance with recommended mitigation measures (MMs), including MM-AQ-1, MM-AQ-2, and MM-AQ-3, air quality-related impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Transportation- related impacts would also remain significant and unavoidable, and mitigation measures would not be feasible. As such, the City of Thousand Oaks would be required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, determining that the project’s specifi c economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits outweigh its significant and unavoidable air quality and transportation impacts.
I5-2 The commenter states that the trees proposed for removal should be protected in place, or the project should be scrapped. As analyzed in Draft EIR Section 5.3, Biological Resources, the proposed project would require the removal of and encroachment into on -site trees protected under the City’s Oak and Landmark Tree Preservation and Protection ordinances. In order to comp ly with the City ordinances, the proposed project would mitigate the removal of and encroachment into protected trees by planting three mitigation trees for every protected tree that is removed or faces major “severe” encroachment impacts. Specifically, the proposed project would comply with the Ordinances and Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines through the implementation of MM-BIO-4, which requires compliance with the Tree Protection Plan. Because the project would comply with the Ordinances, the pr oposed project would be consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Implementation of MM-BIO-4 would ensure the proposed project does not conflict with the General Plan’s goals and policies related to oak and landmark trees. Nonetheless, the decision on whether to approve the project is ultimately a policy and legislative decision of the City Council (based on a recommendation from the Planning Commission). The Draft EIR is created to identify and inform the Planning Commission and the City Council of the environmental impacts of that decision before it is made, so that these entities are fully informed. To that end, while the commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR, t he City of Thousand Oaks decision makers will consider all comments on the proposed project. For the purposes of CEQA, no further response is necessary.
I5-3 The commenter states that the project should be scaled down and reimagined. A range of alternatives is discussed in Draft EIR Section 8.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project. The decision whether to approve the project is ultimately a policy and legislative decision of the City Council (based on a recommendation from the Planning Commission). The Draft EIR is created to identify and inform the Planning Commission and the City Council of the environmental impacts of that decision before it is made, so that these entities are fully informed. To that end, while the commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR, the City of Thousand Oaks decision makers will consider all comments on the proposed project. For the purposes of CEQA, no further response is necessary.
I5-4 The commenter requests that a public hearing be held with plenty of notice so that the public may attend and voice their opinions . This comment is acknowledged. Scheduled public hearings on the proposed project include the Thousand Oaks Planning Commission hearing on May 18, 2026, and the Thousand Oaks City Council hearing on June 23, 2026. Additionally, the commenter has been added to the City’s list for future public notices regarding the proposed project. For the purposes of CEQA, no further response is necessary.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 64
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER I-6
Michele Frey
April 13, 2026
I6-1 The commenter requests information regarding what would happen to the current Thousand Oaks Boulevard and the businesses located along the corridor. As analyzed in Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, the proposed project would primarily occur on a site which is currently developed with the 129-foot-tall, 208,920- square-foot Civic Arts Plaza, which is currently occupied with a variety of uses, including the existing City Hall government offices, police outpost, County Clerk offices, an 1,800 -seat per forming arts complex (Kavli Theatre), a 394-seat mid-size theatre (Scherr Forum), and several outdoor terraces separated by a large water feature and stepped landscape planters. A separate six-story parking structure, which contains approximately 760 parking spaces, is located close to the freeway and serves the CAP, including the existing theatres. Existing and approved development on The Lakes Development lies outside of the scope, and is not part of, the proposed project. Along the Thousand Oaks Boulevard frontage, a total of 30 diagonal parking spaces would be created along the project area’s approximately 1,000 linear feet of frontage. New 10 –19-foot-wide sidewalks would be enhanced, with 10 new parkway trees, three existing trees, planters, and other pedestrian amenities, including seat walls, benches, pedestrian drop-off areas, bike parking, and pedestrian-level lighting.
A bus pull-out area and bus shelter would be located along Thousand Oaks Boulevard, just east of the Dallas Drive/East Thousand Oaks Boulevard intersection.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 66
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER I-7
Saifuddin Tariwala
April 13, 2026
I7-1 The commenter requests information regarding underdeveloped city grounds or parks available for adoption in the Conejo Valley. The decision whether to approve the project is ultimately a policy and legislative decision of the City Council (based on a recommendation from the Planning Commission). The Draft EIR is created to identify and inform the Planning Commission and the City Council of the environmental impacts of that decision before it is made, so that these entities are fully informed. To that end, while the comme nter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR, the City of Thousand Oaks decision makers will consider all comments on the proposed project. For the purposes of CEQA, no further response is necessary.
From: Jake Zarraonandia
To: Downtown
Subject: Build TO!
Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 9:14:25 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good afternoon,
I just wanted to voice my support for development plans including the general plan amendments for the proposals surrounding Civic Arts plaza.
I am very excited at the possibility of living in a Thousand Oaks that is pro-growth, just like the Thousand Oaks my grandparents decided to settle down in 60 years ago I would love to support the project in any way I can.
Thanks,
Jake Zarraonandia
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 68
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER I-8
Jake Zarraonandia
April 14, 2026
I8-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project. The decision whether to approve the proje ct is ultimately a policy and legislative decision of the City Council (based on a recommendation from the Planning Commission). The Draft EIR is created to identify and inform the Planning Commission and the City Council of the environmental impacts of that decision before it is made, so that these entities are fully informed. To that end, while the comment er does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR, the City of Thousand Oaks decision makers will consider all comments on the proposed project. For the purposes of CEQA, no further response is necessary.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 71
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER I-9
Tara Alexandra
April 14, 2026
I9-1 The commenter generally states that the proposed project would change the character of the community, bring in heavy traffic, congestion, and overdevelopment. As analyzed throughout Draft EIR Section 5.0, Environmental Analysis, and Section 6.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant and unavoidable environmental impacts with the implementation of recommended mitigation, other than air quality and transportation. Despite compliance with recommended mitigation measures (MMs), including MM-AQ-1, MM-AQ-2, and MM-AQ-3, air quality-related impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Transpo rtation-related impacts would also remain significant and unavoidable, and mitigation measures would not be feasible . As such, the City of Thousand Oaks would be required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, determining that the project’s specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits outweigh its significant and unavoidable air quality and transportation impacts.
I9-2 The commenter states that hotels in the areas sit empty much of the time, restaurants struggle to remain open, and there are already significant amounts of apartment developments . The decision whether to approve the project is ultimately a policy and legislative decision of the City Council (based on a recommendation from the Planning Commission). The Draft EIR is created to identify and inform the Planning Commission and the City Council of the environmental impacts of that decision before it is made, so that these entities are fully informed. To that end, while the commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR, the City of Thousand Oaks decision makers will consider all comments on the proposed project. For the purposes of CEQA, no further response is necessary.
I9-3 The commenter generally states that the proposed project would result in outside traffic, attention, and decrease the overall quality of life. Moreover, the commenter states that overdevelopment would erode the qualities that make Thousand Oaks a desirable place to live. Refer to Response to Comment I9 -1 regarding traffic considerations. The decision whether to approve the project is ultimately a policy and legislative decision of the City Council (based on a recommendation from the Planning Commission ). The Draft EIR is created to identify and inform the Planning Commission and the City Council of the environmental impacts of that decision before it is made, so that these entities are fully informed. To that end, while the commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR, the City of Thousand Oaks decision makers will consider all comments on the proposed project. For the purposes of CEQA, no further response is necessary.
I9-4 The commenter generally states that Thousand Oaks Boulevard is not designated to handle the level of congestion that a destination shopping center would bring. Refer to Response to Comment I9-1.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 73
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER I-10
Tiffany D
April 14, 2026
I10-1 The commenter generally opposes the proposed project. The decision whether to approve the project is ultimately a policy and legislative decision of the City Council (based on a recommendation from the Planning Commission). The Draft EIR is created to identify and inform the Planning Commission and the City Council of the environmental impacts of that decision before it is made, so that these entities are fully informed. To that end, while the commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR, the City of Thousand Oaks decision makers will consider all comments on the proposed project. For the purposes of CEQA, no further response is necessary.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 75
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER I-11
Dale Krasnow
April 14, 2026
I11-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project and recommends that a pedestrian bridge be included as part of the proposed project, connecting the project site to the Gardens of the World. The decision whether to approve the project is ultimately a policy and legislative decision of the City Council (based on a recommendation from the Planning Commission). The Draft EIR is created to identify and inform the Planning Commission and the City Council of the environmental impacts of that decision before it is made, so that these entities are fully informed. To that end, while the commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR, the City of Thousand Oaks decision makers will consider all comments on the proposed project. For the purposes of CEQA, no further response is necessary.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 77
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER I-12
Kyle Thorsen
April 15, 2026
I12-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project and requests an interview with key city employees to discuss the project in depth. The decision whether to approve the project is ultimately a policy and legislative decision of the City Council (based on a recommendation from the Planning Commission). The Draft EIR is created to identify and inform the Planning Commission and the City Council of the environmental impacts of that decision before it is made, so that these entities are fully informed. To that end, while the commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR, the City of Thousand Oaks decision makers will consider all comments on the proposed project. For the purposes of CEQA, no further response is necessary.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 79
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER I-13
Collene Friedman
April 15, 2026
I13-1 The commenter requests information on whether the proposed project will be voted on by Thousand Oaks residents or by the governing boards . The decision whether to approve the project is ultimately a policy and legislative decision of the City Council (based on a recommendation from the Planning Commission). The Draft EIR is created to identify and inform the Planning Commission and the City Council of the environmental impacts of that decision before it is made, so that these entities are fully informed. For the purposes of CEQA, no further response is necessary.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 81
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER I-14
Amy Theaker
April 15, 2026
I14-1 The commenter generally supports the proposed project. The decision whether to approve the project is ultimately a policy and legislative decision of the City Council (based on a recommendation from the Planning Commission). The Draft EIR is created to identify and inform the Planning Commission and the City Council of the environmental impacts of that decision before it is made, so that these entities are fully informed. To that end, while the commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR, the City of Thousand Oaks decision makers will consider all comments on the proposed project. For the purposes of CEQA, no further response is necessary.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 83
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER I-15
Elias D
April 16, 2026
I15-1 The commenter requests information regarding the city hall public hearing s for the proposed project . This comment is acknowledged. Scheduled public hearings on the proposed project include the Thousand Oaks Planning Commission hearing on May 18, 2026, and the Thousand Oaks City Council hearing on June 23, 2026.
Additionally, the commenter has been added to the City’s list for future public notices regarding the proposed project. For the purposes of CEQA, no further response is necessary.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 85
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER I-16
Brynja McGrady
April 17, 2026
I16-1 The commenter requests information about the proposed developer and where they may submit their designer resume. The decision whether to approve the project is ultimately a policy and legislative decision of the City Council (based on a recommendation from the Planning Commission). The Draft EIR is created to identify and inform the Planning Commission and the City Council of the environmental impacts of that decision before it is made, so that these entities are fully informed. To that end, while the commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR, the City of Thousand Oaks decision makers will consider all comments on the proposed project. For the purposes of CEQA, no further response is necessary.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 87
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER I-17
Nicole Donahue
April 17, 2026
I17-1 The commenter generally states that existing roads are unable to support this type of development . As analyzed throughout Draft EIR Section 5.0, Environmental Analysis, and Section 6.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant and unavoidable environmental impacts with the implemen tation of recommended mitigation, other than air quality and transportation. Despite compliance with recommended mitigation measures (MMs), including MM-AQ-1, MM- AQ-2, and MM- AQ-3, air quality -related impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Trans portation- related impacts would also remain significant and unavoidable, and mitigation measures would not be feasible.
As such, the City of Thousand Oaks would be required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, determining that the project’s specific economic, legal, social, technologic al, or other benefits outweigh its significant and unavoidable air quality and transportation impacts.
I17-2 The commenter states that the proposed project would ruin the aesthetic of Thousand Oaks. Refer to Response to Comment I17-1.
I17-3 The commenter states that semi-new mixed-use buildings currently exist all over Thousand Oaks and that the buildings associated with the proposed project will be a failure, a waste of space, take away from nature, and create more crime. The decision whether to approve the project is ultimately a policy and legislative decision of the City Council (based on a recommendation from the Planning Commission). The Draft EIR is created to identify and inform the Planning Commission and the City Council of the environmental impacts of that decision before it is made, so that these entities are fully informed. To that end, while the commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR, the City of Thousand Oaks decision makers will consider all comments on the proposed project. For the purposes of CEQA, no further response is necessary.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 89
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER I-18
Louis Biancaniello
April 19, 2026
I18-1 The commenter states that the Applicant intends to “ruin the feeling of Thousand Oaks,” characterizes Thousand Oaks as a suburban escape from Los Angeles, and asserts that the project would make Thousand Oaks resemble Los Angeles. The commenter also states that the Applicant should reconsider the project and put it to a public vote.
Scheduled public hearings on the proposed project include the Thousand Oaks Planning Commission hearing on May 18, 2026, and the Thousand Oaks City Council hearing on June 23, 2026. Additionally, the commenter has been added to the City’s list for future public notices regarding the proposed project. The decision whether to approve the project is ultimately a policy and legislative decision of the City Council (based on a recommendation from the Planning Commission). The Draft EIR is created to identify and inform the Planning Commission and the City Council of the environmental impacts of that decision before it is made, so that these entities are fully informed. To that end, while the commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR, the City of Thousand Oaks decision makers will consider all comments on the proposed project. For the purposes of CEQA, no further response is necessary.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 91
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER I-19
Molly Salmon
April 20, 2026
I19-1 The commenter states their excitement for the proposed project and requests information on how to provide feedback for the project . Scheduled public hearings on the proposed project include the Thousand Oaks Planning Commission hearing on May 18, 2026, and the Thousand Oaks City Council hearing on June 23, 2026.
Additionally, the commenter has been added to the City’s list for future public notices regarding the proposed project. The decision whether to approve the project is ultimately a policy and legislative decision of the City Council (based on a recommendation from the Planning Commission). The Draft EIR is created to identify and inform the Planning Commission and the City Council of the environmental impacts of that decision before it is made, so that these entities are fully informed. To that e nd, while the commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR, the City of Thousand Oaks decision makers will consider all comments on the proposed project. For the purposes of CEQA, no further response is necessary.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 93
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER I-20
Leslie Lenko
April 21, 2026
I20-1 The commenter states that the proposed project is not in line with Thousand Oaks , including due to the proposed building materials and height. The commenter recommends that Thousand Oaks be researched more in-depth and that the project “go back to the drawing board.” Lastly, the commenter requests that their email be forwarded to the Planning Commission.
As analyzed in Draft EIR Section 5.1, Aesthetics, Light, and Glare, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant and unavoidable environmental impacts regarding aesthetics, light, or glare , including building height considerations, with the implementation of recommended mitigation. Nonetheless, the decision whether to approve the project is ultimately a policy and legislative decision of the City Council (based on a recommendation from the Planning Commission). The Draft EIR is created to identify and inform the Planning Commission and the City Council of the environmental impacts of that decision before it is made, so that these entities are fully informed. To that end, while the commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR, the City of Thousand Oaks decision makers will consider all comments on the proposed project. For the purposes of CEQA, no further response is necessary.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 94
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ERRATA DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 95
4.0 Errata
Changes to the Draft EIR are depicted below. A double -underline depicts text additions, while strikethrough depicts deletions to the text. The changes depicted in Section 4.0, Errata, include responses to input from responsible agencies within Section 3.0, Responses to Comments. These changes do not affect the overall conclusions established in the Draft EIR and consist of minor changes only. It should be noted that any changes made to mitigation measures listed in the Draft EIR have also been revised in Section 5.0, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as applicable.
Draft EIR Section 5.2, Air Quality
DRAFT EIR SECTION 5.2.2, REGULATORY SETTING, VCAPCD RULES AND REGULATIONS Rule 55.2 – Street Sweeping Equipment: This rule requires the use of PM10 efficient street sweepers for routine street sweeping and for removing vehicle track -out pursuant to Rule 55. This rule would apply during all construction and operational activities.
Rule 62.7 – Asbestos – Demolition and Renovation: This rule regulates demolition and renovation activities that may disturb asbestos‑containing material (ACM) to prevent the release of asbestos fibers into ambient air. The rule applies to all demolition operations where any amount of ACM is present and to renovation activities involving 100 square feet or more of ACM, with limited excep tions for certain nonfriable materials. Prior to commencement of work, property owners or operators are required to notify VCAPCD of planned demolition or renovation activities involving asbestos, comply with specified work practice standards, and ensure that asbestos abatement is conducted by properly licensed contractors. Notifications must be submitted in advance of construction, with timing requirements that vary depending on whether the project is residential or non‑residential. Rule 62.7 is intended to minimize public and worker exposure to asbestos during construction activities and implements requirements that are consi stent with federal asbestos regulations under the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP).
DRAFT EIR SECTION 5.2.4, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES, CUMULATIVE CRITERIA POLLUTANT
EMISSIONS IMPACTS, OPERATIONS
As such, the proposed project is required to implement Mitigation Measure MM AQ -2 requiring the use of low VOC (less than or equal to 10 grams per liter) during the architectural coating phase and zero VOC cleaning supplies and Mitigation Measure MM AQ-3 requiring the project to use all electric landscaping equipment and zero VOC cleaning supplies.
Table 5.2-8
Mitigated Long-Term Operational Emissions
Emissions Source
Pollutant (pounds/day)1,2,3
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Phase 2a
Summer Emissions
Area 9.34 10.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.16 2.94 2.13 0.02 0.23 0.23
Mobile 7.90 5.99 61.78 0.17 17.72 4.56
Maximum Daily Emissions 17.42 18.15 8.93 63.91 0.19 17.95 4.79 VCAPCD Thresholds3 25 25 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A N/A N/A N/A
ERRATA DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 96
Emissions Source
Pollutant (pounds/day)1,2,3
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Winter Emissions
Area 9.34 10.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.16 2.94 2.12 0.02 0.23 0.23
Mobile 7.84 6.69 60.25 0.16 17.72 4.56
Maximum Daily Emissions 17.35 18.09 9.63 62.38 0.18 17.95 4.79 VCAPCD Thresholds3 25 25 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A N/A N/A N/A
Phase 2b
Summer Emissions
Area 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.01 0.21 0.17 0.00 0.02 0.02
Mobile 1.04 0.77 7.98 0.02 2.27 0.59
Maximum Daily Emissions 1.05 1.21 0.98 8.15 0.02 2.29 0.61 VCAPCD Thresholds3 25 25 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A N/A N/A N/A
Winter Emissions
Area 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.01 0.21 0.17 0.00 0.02 0.02
Mobile 1.00 0.87 7.80 0.02 2.27 0.59
Maximum Daily Emissions 1.01 1.16 1.08 7.97 0.02 2.29 0.61 VCAPCD Thresholds3 25 25 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A N/A N/A N/A
Phase 2c
Summer Emissions
Area 1.62 1.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.03 0.57 0.48 <0.01 0.04 0.04
Mobile 6.11 4.55 46.86 0.13 13.37 3.44
Maximum Daily Emissions 7.76 7.89 5.13 47.35 0.13 13.41 3.48 VCAPCD Thresholds3 25 25 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A N/A N/A N/A
Winter Emissions
Area 1.62 1.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.03 0.57 0.48 <0.00 0.04 0.04
Mobile 6.05 5.08 45.80 0.12 13.37 3.44
Maximum Daily Emissions 7.71 7.83 5.66 46.28 0.12 13.41 3.48 VCAPCD Thresholds3 25 25 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A N/A N/A N/A
Phase 3
Summer Emissions
Area 0.22 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy <0.01 0.13 0.11 <0.01 0.01 0.01
Mobile 0.84 0.61 6.47 0.01 1.91 0.49
Maximum Daily Emissions 1.07 1.09 0.74 6.58 0.02 1.92 0.50 VCAPCD Thresholds3 25 25 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A N/A N/A N/A
ERRATA DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 97
Emissions Source
Pollutant (pounds/day)1,2,3
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Winter Emissions
Area 0.22 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy <0.01 0.129 0.10 <0.01 0.01 0.01
Mobile 0.83 0.68 6.32 0.01 1.91 0.49
Maximum Daily Emissions 1.06 1.08 0.81 6.42 0.01 1.92 0.50 VCAPCD Thresholds3 25 25 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A N/A N/A N/A
Full-Buildout (Phase 2a, 2b, 2c and 3)
Summer Emissions
Area 11.18 12.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.20 3.85 2.89 0.02 0.30 0.30
Mobile 15.89 11.92 123.09 0.34 35.27 9.08
Maximum Daily Emissions 27.27 28.33 15.77 125.98 0.36 35.57 9.38 VCAPCD Thresholds3 25 25 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Threshold Exceeded? Yes No N/A N/A N/A N/A
Winter Emissions
Area 11.18 12.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.20 3.86 2.87 0.02 0.30 0.30
Mobile 15.72 13.32 120.17 0.31 35.27 9.08
Maximum Daily Emissions 27.10 28.16 17.18 123.04 0.33 35.57 9.38 VCAPCD Thresholds3 25 25 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Threshold Exceeded? Yes No N/A N/A N/A N/A
Notes: Refer to Appendix CAttachment 1 for assumptions used in this analysis. 1 Based on CalEEMod modeling results. Totals may be off due to rounding. 2 VCAPCD has not established thresholds for CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5. Emissions are presented for reporting purposes. 3 The emissions data modeled in CalEEMod is with the implementation of project design features, including the use of energy-efficient appliances, increase residential density, and trip reduction features. Additionally, mitigated emissions account for reductions associated with MM AQ-2 (low-VOC architectural coatings) and MM AQ-3 (low VOC cleaning supplies and all electric landscaping equipment).
ERRATA DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 98
DRAFT EIR SECTION 5.2.4, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES, CUMULATIVE CRITERIA POLLUTANT
EMISSIONS IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES
MM-AQ-3 Any development agreement or long- term lease agreement associated with any building within the project site, and in which the City is part y, shall require the use of zero VOC cleaning supplies and all landscaping equipment used on public landscape areas to utilize 100 percent electric landscaping equipment (e.g., lawnmowers, leaf blowers, hedge trimmers). In addition, for any areas within the project site that are maintained by the City, the City shall utilize zero percent VOC cleaning supplies as well as 100 percent electric equipment. All properties shall be equipped with exterior electrical outlets to accommodate the landscape equipment requirement. Provision of such electrical requirements shall be checked by the City of Thousand Oaks Building Division prior to building permit or electrical permit issuance.
DRAFT EIR SECTION 5.2.4, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES, OBJECTIONABLE ODORS EXPOSURE Further, the proposed project is also subjected to Mitigation Measure MM AQ-2 requiring the use of low VOC (less than or equal to 10 grams per liter) during the architectural coating phase and use of zero VOC cleaning supplies.
DRAFT EIR SECTION 5.2.4, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES, HEALTH RISK IMPACTS OF ON-SITE
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
The project site is located adjacent to Highway 101. The carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic hazards resulting from the DPM emissions from trucks traveling on Highway 101 adjacent to the proposed project were evaluated using the EPA AERMOD dispersion model are calculated to be within acceptable limits . The modeled pollutant concentrations represent outdoor exposure levels, and consistent with OEHHA guidance, the modeling conservatively does not apply indoor exposure adjustments for receptors. Because individuals typically spend the majority of their time indoors rather than outdoors at a single location for 24 hours per day 7, the modeled AERMOD concentrations are considered a conservative representation of actual exposure conditions at the project site.
The highest overall annual concentration of diesel exhaust from Highway 101 to the proposed project’s on-site sensitive receptors would be 0.05585 μg/m 3 and the highest calculated carcinogenic risk would be approximately 9.43 in one million at the on-site sensitive receptors. In addition, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6 requires new buildings to install MERV 13 or higher air filtration on space ‑conditioning and mechanical ventilation systems that provide outside air to habitable spaces. While MERV 13 filtration would substantially reduce indoor PM 10 concentrations by 95 percent, which includes DPM, these reductions are not accounted for in the risk calculations, which are based on unmitigated outdoor exposure assumptions. Therefore, the cancer risk estimates are conservative, and actual indoor exposures would be lower with implementation of required MERV 13 filtration. Furthermore, the project would be required to comply with the most recent Title 24 requirements, which require installation of MERV 13 air filters or higher. MERV 13 air filters would r educe PM10 concentrations by 95 percent, which would drastically lower the maximum cancer risk from DPM. Therefore Thus, carcinogenic exposures from the trucks traveling on Highway 101 are calculated to be within acceptable limits and would not exceed VCAPCD threshold of 10 in one million.
7 California Air Resources Board Research Division and University of California, Berkeley, Activity Patterns of California Residents, May 1991. The study indicates that on average, adults and adolescents in California spent almost 15 hours per day inside their homes, and 6 hours in other indoor locations, for a total of 21 hours (87 percent of the day). Approximately two hours per day were spent in transit, and just over one hour per day was spent in outdoor locations.
ERRATA DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 99
DRAFT EIR S ECTION 5.2.4, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES, CONSTRUCTION HEALTH RISK
IMPACTS OF ON-SITE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Table 5.2-1011
Project Maximum Individual Cancer Risk During Construction (Mitigated) Exposure Scenario Receptors
Maximum
Cancer Risk
(Risk per
Million)1
Significance
Threshold
(Risk per
Million)
Exceeds
Significance
Threshold?
Phase 1 Maximum Off-Site Receptor 2.37 10 No
Phase 2a Maximum Off-Site Receptor 2.03 10 No
Phase 2b Maximum Off-Site Receptor 2.60 10 No
Phase 2c Maximum Off-Site Receptor 1.61 10 No
Phase 3 Maximum Off-Site Receptor 0.18 10 No
Total Maximum Of Overlapping
Construction Phases (Phase 2a+Phase
2b+Phase 2c)
Residential
Sensitive Receptor 6.24 10 No
Total Maximum from All Construction
Phases
Off-Site Receptor 8.79 10 No
Source: Refer to Appendix CAttachment 1 for assumptions used in this analysis.
Notes:
1 Refer to Appendix CAttachment 1.
ERRATA DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 100
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 101
5.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
CEQA requires that when a public agency completes an environmental document that includes measures to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects, the public agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program. This requirement ensures that environmental impacts found to be significant will be mitigated. The reporting or monitoring program must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6).
In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, Table 5-1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, has been prepared for the Downtown Thousand Oaks Project (proposed project). This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist is intended to provide verification that all applicable mitigation measures rela tive to significant environmental impacts are monitored and reported. Monitoring will include: 1) verification that each mitigation measure/standard condition/project design feature has been implemented; 2) recordation of the actions taken to implement each mitigation measure; and 3) retention of records in the Downtown Thousand Oaks project file.
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) delineates responsibilities for monitoring the proposed project and allows the City of Thousand Oaks flexibility and discretion in determining how best to monitor implementation. This MMRP documents how and when the mitigation measures adopted by the lead agency will be implemented and confirms that potential environmental impacts are reduced to less than significant levels as identified in the EIR. Monitoring procedures will vary according to the type of mitigation measure, standard condition, or project design feature. Adequate monitoring consists of demonstrating that monitoring procedures took place and that mitigation measures were implemented. This includes the review of all monitoring reports, enforcement actions, and document disposition, unless otherwise noted in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist (Table 5-1). In case of discrepancies between the text of the EIR and the MMRP, the text of the MMRP shall take precedence. If an adopted mitigation measure, standard condition, or project design feature is not being properly implemented, the designated monitoring personnel shall require corrective actions to ensure adequate implementation.
Reporting consists of establishing a record that a mitigation measure, standard condition, or project design feature is being implemented, and generally involves the following steps:
• The City distributes reporting forms to the appropriate entities for verification of compliance. • Departments/agencies with reporting responsibilities will review the Draft EIR and Final EIR, which provide general background information on the reasons for including specified mitigation measures/standard conditions/project design features.
• Problems or exceptions to compliance will be addressed to the City as appropriate. • Periodic meetings may be held during project implementation to report on compliance of mitigation measures/standard conditions/project design features.
• Responsible parties provide the City with verification that monitoring has been conducted and ensure, as applicable, that mitigation measures/standard conditions/project design features have been implemented.
Monitoring compliance may be documented through existing review and approval programs such as field inspection reports and plan review.
• The City prepares a reporting form periodically during the construction phase and an annual report summarizing all project mitigation monitoring efforts.
• Appropriate mitigation measures, standard conditions, and project design features will be included in construction documents and/or conditions of permits/approvals.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 102
Minor changes to the MMRP, if required, would be made in accordance with CEQA and would be permitted after further review and approval by the City. No change will be permitted unless the MMRP continues to satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.
The following subsections of the Draft EIR contain detailed environmental analyses of the existing conditions, project impacts (including direct and indirect, short -term, long -term, and cumulative impacts), recommended mitigation measures, standard conditions, project design features, and significant unavoidable impacts, if any.
In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the following environmental issue areas were determined to have no significant impacts and have been addressed in Draft EIR Section 6.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant:
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources
• Mineral Resources
In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the following environmental issue areas were determined to have less than significant impacts without the incorporation of mitigation measures and have been analyzed within the Draft EIR:
• Aesthetics, Light, and Glare (Impact AES-1: Scenic Vistas and Impact AES-2: State Scenic Highways); • Air Quality (Impact AQ-4: Objectionable Odors Exposure); • Biological Resources (Impact BIO-2: Sensitive Natural Communities or Riparian Habitat, Impact BIO-3: State or Federally Protected Waters and Wetlands, Impact BIO- 4: Fish and Wildlife Movement Corridors, and Impact BIO-6: Habitat/Natural Community Conservation Plan Consistency); • Energy;
• Geology and Soils (Impact GEO -2: Soil Erosion or Topsoil Loss and Impact GEO -5: Septic Tanks or Alternative Wastewater Disposal Systems);
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Impact GHG -2: Conflict With Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation that Reduces Greenhouse Gas Emissions);
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials;
• Hydrology and Water Quality;
• Land Use and Planning;
• Noise (Impact NOI -2: Groundborne Vibration/Noise Levels and Impact NOI -3: Excessive Noise Levels from Airport Activity);
• Population and Housing;
• Public Services and Recreation;
• Transportation (Impact T-1: Conflict with Local Program, Plan, Ordinance, or Policy, Impact T-3: Roadway Safety Hazards, and Impact T-4: Emergency Access);
• Utilities and Services Systems; and
• Wildfire.
In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the following environmental issue areas were determined to have a potentially significant impact prior to implementation of standard conditions, but less than significant with the incorporation of standard conditions, and have been analyzed within the Draft EIR:
• Cultural Resources (Impact CUL-3: Burial Sites)
o Standard Condition – Compliance with California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 103
In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the following environmental issue areas were determined to have a potentially significant impact prior to mitigation, but less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures/standard conditions, and have been analyzed within the Draft EIR:
• Aesthetics, Light, and Glare (Impact AES-3: Consistency with Scenic Quality Regulations and Visual Character, and Impact AES-4: Light and Glare)
o MM-BIO-4: Tree Protection Plan Compliance
o MM-AES-1: Photometric Plan
• Air Quality (Impact AQ-3: Sensitive Receptors Exposure to Toxic Air Contaminant Concentrations) o MM-AQ-1: Tier 4 Construction Equipment
• Biological Resources (Impact BIO -1: Special- Status Species and Impact BIO -5: Local Biological Resources Policies/Ordinance Consistency)
o MM-BIO-1: Pre-Construction Bird Surveys
o MM-BIO-2: Special-Status Bat Species Habitat Assessment Survey and Emergence Survey(s) o MM-BIO-3: Pre-Construction Crotch’s Bumble Bee Surveys o MM-BIO-4: Tree Protection Plan Compliance
• Cultural Resources (Impact CUL-1: Historic Resources and Impact CUL-2: Archaeological Resources) o MM-CUL-1: Worker Environmental Awareness Program
o MM-CUL-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources • Geology and Soils (Impact GEO -1: Seismic -Related Hazards, Impact GEO -3: Unstable Geologic Unit or Soil, Impact GEO-4: Expansive Soils, and Impact GEO-6: Paleontological Resources) o MM-GEO-1: Geotechnical Investigation Recommendations
o MM-GEO-2: Technical Paleontological Assessment
• Greenhouse Gases (Impact GHG-1: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Generation) o MM-AQ-2 and MM-AQ-3
• Noise (Impact NOI-1: Substantial Noise Increase In Excess of Standards) o MM-NOI-1: Project-Specific Detailed Noise Impact Study for Amphitheatre o Standard Condition – Compliance with Policy N-3.2 of General Plan Noise Element • Tribal Cultural Resources (Impact TCR-1: Tribal Cultural Resources) o MM-CUL-1 and MM-CUL-2
o Standard Condition – Compliance with California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the following environmental issue areas were determined to have significant and unavoidable impacts despite the implementation of existing regulations, mitigation measures, and/or project design features, and have been analyzed within the Draft EIR:
• Air Quality (Impact AQ-1: Air Quality Management Plan [AQMP] Consistency, Impact AQ-2: Cumulative Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions, and Cumulative Air Quality Impacts) o MM-AQ-1: Tier 4 Construction Equipment
o MM-AQ-2: Architectural Coatings
o MM-AQ-3: Electric Landscaping Equipment
• Transportation (Impact T-2: Vehicle Miles Traveled [VMT] and Cumulative VMT Impacts) o Project Design Feature – Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Strategies and VMT Reduction Strategies
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 104
Table 5-1
Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure/Standard
Condition/Project Design
Feature
Timing of
Implementation
Implementation
Responsibility
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
MM-AES-1 Photometric Plan: The project
applicant shall retain a licensed
Professional Engineer to prepare a
photometric plan, to be submitted
to the City of Thousand Oaks, for
review and approval prior to
issuance of building permits
demonstrating compliance with
the California Gre en Building
Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11
(CALGreen). With the exception of
bollard and similar ground- level
lighting, all exterior lighting shall
be shielded and downcast to
minimize light trespass and glare
on adjacent residential properties
while pr oviding the minimum
required lighting to meet safety
standards.
Prior to Issuance
of Building
Permits
Applicant Submittal of a
Photometric Plan
Prior to Issuance
of Building
Permits
City of Thousand
Oaks Community
Development
Department
Air Quality
MM-AQ-1 The Construction Contractor shall
ensure that off -road diesel
construction equipment of 50
horsepower (HP) or greater shall
comply with EPA/CARB Tier 4
emissions standards or equivalent
and shall ensure that all
construction equipment is tuned
Prior to Initiation
of Construction
Activities; During
Construction
Applicant;
Construction
Contractor
Submittal of an
equipment
inventory;
Submittal of a
Certification
Statement
Prior to Initiation
of Construction
Activities; During
Construction
City of Thousand
Oaks Community
Development
Department;
VCAPCD
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 105
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure/Standard
Condition/Project Design
Feature
Timing of
Implementation
Implementation
Responsibility
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
and maintained in accordance
with the manufacturer’s
specifications. This requirement
shall be verified through submittal
of an equipment inventory that
includes the following
information: (1) Type of
Equipment, (2) Engine Year and
Age, (3) Number of Years Since
Rebuild of Engine (if applicable),
(4) Type of Fuel Used, (5) Engine
HP, (6) Verified Diesel Emission
Control Strategy (VDECS)
information if applicable and other
related equipment data. A
Certification Statement is also
required to be made by the
Contractor for documentation of
compliance and for future review
by the VCAPCD, as necessary. The
Certification Statement must state
that the Contractor agrees to
compliance and acknowledges
that a violation of this requirement
shall constitute a material breach
of contract.
MM-AQ-2 Prior to the issuance of a building
permit, the Applicant shall
demonstrate that the project’s
architectural coatings will be
“Super Compliant” or have a
volatile organic compound (VOC)
Prior to Issuance
of Building
Permits
Applicant Satisfactory
demonstration of
“Super Compliant”
architectural
coatings
Prior to Issuance
of Building
Permits
City of Thousand
Oaks Community
Development
Department
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 106
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure/Standard
Condition/Project Design
Feature
Timing of
Implementation
Implementation
Responsibility
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
standard of less than 10 grams per
liter.
MM-AQ-3 Any development agreement or
long-term lease agreement
associated with any building within
the project site, and in which the
City is party, shall require all
landscaping equipment used on
public landscape areas to utilize
100 percent electric landscaping
equipment (e.g., lawnmowers, leaf
blowers, hedge trimmers). In
addition, for any areas within the
project site that are maintained by
the City, the City shall utilize 100
percent electric landscaping
equipment. All properties shall be
equipped with exterior electrical
outlets to accommodate the
landscape equipment
requirement. Provision of such
electrical requirements shall be
checked by the City of Thousand
Oaks Building Division prior to
building permit or electrical permit
issuance.
Upon execution
of development
agreement(s)
and/or long-term
lease
agreement(s);
During project
operation; Prior
to Issuance of
Building or
Electrical Permits
Applicant; City of
Thousand Oaks
Confirmation that
the development
agreement(s)
and/or long -
term
lease agreements
include contractual
language required.
On-site inspection
by the City of
Thousand Oaks
Building Division to
verify the
installation of
exterior electrical
outlets.
Upon execution
of development
agreement(s)
and/or long-
term
lease
agreement(s);
Prior to Issuance
of Building or
Electrical Permits
City of Thousand
Oaks Community
Development
Department; City of
Thousand Oaks
Building Division
Biological Resources
MM-BIO-1 Conduct Pre -Construction Bird
Surveys and Implement
Avoidance and Minimization
Measures: For construction
activities initiated during the bird
Prior to Initiation
of Construction
Activities,
Vegetation
Removal, and/or
Qualified
Biologist;
Construction
Contractor;
Applicant;
Submittal of
Report(s) on
Nesting Bird Pre -
Construction
Survey(s)
Prior to Initiation
of Construction
Activities; During
Construction
City of Thousand
Oaks Community
Development
Department
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 107
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure/Standard
Condition/Project Design
Feature
Timing of
Implementation
Implementation
Responsibility
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
nesting season February 15
through September 15 (as early as
January 1 for raptors), involving
removal of vegetation, abandoned
structures, man-made features, or
other nesting bird habitat, a pre-
construction nesting bird survey
shall be conducted no more than
five (5) days prior to initiation of
ground disturbance and
vegetation removal. The nesting
bird pre-construction survey shall
be conducted on foot and shall
include an area on and around the
construction site at a distance
determined by a qualified
biologist, including staging and
storage areas. The minimum
survey radii surrounding the work
area shall be 500 feet. The survey
shall be conducted by a qualified
biologist familiar with the
identification of avian species
known to occur in the Thousand
Oaks region. If construction lapses
for five (5) days or longer, the
qualified biologist shall conduct
another focused survey before
project activities are reinitiated. If
nests are found, an avoidance
buffer shall be determined by the
biologist dependent upo n the
Ground
Disturbing
Activities; During
Construction
Construction
Personnel
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 108
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure/Standard
Condition/Project Design
Feature
Timing of
Implementation
Implementation
Responsibility
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
species, the proposed work
activity, and existing disturbances
associated with land uses outside
the site. The qualified biologist
shall observe the active nest to
establish a behavioral baseline of
the adults and nestlings, if present.
The qualified biolo gist shall
monitor the active nests while
construction activities are
happening to detect signs of
disturbance and behavioral
change as a result of construction
impacts, such as noise, vibration,
odors, or worker/equipment
motion. If signs of disturbance and
behavioral changes are observed,
the qualified biologist shall stop all
construction work causing those
changes until a larger avoidance
buffer is established or until it is
determined that the nesting
period is completed. The buffer
shall be demarcated by the
biologist with bright orange
construction flagging,
construction lathe, or other means
to demarcate the boundary. All
construction personnel shall be
notified of the buffer zone as a
“Nesting Bird Area” and shall avoid
entering the buffer zone unti l a
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 109
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure/Standard
Condition/Project Design
Feature
Timing of
Implementation
Implementation
Responsibility
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
biologist determines that the nest
is no longer active. No ground-
disturbing activities shall occur
within the buffer until the biologist
has confirmed that
breeding/nesting is completed
and the young have fledged the
nest. A report summarizing the
pre-construction survey(s) shall be
prepared by a qualified biologist
and be included on project site
plans and submitted to the City
prior to the commencement of
construction activities.
MM-BIO-2 Special-Status Bat Species Habitat
Assessment Survey and
Emergence Survey(s): For
construction activities where
trees, abandoned structures, or
other habitat for roosting bats is
present and construction activities
may occur during seasonal periods
of bat activity, construction
activities shall occur outside the
maternity season fro m April 1
through August 31, as feasible.
Should construction timing not
allow for it, a special- status bat
habitat assessment survey shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist
no more than five (5) days prior to
any construction activities during
Prior to Initiation
of Construction
Activities,
Vegetation
Removal,
Demolition,
and/or Ground
Disturbing
Activities; During
Construction
Qualified
Biologist;
Construction
Contractor;
Applicant
Submission of
Special-Status Bat
Species Habitat
Assessment
Survey(s);
Submission of
Special-Status Bat
Species Emergence
Survey(s), if
necessary;
Submission and
Approval of Bat
Mitigation and/or
Management Plan,
if necessary
Prior to Initiation
of Construction
Activities; During
Construction
City of Thousand
Oaks Community
Development
Department; CDFW
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 110
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure/Standard
Condition/Project Design
Feature
Timing of
Implementation
Implementation
Responsibility
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
the bat maternity season. The
survey shall document any
evidence of special- status bat
species that may occur in
proposed work areas through
direct observation (e.g., roosting
bats) and/or sign(s) (e.g., bat
guano). If no observance and/or
sign(s) of speci al-status bats are
detected during these surveys,
then construction- related
activities may proceed. If
observance or sign(s) of special -
status bat species are detected
during the survey, and
construction activities occur
during the bat maternity season
(April 1 through August 31),
special-status bat species
emergence survey(s) shall be
conducted.
Emergence surveys shall be
conducted in areas of suitable bat
habitat (e.g., near buildings or
trees) during the bat maternity
season to document any special-
status bat species emerging from
features identified during the
habitat assessment survey.
Generally, the emergence
survey(s) shall be conducted
approximately one hour prior to
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 111
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure/Standard
Condition/Project Design
Feature
Timing of
Implementation
Implementation
Responsibility
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
sunset and last a minimum of two
hours after sunset; however, the
timing shall be determined by the
qualified biologist. Passive
acoustic monitoring equipment
shall be utilized during the
emergence surveys to identify
bats to the species level. In the
event multiple features were
identified in the habitat
assessment in which bats may
occur, at the discretion of the
qualified biologist, either multiple
emergency surveys may be
necessary or additional acoustic
equipment may need to be set up
in order to capture the acoustics of
bats as they emerge at dusk.
Roosting sites documented within
or adjacent to a project site during
the maternity season shall be
avoided. Specifically, the qualified
biologist shall determine an
appropriate buffer around the
roost site where construction shall
be avoided. The buffer typically
ranges in size, between 100 to 300
feet around the roost site,
depending on potential resulting
project impacts and surrounding
terrain. For example, if the project
will result in high noise decibel s
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 112
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure/Standard
Condition/Project Design
Feature
Timing of
Implementation
Implementation
Responsibility
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
and the roost site is exposed
without surrounding trees or hills,
the buffer may be increased to
reduce disturbances to the
roosting bats during breeding
activities. Buffer distances may
also be at the discretion of the
CDFW if special-status bat species
are present in the maternity roost.
Should special-status bat species
be documented within the project
site, and the roost site cannot be
avoided by the project, a bat
mitigation and/or management
plan shall be developed for roost
relocation. Mitigation and
management plans will require
consultation with and approval
from the CDFW prior to the
commencement of construction.
MM-BIO-3 Conduct Pre -construction
Crotch’s Bumble Bee Surveys and
Implement Avoidance Measures:
For construction activities located
in vacant or undeveloped areas
containing open grasslands,
shrublands, or chaparral, a habitat
assessment for Crotch’s bumble
bee shall be performed by a
qualified biologist knowledgeable
and experienced with Crotch’s
bumble bee and the habitat in
Prior to Initiation
of Construction
Activities
Qualified
Biologist;
Applicant
Submission of
Habitat
Assessment;
Submission of
Report on Habitat
Assessment and
Focused Crotch’s
Bumble Bee
Survey, if
necessary;
Incidental Take
Permit, if necessary
Prior to Initiation
of Construction
Activities
City of Thousand
Oaks Community
Development
Department; CDFW,
if necessary
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 113
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure/Standard
Condition/Project Design
Feature
Timing of
Implementation
Implementation
Responsibility
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
which they occur. If the biologist
determines that suitable habitat
for Crotch’s bumble bee is
present, a focused survey shall be
performed during the species’
active flight period for Crotch’s
bumble bee and peak blooming
period of nectar and pollen
sources (May 1 through July 31).
The Crotch’s bumble bee survey
shall be conducted on foot and
shall encompass the entirety of
the project site and focus on areas
that allow for the highest
probability of detection, such as
high abundance nectar or pollen
sources and rodent burrows that
may be used for breeding and
nesting. If Crotch’s bumble bee is
determined to be present, the
project proponent shall map the
locations of the observed
bumblebee, areas of abundant
nectar or pollen sources, and any
active nesting sites. A report
summarizing the results of the
habitat assessment and focused
survey (if required) shall be
prepared by the qualified biologist
and shall be submitted to the City
prior to the commencement of
construction activities. Further,
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 114
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure/Standard
Condition/Project Design
Feature
Timing of
Implementation
Implementation
Responsibility
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
consultation with the CDFW will
be necessary in the event Crotch’s
bumble bee was observed within
the project site and an Incidental
Take Permit, in accordance with
the California Endangered Species
Act, may be required prior to
initiating any ground disturbance
on the site.
MM-BIO-4 Tree Protection Plan Compliance:
The proposed project shall comply
with the requirements of the Tree
Protection Plan, prepared by
Bancroft Construction Services,
dated January 9, 2026, available in
Appendix E.
Prior to Initiation
of Construction
Activities; During
Construction;
Prior to Tree
Relocation
ISA Certified
Arborist;
Construction
Personnel;
Applicant;
Construction
Contractor; Oak
and Landmark
Tree
Preservation
Consultant
On-site Supervision
by Arborist;
Submission of
Certification
Letter(s) for all
Work Conducted
Upon Oak and
Landmark Trees;
Submission of
Annual Report on
Protected Trees by
Arborist; Approval
of Irrigation
Schedule and
Maintenance Plan;
Payment of
Refundable Cash
Security Deposit
Prior to Initiation
of Construction
Activities; During
Construction;
Prior to Tree
Relocation; 5
Years Following
Project
Completion
City of Thousand
Oaks Community
Development
Department; ISA
Certified Arborist;
Landscape Architect,
if necessary
Cultural Resources
MM-CUL-1 Worker Environmental
Awareness Program: Worker
Environmental Awareness
Program (WEAP) training shall be
Prior to Initiation
of Construction
Activities/Ground
Applicant;
Construction
Contractor;
Construction
Submission of
Documentation
Proving
Attendance of
Prior to Initiation
of Construction
Activities/Ground
City of Thousand
Oaks Community
Development
Department
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 115
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure/Standard
Condition/Project Design
Feature
Timing of
Implementation
Implementation
Responsibility
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
provided to all construction
personnel and monitors who are
not trained archaeologists prior to
the start of construction activities.
A basic presentation and handout
or pamphlet shall be prepared to
ensure proper identification and
treatment of inadvertent cultural
resource discoveries. The purpose
of the WEAP training is to provide
specific details on the kinds of
cultural materials, both prehistoric
and historic, that may be identified
during construction of the project
and explain the importance of and
legal basis for the protection of
cultural resources. Each worker
shall also be provided with the
proper procedures to follow in the
event that cultural resources or
human remains are discovered
during ground -disturbing
activities. These procedures
include work curtailment or
redirection, and the immediate
notification of the site supervisor
and the qualified archaeological
and Native American monitors. If
the discovery is Native American, a
Native American monitor shall be
notified. The Applicant shall
ensure that construction
-Disturbing
Activities
Personnel;
Qualified
Archaeologist
Personnel at the
WEAP Training
-Disturbing
Activities
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 116
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure/Standard
Condition/Project Design
Feature
Timing of
Implementation
Implementation
Responsibility
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
personnel are made available for
and attend the training and retain
documentation demonstrating
attendance.
MM-CUL-2 Unanticipated Discovery of
Cultural Resources: The project
applicant shall retain a qualified
archaeologist who meets the
Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualifications
Standards for archaeology and has
experience in California
prehistoric and historic resources,
prior to the start of any earthwork
activities related to project
construction, to monitor all
ground-disturbing activities within
the areas of native soil (i.e., below
existing areas of artificial fill from
previous construction). In the
event that potential prehistoric or
historic-era archaeological
resources (sites, features, or
artifacts) are exposed during
construction activities for the
project, all construction work
occurring within a 50-foot buffer
of the find shall immediately stop,
and a qualified archaeologist must
be notified immediately to assess
the significance of the find and
determine whether or not
Prior to Initiation
of Ground -
Disturbing
Activities; During
Grading Activities
Applicant;
Qualified
Archaeologist;
Construction
Contractor
On-site Supervision
by Qualified
Archaeologist;
Submission of
Archaeological
Monitoring Report;
Submission of an
Archaeological
Treatment Plan, if
necessary
Prior to Initiation
of Ground -
Disturbing
Activities; During
Grading Activities
City of Thousand
Oaks Community
Development
Department,
Consulting Tribes,
if necessary
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 117
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure/Standard
Condition/Project Design
Feature
Timing of
Implementation
Implementation
Responsibility
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
additional study is warranted.
Depending on the significance of
the find under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
the archaeologist may simply
record the find and allow work to
continue. If the discovery proves
significant under CEQA, additional
work (e.g., preparation of an
archaeological treatment plan,
testing, or data recovery) may be
warranted. If it is determined that
the discovered archaeological
resource constitutes a significant
resource, avoidance and
preservation in place is the
preferred manner of mitigation.
Preservation in place may be
accomplished by, but is not limited
to, avoidance, incorporating the
resource into open space, capping,
or deeding the site into a
permanent conservation
easement. If Native American
resources are d iscovered or are
suspected, each of the consulting
tribes for the project shall be
notified, as dictated by California
Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5, California Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98,
and CEQA Guidelines Section
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 118
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure/Standard
Condition/Project Design
Feature
Timing of
Implementation
Implementation
Responsibility
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
15064.5(e). An archaeological
monitoring report shall be
prepared within 60 days following
completion of ground disturbance
and submitted to the City of
Thousand Oaks Community
Development Director for review.
This report shall document
compliance with app roved
mitigation, document the
monitoring efforts, and include an
appendix with daily monitoring
logs. The final report shall be
submitted to the South- Central
Coastal Information Center and
interested consulting tribes.
Standard
Condition for
Impact CUL -
3 Compliance with California Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98
regarding the inadvertent
discovery of human
remains/burial sites.
During Grading
Activities
Applicant;
Qualified
Archaeologist
On-site Supervision
by Qualified
Archaeologist
During Grading
Activities
Native American
Heritage
Commission, if
necessary; County
Coroner, if necessary
Geology And Soils
MM-GEO-1 Geotechnical Investigation
Recommendations: Prior to
issuance of a grading permit, the
project applicant shall
demonstrate, to the satisfaction of
the City of Thousand Oaks Public
Works Department, that the
recommendations for design and
construction identified in the
Geotechnical Investigation,
Prior to Issuance
of Grading
Permit(s)
Applicant Satisfactory
Incorporation of
the
Recommendations
of the Geotechnical
Investigation into
the Project Design,
Grading, and
Building Plans.
Prior to Issuance
of Grading
Permit(s)
City of Thousand
Oaks Public Works
Department
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 119
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure/Standard
Condition/Project Design
Feature
Timing of
Implementation
Implementation
Responsibility
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
Preliminary Geotechnical
Investigation, Civic Arts Plaza
Master Plan, City of Thousand
Oaks, 2100 Thousand Oaks Blvd,
Thousand Oaks, California 91362,
prepared by Cotton, Shires, and
Associates, Inc., dated May 2025
(Geotechnical Investigation), and
subsequent reports/amendments
to the Geotechnical Investigation,
have been incorporated into the
project design, grading, and
building plans, as applicable.
MM-GEO-2 Technical Paleontological
Assessment: Prior to issuance of
grading permits, the project
applicant shall provide a technical
paleontological assessment
prepared by a qualified
paleontologist, defined as a
paleontologist who meets the
Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology (SVP) standards for a
Principal Investigator or Project
Paleontologist, assessing the
sensitivity of the project site for
buried paleontological resources
to the City of Thousand Oaks
Community Development
Department, Planning Division for
review and approval.
Prior to Issuance
of Grading
Permit(s); Prior to
Issuance of
Occupancy
Permit(s)
Applicant;
Qualified
Paleontologist
Submission of
Technical
Paleontological
Assessment;
Submission of
Report of Findings
Prior to Issuance
of Grading
Permit(s); Prior to
Issuance of
Occupancy
Permit(s)
City of Thousand
Oaks Community
Development
Department,
Planning Division
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 120
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure/Standard
Condition/Project Design
Feature
Timing of
Implementation
Implementation
Responsibility
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
If resources are known or
reasonably anticipated, the
assessment shall provide a
detailed mitigation plan, including
a monitoring program and
recovery and/or in situ
preservation plan, based on the
recommendations of the qualified
paleontologist. The mitig ation
plan shall include, but not be
limited to, the following:
A qualified paleontologist shall be
retained for the project and shall
be on call during grading and other
significant ground -disturbing
activities;
Should any potentially significant
fossil resources be discovered, no
further grading shall occur in the
area of the discovery until the
qualified paleontologist and City of
Thousand Oaks Community
Development Department,
Planning Division concurs in
writing that adequate provisions
are in place to protect these
resources; and
Unanticipated discoveries shall be
evaluated for significance by the
qualified paleontologist. If a
resource is determined to be
significant by the qualified
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 121
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure/Standard
Condition/Project Design
Feature
Timing of
Implementation
Implementation
Responsibility
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
paleontologist, the resource shall
be collected and catalogued in
accordance with SVP guidelines
and adequately curated in an
institution with appropriate staff
and facilities.
A report of findings with an
itemized accession inventory shall
be prepared as evidence that
monitoring has been successfully
completed and shall be submitted
and approved by the City of
Thousand Oaks Community
Development Department,
Planning Division pri or to the
granting of occupancy permits.
Noise
MM-NOI-1 To reduce potential noise impacts
from amphitheatre events on
nearby sensitive receptors, the
amphitheatre operator shall
prepare a project-specific detailed
noise impact study, as follows:
1. Once the detailed site
plan is finalized, including
the final stage location,
speaker configuration,
and event operations, a
project-specific detailed
noise impact study shall
be prepared by a
qualified acoustical
Prior to Review
and Approval of
the Final Detailed
Building Plan for
the
Amphitheatre/Ba
ndshell; Prior to
Commencement
of Amphitheatre
Events
Amphitheatre
Operator/Applic
ant; Qualified
Acoustical
Consultant
Submission of
Project-Specific
Detailed Noise
Impact Study,
Including
Recommended
Mitigation
Measures
Prior to Review
and Approval of
the Final Detailed
Site Plan; Prior to
Commencement
of Amphitheatre
Events
City of Thousand
Oaks Community
Development
Department,
Planning Division
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 122
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure/Standard
Condition/Project Design
Feature
Timing of
Implementation
Implementation
Responsibility
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
consultant prior to
operation of the
amphitheatre. The study
shall evaluate amplified
and non-amplified events
at the amphitheatre and
assess noise levels at all
nearby sensitive
receptors, including
elevated receptors (e.g.,
upper floors of adjacent
buildings), under worst -
case operating scenarios.
2. The noise study shall
demonstrate compliance
with the City of Thousand
Oaks General Plan 2045
Noise Element
significance criteria for
long term operational
noise, as identified in
Table 5.11 -6, including
applicable noise increase
thresholds at sensitive
receptors. If the study
identifies exceedances of
the applicable
significance thresholds,
feasible mitigation
measures shall be
identified and
implemented to reduce
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 123
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure/Standard
Condition/Project Design
Feature
Timing of
Implementation
Implementation
Responsibility
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
noise levels to below the
applicable thresholds.
Such measures may
include, but are not
limited to, limitations on
amplified sound levels,
restrictions on hours of
operation, limitations on
the number of amplified
events per month,
and/or other operational
controls.
3. Any recommended
mitigation measures shall
be implemented prior to
commencement of
amphitheatre events and
shall be subject to review
and approval by the City
of Thousand Oaks
Planning Division.
Standard
Condition for
Impact NOI-1
Compliance with Policy N -3.2 of
the Thousand Oaks General Plan
Noise Element.
Prior to Initiation
of Construction
Activities; During
Construction
Applicant;
Construction
Contractor
On-Site Inspection
of Construction
Equipment and
Staging Areas
Prior to Initiation
of Construction
Activities; During
Construction
City of Thousand
Oaks Community
Development
Department
Transportation
Project
Design
Features for
Impact T-2
Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) and VMT
Reduction Strategies:
1. TDM: Provide
Ridesharing Program.
Prior to Review
and Approval of
the Final Project
Plans; During
Project Operation
Applicant Approval of Final
Project Plans
Prior to Review
and Approval of
the Final Project
Plans; During
Project Operation
City of Thousand
Oaks Community
Development
Department
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CSG CONSULTANTS 124
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure/Standard
Condition/Project Design
Feature
Timing of
Implementation
Implementation
Responsibility
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsible for
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
2. TDM: Implement
Commute Trip Reduction
Marketing.
3. Land Use: Increase in
Residential Density.
4. Pedestrian: Pedestrian
Improvements (on- site
and along Thousand Oaks
Boulevard).
5. Affordable Housing:
Affordable Housing.
6. Bike Parking: Provide
Bicycle Parking.
cdd:440-25\H:COMMON\Planning Commission\Agenda Packet\2026\2025-05-18\Downtown Pr oject\07A DTTO GP-2025-70001 et al Attach 8 Final EIR Including Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.pdf\pz [GP-2025-70001, DP-2025-70015, SP-2025-70001, CEQA-2025-70002, et al] ATTACHMENT #9
(To PC 5/18/2026 Report)
To avoid duplication, see City Council 6/23/2026 Attachment #5 Exhibit C of Resolution – CEQA Findings of Fact and Overriding Considerations.
Outlook
Re: New development
From Tara Alexandra <[email protected]>
Date Sat 5/2/2026 3:56 AM
To Downtown <[email protected]>
Cc Krystin Rice <[email protected]>
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Akbar,
I am writing in response to the proposed development project in Thousand Oaks.
I want to be very clear that I do not support this development. In fact, I believe it is detrimental to the character, atmosphere, and long-term livability of our community.
Thousand Oaks has always been defined by its open space, oak trees, and carefully preserved small-town feel. The very name of the city reflects that identity, yet this project appears to move in the opposite direction.
We already have a significant number of vacant commercial buildings throughout the area.
Rather than introducing more large-scale development, the focus should be on revitalizing what already exists. Our streets are not designed for increased congestion, and they are already strained without adding additional high-density projects.
The removal or disruption of mature oak trees for construction is especially concerning.
These trees are not just aesthetic—they are part of the ecological and historical fabric of this region. Preserving them should be a priority, not an afterthought.
There has long been a community understanding and expectation that buildings here should not exceed seven stories. That guideline exists for a reason: to preserve scale, livability, and the visual integrity of the valley. Changing that standard now simply because there is financial incentive to do so feels disconnected from the needs and values of the people who actually live here.
While the proposal suggests new restaurants and economic activity, we already see a pattern in this area where businesses struggle due to high rent and limited sustained patronage. A ATTACHMENT #10
(To PC 5/18/2026 Report)
clear example is The Lakes development, where, aside from California Pizza Kitchen, most original tenants have cycled out repeatedly over time. This is not evidence that more commercial density is needed—it suggests the opposite: instability in overbuilt retail environments.
This has been my home since birth as it is for my mother before me. Families choose to live here because it is safe, quiet, and community-oriented. That is not something to be traded away lightly or reshaped into something unrecognizable. There is a difference between thoughtful growth and gentrification that erodes the very identity of a place.
It feels as though those overseeing projects like this may see it primarily as a professional assignment or financial opportunity. For those of us who live here, however, this is not abstract—it is our home, our history, and the environment we are raising our families in.
Those values cannot be measured solely in terms of development potential or profit.
I urge you to reconsider the scale and impact of this proposal and to prioritize preservation, infrastructure realities, and the long-term well-being of the community over short-term development goals.
Sincerely,
Tara Alexandra
Furthermore, I would like this sent to the board meeting on May 18 as my letter of statement Please confirm receipt of this, and this will be sent to the board On May 1, 2026, at 11:56 AM, Downtown <[email protected]> wrote:
PLEASE NOTE: Our domain has changed to TOAKS.GOV. Please update your records as needed.
Hi Tara,
Reaching out again to see if you are willing to chat. Please feel free to email or call me back and we can schedule something around your availability.
Best,
Akbar
Akbar Alikhan
Assistant City Manager
m: 805.405.6649
o: 805.449.2140
<image001.jpg>
--
From: Downtown <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, April 15, 2026 at 5:26 PM
To: Tara Alexandra <[email protected]>
Cc: Krystin Rice <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: New development
Hi Tara,
My name is Akbar and I am the project manager for the Downtown Project. Thanks for the thoughtful comments below and taking the time to craft your concerns. If you are willing, I’d love to have an opportunity to chat with you over the phone or even meet here at City Hall to listen to concerns you may have.
In the meantime, if you’d like more background on the project, I’d encourage you to visit the project website at
www.downtowntoaks.org or check out the staff presentation to the City Council from June of 2025 in the link here. Please feel free to call me directly at either number in my signature below.
Also, I believe you had intended to CC Krystin Rice, the case planner on your email, so I included her here. There was a doctored Facebook post going around that her email address incorrectly shown.
Best,
Akbar
Akbar Alikhan
Assistant City Manager
m: 805.405.6649
o: 805.449.2140
<image001.jpg>
--
From: Tara Alexandra <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 at 1:02 PM
To: Downtown <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: New development
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the proposed development of a large-scale shopping center in the Conejo Valley, modeled after something like Old Town Pasadena.
I was born and raised here, and I chose to raise my own children in this community for a reason. What has always made the Conejo Valley special is its small-town feel — even as it has grown over the years, it has managed to retain a sense of charm, safety, and community that is increasingly rare. That is precisely what has kept families like mine here for generations.
The introduction of a major shopping destination of this scale threatens to fundamentally change the character of our community. Quite frankly, the last thing we need is to become a regional draw that brings in heavy traffic, congestion, and overdevelopment. Many of us already avoid traveling over the Calabasas grade because of the congestion — it is deeply concerning to think that similar conditions could be created right here in our own backyard.
Beyond traffic concerns, there are practical issues that cannot be ignored. We already have hotels in the area that sit empty much of the time. Restaurants struggle to stay open, with many closing due to lack of consistent patronage. We also have a significant number of apartment developments. This raises a simple but important question: who exactly is this project meant to serve? Additionally, the character of the area has changed in recent years. Since COVID, many residents have noticed an increase in crime and theft. A development of this magnitude would inevitably draw more outside traffic and attention, which may further strain our local resources and impact the safety and quality of life that residents value so highly.
It is difficult not to feel that projects like this are driven more by financial interests than by the well- being of the community. Decisions that will permanently alter the fabric of the Conejo Valley should not be made without fully considering the long-term impact on the people who live here — many of whom, like myself, have deep roots in this area.
I remember when Thousand Oaks Boulevard didn’t even extend all the way to Kanan Road. Back then, you had to get on the freeway and exit at Kanan just to reach the grocery stores. While growth is inevitable, there is a difference between thoughtful development and overdevelopment that erodes the very qualities that made this community desirable in the first place.
We have already seen significant changes in parts of Agoura Hills, Westlake Village, and Thousand Oaks.
Many residents feel that the balance has already begun to shift. Adding a project of this scale risks tipping it too far.
Finally, the impact on traffic cannot be overstated. Thousand Oaks Boulevard is not designed to handle the level of congestion that a destination shopping center would bring. We do not want — nor are we equipped — to become another Ventura Boulevard. Increased congestion will affect daily life, emergency response times, and overall livability.
I urge you to carefully reconsider this proposal and to prioritize the voices of the residents who have long called this area home. Growth should enhance a community, not overwhelm it.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Tara B.
Outlook
Re: Notice of Public Hearing - Downtown Thousand Oaks Project From Laurel Bloom <[email protected]>
Date Mon 4/27/2026 4:18 PM
To Krystin Rice <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Krystin,
I join the others who absolutely do NOT support the removal of 53 protected trees and encroachment into the protected zone of 39 protected trees, regardless of what is being proposed.
Laurel Bloom
[email protected]
On Apr 27, 2026, at 3:39 PM, Krystin Rice <[email protected]> wrote:
PLEASE NOTE:
Our domain has changed to TOAKS.GOV. Please update your records as needed.
Hello,
You are receiving this email because you previously expressed interest in the Downtown Thousand Oaks Project. The project is scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission on Monday, May 18, 2026, at 6:00pm and will take place in the Andrew P . Fox City Council Chambers/Scherr Forum Theatre, City Hall, at 2100 East Thousand Oaks Boulevard, 2nd Floor.
Please see the attached Notice of Hearing for additional details.
Thank you,
Krystin Rice
Planning Division Manager
Community Development Department
City of Thousand Oaks
805-449-2335
<Outlook-vt2dk2mx.png>
<NOH_DP-2025-70015, GP, SP, TTM, SUP, PTP, EIR Downtown Project _M04272026 - 21-day.pdf>
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Nellie Cusworth, Chair
Marissa Buss, Vice Chair
Chuck Huffer, Director
Doug Nickles, Director
Ashley Orozco, Director
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
403 West Hillcrest Drive , Thousand Oaks, CA 91360-4223 805 -495 -6471 | 805 -497 -3199 | [email protected] | www.crpd.org
GENERAL MANAGER
Jim Friedl
May 11, 2026
Krystin Rice, Planning Manager
City of Thousand Oaks
2100 Thousand Oaks Blvd.
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
RE
: Comments to Draft EIR for the Downtown Thousand Oaks Project (CEQA-2025-70005) D
ear Ms. Rice,
Thank you for the opportunity for the Conejo Recreation and Park District ("CRPD") to provide its comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the subject downtown project ("Project"). The residential portion of the Project includes the development of 240 dwelling units on the overall 17.68 acre site, plus Carpenter Park, a 2.16-acre public park site with extensive general public serving amenities, which includes a splash pad, raised deck s, an oak tree event deck, a sculptural shade canopy, play areas, a multi -purpose lawn, terraced seat walls, and a pedestrian-only access road.
CRPD's Park Standards and Project Impact Analysis
CRPD, in accordance with the 2025 CRPD Master Plan follows the National Recreation and Park Association's standard of providing 10 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons (5 acres for neighborhood, playfield, community parks, and another 5 acres for a districtwide park).
The Project is located within CRPD's Community Planning Zone F – Planning Area 1 9. Not considering districtwide park acreage requirements, in accordance with the 2025 CRPD Master Plan, currently:
• Planning Area 19 residents have a deficiency of 7.4 acres of Neighborhood Park developed acreage
• Zone F residents have a surplus of 2.5 acres of Playfields developed acreage • Zone F residents have a deficiency of 9.5 acres of Community Park developed acreage The Project, with a projected residential population of 480 persons, would result in an additional parkland dedication of:
• Planning Area 19 – additional 1.08 acres of Neighborhood Park developed acreage • Zone F – additional 0.54 acres of Playfields developed acreage • Zone F – additional 0.54 acres of Community Park developed acreage S
ummary
B
ased on the 2025 CRPD Master Plan, the City of Thousand Oaks Municipal Code Sec. 9-3.1602, and the Project’s creation of a developed 2.16-acre park that includes high-level, general-public- serving recreational amenities that meet and exceed neighborhood and community park standards, the Project will mitigate parkland and recreational impacts.
The Carpenter Park development will provide community benefits to existing and future residents in Community Planning Zone F and Planning Area 19. Additionally, because this is publicly owned parkland accessible to the general public, once developed, CRPD will account for it as part of the CRPD Master Plan.
Conclusion
A
s outlined above and in the DRAFT EIR for the Downtown Thousand Oaks Project, based on the City’s park dedication ordinance as well as the CRPD’s Master Plan, CRPD staff find and determine that the Project , as proposed, meets the need for parkland and the development of park and recreational amenities, thereby satisfying the park dedication requirement for the project.
R
espectfully submitted by,
A
ndrew J. Mooney, Director
Parks and Planning
Outlook
Downtown Project Plan
From Karen Davis <[email protected]>
Date Mon 5/11/2026 1:48 PM
To Krystin Rice <[email protected]>; Downtown <[email protected]> You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
As a 45 year Conejo Valley resident and TOArts Board Member I support the Downtown Thousand Oaks Project.
The Kavli Theatre and Scherr Forum have long served as cultural anchors for our community. This needs to be expanded through the planned mixed-use environment to complete the vision to create a cultural destination center for the entire community.
The arts are the glue that brings the entire community together and makes Thousand Oaks a wonderful location to live, work, and raise a family. We need a robust cultural community center to enrich our community and make it thrive. A vibrant arts presence brings people downtown, drives foot traffic to restaurants, hotels, and local businesses, and gives a community a distinct identity that no amount of generic development can replicate. The proposed Artist Incubator, Public Market, outdoor amphitheater, and ground-floor multi-use venue are exactly the kinds of infrastructure that activate a downtown and keep creative talent rooted here in Thousand Oaks rather than leaving to find opportunity elsewhere.
TOArts and the broader arts community have been engaged partners in shaping this vision. We have attended several meetings with the planning team and provided input throughout the process. We are committed to a downtown that reflects who Thousand Oaks is — culturally rich, community-centered, and authentically ours.
I urge the Commission to move this long awaited project forward.
Respectfully,
Karen Davis
TOArts Board Secretary
Outlook
Caruso development
From Jonathan Gunn <[email protected]>
Date Sun 5/3/2026 5:12 PM
To Downtown <[email protected]>
Cc 'Lisa Gunn' <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mr. Alikhan,
I am writing to formally express my objection to the proposed development along Thousand Oaks Boulevard by Rick Caruso and his company.
I have lived in Thousand Oaks for 47 years, and I am deeply concerned about efforts to fundamentally alter the character of this community. The proposal to introduce luxury residential structures and expanded commercial development—by modifying long-standing building codes designed specifically to prevent such overdevelopment— poses a lasting threat to the qualities that make this area unique.
This attempt to reshape our community into something resembling the dense urban environments of San Fernando Valley or Los Angeles appears driven by private financial gain rather than the long-term interests of residents. It stands in direct contrast to what Conejo Valley and Thousand Oaks have always represented: a quiet, family- oriented suburban environment defined by balance, thoughtful planning, and respect for open space.
Our community was intentionally designed to preserve natural surroundings, manage growth responsibly, and maintain a high quality of life. These principles are not accidental—they are the result of careful planning and community commitment over decades. Allowing significant deviations from these standards would set a dangerous precedent, opening the door to further overdevelopment that could permanently erode the character of our city.
This cannot be allowed to happen because once these protections are weakened, they cannot easily be restored.
The loss of open space, increased congestion, strain on infrastructure, and decline in the peaceful suburban environment would be irreversible. Future generations would inherit a community fundamentally different from the one residents have worked so hard to preserve.
For these reasons, I strongly urge you to reject any proposals that compromise the established vision and integrity of Thousand Oaks and the Conejo Valley.
Regards,
Jonathan and Lisa Gunn
[email protected]
***IMPORTANT WARNING***
This Message is intended for the use of the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and confidential, the disclosure of which is governed by applicable law. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this information is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this e-mail by error, please notify us immediately and destroy the related message.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses, WORMS, Hostile Scripts, and other mail born network threats.
Outlook
FW: No on any downtown plan. No on any building taller than three stories From Lori Goor <[email protected]>
Date Wed 5/13/2026 8:43 AM
To Krystin Rice <[email protected]>
From: Katie Morris <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2026 8:41 AM
To: Lori Goor <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: No on any downtown plan. No on any building taller than three stories FYI-have more coming your way too.
From: David Newman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 8:01 PM
To: Katie Morris <[email protected]>; Akbar Alikhan <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: No on any downtown plan. No on any building taller than three stories FYI
dn
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Jennifer V. Hartwood" <[email protected]> Date: May 12, 2026 at 6:04:47 PM PDT
To: Mikey Taylor <[email protected]>, Bob Engler <[email protected]>, Al Adam <[email protected]>, Tie Gutierrez <[email protected]>, David Newman <[email protected]>
Subject: No on any downtown plan. No on any building taller than three stories You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor and Members of the Thousand Oaks City Council, I am writing as a concerned resident to express my strong opposition to the proposed Downtown Thousand Oaks development plan in its current form. While I understand the desire to revitalize our downtown area, the scale and height of the proposed buildings—particularly those exceeding three stories—would fundamentally alter the character, charm, and livability of our community.
Thousand Oaks has long been valued for its open spaces, scenic views, and human-scale architecture.
Introducing high-rise structures would not only disrupt our skyline but also increase traffic congestion, strain local infrastructure, and diminish the small-town feel that residents cherish.
If development has been deemed absolutely necessary, I urge this council to adopt a strict height limit of no more than stories for any new or refurbished buildings. This compromise would allow for thoughtful growth while preserving the visual harmony and community identity that makes Thousand Oaks unique.
I
respectfully ask that you prioritize the voices of residents, protect our city’s character, and ensure that any changes to the downtown area reflect the values and vision of the people who call Thousand Oaks home.
Thank you for your time, consideration, and dedication to our community.
Sincerely,
Jennifer and Cam Hartwood
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
Outlook
URGENT: Formal OPPOSITION to 7-Story Development - Public Comment for May 18 Meeting From J B <[email protected]>
Date Tue 5/12/2026 4:04 PM
To City Clerk Department <[email protected]>; Krystin Rice <[email protected]> Cc Mikey Taylor <[email protected]>; Bob Engler <[email protected]>; Al Adam <[email protected]>; Tie Gutierrez <[email protected]>; David Newman <[email protected]>; Planning <[email protected]> You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I am a resident of Thousand Oaks writing to express my firm opposition to the proposed 7-story developments at the Civic Arts Plaza and The Lakes.
I moved here specifically to escape the overbuilding of the San Fernando Valley. These 7-story structures are completely out of scale with our community and threaten to turn our city into the dense, urban environment I worked hard to leave behind.
I am particularly concerned about the following impacts:
Infrastructure & Water Scarcity: We are constantly told to conserve water while our rates are being hiked by 5% annually starting in 2026 to fund upgrades. It is contradictory to demand sacrifice from current residents while approving high-density projects that will significantly increase permanent demand on our local supply.
Parking & Accessibility: One of the reasons I feel comfortable visiting The Lakes is the ease of access; there is currently plenty of parking, and I can always find a spot. However, parking at the Civic Arts Plaza is already difficult when I need to visit City Hall for city business. Removing existing parking at these sites to build high-density units will make these areas a nightmare for locals and discourage residents from accessing their own local government. Relying on satellite parking lots is not a realistic or comfortable solution for taxpayers.
Public Safety: Increasing density on this scale inevitably brings more traffic and people, which many of us fear will strain our local resources and negatively impact the safety and quiet character of our neighborhoods.
Please do not let Thousand Oaks become another overbuilt suburb. I urge you to reject these height increases and preserve the character and accessibility of our city.
Jayne B.
94 S. Madrid Ave.
Newbury Park
Outlook
Re: Notice of Public Hearing - Downtown Thousand Oaks Project From DALE Krasnow <[email protected]>
Date Sun 5/3/2026 9:32 AM
To Krystin Rice <[email protected]>; Downtown <[email protected]> 1 attachment (715 KB)
Downtown Bridge concept 3 minute KRASNOW.pdf;
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Akbar copied on my update response.
Krystin,
I updated and polished my presentation.
At the public hearing I will be brief with only requesting 3 minutes to present 3 slides.
I will bring large flip charts with this content to communicate my takeaway points.
I would be happy if you shared this with the Downtown committee for awareness on topic prior to the public hearing.
thank you
Sincerely,
Dale Krasnow
Ranch View Estates HOA board
(805) 796-5842
From: Krystin Rice <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2026 3:56 PM
To: DALE Krasnow <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Notice of Public Hearing - Downtown Thousand Oaks Project PLEASE NOTE: Our domain has changed to TOAKS.GOV. Please update your records as needed.
Received. Thank you, Dale.
Krystin Rice
Planning Division Manager
Community Development Department
City of Thousand Oaks
805-449-2335
From: DALE Krasnow <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2026 12:00 PM
To: Krystin Rice <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Notice of Public Hearing - Downtown Thousand Oaks Project You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Krystin,
Find attached my concept idea for enhancing the downtown project. This is what I want to briefly speak to at the public hearing. I provided justi fication and the why this should be considered. I have discussed with Akbar Alikhan and understand that several business folks - owners want to keep it all at street level. But, I believe it needs further consideration. A trade-off study on advantages and disadvantages will likely favor this concept - enhancement ! I crushed all the info into 1 page knowing that there is little time to review and simply wanted to drive the points upfront.
Sincerely,
Dale Krasnow
From: Krystin Rice <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2026 11:45 AM
To: DALE Krasnow <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Notice of Public Hearing - Downtown Thousand Oaks Project PLEASE NOTE: Our domain has changed to TOAKS.GOV. Please update your records as needed.
Hi Dale,
If you plan on attending in person, there's a check-in table where you can fill out a public speaker card at the beginning of the meeting and then you'll be called on to speak during public comment for the item. If you're attending remotely, there will be a link on the Planning Commission agenda when it's posted that will allow you to indicate that you want to speak via Zoom. You can also send an email to
[email protected] or call 805-449-2500 within a couple days leading up to the hearing to indicate you want to speak.
If you would like to send me correspondence with your proposed enhancements before the meeting, it can be part of the administrative record and provided to the Planning Commission with their hearing materials.
Thanks,
Krystin Rice
Planning Division Manager
Community Development Department
City of Thousand Oaks
805-449-2335
From: DALE Krasnow <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2026 11:21 AM
To: Krystin Rice <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Notice of Public Hearing - Downtown Thousand Oaks Project You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Krystin,
How do I get a 2 minute slot of time to speak at the hearing ? I am definitely for this project but have some enhancements that I want to recommend for consideration.
Sincerely
Dale Krasnow
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Krystin Rice <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2026 3:39:57 PM
To: Krystin Rice <[email protected]>
Subject: Notice of Public Hearing - Downtown Thousand Oaks Project PLEASE NOTE: Our domain has changed to TOAKS.GOV. Please update your records as needed.
Hello,
You are receiving this email because you previously expressed interest in the Downtown Thousand Oaks Project. The project is scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission on Monday, May 18, 2026, at 6:00pm and will take place in the Andrew P .
Fox City Council Chambers/Scherr Forum Theatre, City Hall, at 2100 East Thousand Oaks Boulevard, 2nd Floor.
Please see the attached Notice of Hearing for additional details.
Thank you,
Krystin Rice
Planning Division Manager
Community Development Department
City of Thousand Oaks
805-449-2335
Outlook
Support for the Downtown Thousand Oaks project
From Al Lowe <[email protected]>
Date Thu 5/7/2026 7:31 AM
To Krystin Rice <[email protected]>
Cc Downtown <[email protected]>
1 attachment (365 KB)
CCE05072026_0001.pdf;
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Thank you for receiving this letter in support of the Downtown Thousand Oaks Project.
Outlook
Support for the Downtown Thousand Oaks Project
From David E. Mead <[email protected]>
Date Wed 5/6/2026 8:06 PM
To Krystin Rice <[email protected]>
Cc Downtown <[email protected]>
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
I write in strong support of the Downtown Thousand Oaks Project as a long time board member of TOArts — the private fundraising and presenting partner of the Bank of America Performing Arts Center. As you know, the Kavli Theatre and Scherr Forum have long served as cultural anchors for our community of which I have been a part for more than 25 years.
The theaters have been and are an important gathering place for community members to experience wonderful performances and shows amongst other things. What the Downtown Project offers is the opportunity to complete the vision that began more than 35 years ago, surrounding those assets with the active, walkable, mixed-use environment that allows a cultural destination to truly thrive.
I am quite sure that you are well
aware that the arts play a crucial role in society by fostering cultural identity, driving social change, enhancing emotional well-being, and contributing to economic growth.
A vibrant arts presence brings people downtown,
drives foot traffi c to restaurants and local businesses, and gives a community a distinct identity that no amount of generic development can replicate. The proposed Artist Incubator, Public Market, outdoor amphitheater, and ground-fl
oor multi-use venue are exactly the kinds of infrastructure that activate a downtown and keep creative talent rooted here in Thousand Oaks rather than leaving to find opportunity elsewhere. TOArts and the broader arts community have been engaged partners in shaping this vision. We are not on the sidelines. We are committed to a downtown that refl ects who Thousand Oaks is — culturally rich, community-centered, and authentically ours. I strongly urge the Commission to move this project forward.
Respectfully,
David E. Mead, Esq.
Board Member, TOArts
T: (424) 239-1890
M: (805) 750-1607
[email protected]
Outlook
FW: Development of TO downtown hotel and apartments
From Lori Goor <[email protected]>
Date Wed 5/13/2026 7:48 AM
To Krystin Rice <[email protected]>
Cc Noel Doran <[email protected]>
From: Adrienne Podell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 6:40 PM
To: Lori Goor <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Development of TO downtown hotel and apartments CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Lori -
I sent the following email today to the city council members but please include in the record as you mentioned below.
Hello Councilmembers -
I am very concerned about the magnitude of the downtown TO development project and would like to voice my concerns regarding specific areas of the project:
1) Size of buildings: 7 stories is just too high for the topography of the area; the surrounding buildings on TO Blvd. are one story; these will dwarf them blocking sunlight and just plainly look terrible, not conforming to the aesthetic of our town.
2) Congestion: 7 story buildings will bring in too many people to an already congested TO Blvd. Is there really a need for such a large hotel? Which hotel company is backing this part of the project? Do they have a demographic study showing that we really need that many more hotel rooms in the Conejo Valley? 3) I cannot emphasize enough the aesthetic effect of massive buildings that do not conform to the area.
While the goal is supposedly to create a pedestrian friendly area the people who stay at the hotel and live in the apartments will all be driving cars and walk only if they are eating or shopping in the immediate area. There is already a shortage of parking along TO Blvd.
If you go to eat at any of the many
restaurants on the Blvd. you would find it hard to locate a parking spot at lunch or dinner hour.
I hope you will consider the repercussions of your important decision as to whether the plan can be revised to lower height buildings to make the development more compatible with the aesthetic of TO Blvd. yet allow the new businesses and apartments to bring in additional revenue to the city as it seems that is the motive for project since there are many new apartment projects currently under way in other parts of the Conejo Valley.
Adrienne Podell
Conejo Oaks resident
On Tuesday, May 12, 2026 at 05:36:09 PM PDT, Lori Goor <[email protected]> wrote:
PLEASE NOTE: Our domain has changed to TOAKS.GOV. Please update your records as needed.
Ms. Podell,
Thank you for your email. The easiest way to comment on the proposed development is to email your comments to me. Your comments will be added to the record and provided to the Planning Commissioners.
Thank You,
Lori Goor
Sr. Recording Secretary
Community Development Department
City of Thousand Oaks
From: Community Development Department <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, May 8, 2026 9:44 AM
To: Lori Goor <[email protected]>; Krystin Rice <[email protected]> Subject: Fw: Development of TO downtown hotel and apartments Get Outlook for iOS
From: Adrienne Podell <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 8, 2026 9:39:54 AM
To: Community Development Department <[email protected]> Subject: Development of TO downtown hotel and apartments You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Kelvin -
I am a Thousand Oaks resident and would like to request the email addresses of the TO Planning Commissioners so that I may weigh in on the proposed development of the downtown corridor. Thank you.
Adrienne Podell
Outlook
Re: Notice of Public Hearing - Downtown Thousand Oaks Project From Anette Power <[email protected]>
Date Thu 4/30/2026 12:44 PM
To Krystin Rice <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Krystin,
Thank you so much for your response. That is great news! All the best,
Anette
Happy when Creating -
to see my art visit
My Website:
to read about my journey check out My Blog
to follow, visit my FaceBookPage and Instagram
On Thu, Apr 30, 2026 at 10:32 AM Krystin Rice <[email protected]> wrote:
PLEASE NOTE: Our domain has changed to TOAKS.GOV. Please update your records as needed.
Hi Anette,
Yes, the project still includes plans for the public market, arts incubator space, multi-purpose performance venue, and creative co-working spaces, and other arts-related components. These spaces are shown in detail in the project plan set for reference and proposed as part of Phase 2C of the multi-phase project.
Krystin Rice
Planning Division Manager
Community Development Department
City of Thousand Oaks
805-449-2335
From: Anette Power <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 11:39 AM
To: Krystin Rice <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Notice of Public Hearing - Downtown Thousand Oaks Project You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Krystyn,
Thank you for sharing this. Several local artists and community members were included in earlier focus groups to address the cultural aspects in this project. Are there still plans to have a location/space set aside for this? I see nothing in this proposal that addresses this need.
Thank you so much for any insight,
Anette Power
Happy when Creating -
to see my art, visit
My Website:
to read about my journey, check out My Blog
to follow, visit my FaceBookPage and Instagram
On Mon, Apr 27, 2026 at 3:40 PM Krystin Rice <[email protected]> wrote:
PLEASE NOTE: Our domain has changed to TOAKS.GOV. Please update your records as needed.
Hello,
You are receiving this email because you previously expressed interest in the Downtown Thousand Oaks Project. The project is scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission on Monday, May 18, 2026, at 6:00pm and will take place in the Andrew P . Fox City Council Chambers/Scherr Forum Theatre, City Hall, at 2100 East Thousand Oaks Boulevard, 2nd
Floor.
Please see the attached Notice of Hearing for additional details.
Thank you,
Krystin Rice
Planning Division Manager
Community Development Department
City of Thousand Oaks
805-449-2335
Outlook
FW: Opposition / Concerns Regarding Caruso Downtown Thousand Oaks Proposal From Katie Morris <[email protected]>
Date Wed 5/13/2026 3:26 PM
To Lori Goor <[email protected]>; Krystin Rice <[email protected]> From: David Newman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 3:48 PM
To: Katie Morris <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Opposition / Concerns Regarding Caruso Downtown Thousand Oaks Proposal Note request to be placed in the record. Akbar and/or Alex may want to respond as well. dn
From: Rusty Spragg <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 12:24 PM
To: Mikey Taylor <[email protected]>; Bob Engler <[email protected]>; Al Adam <[email protected]>; Tie Gutierrez <[email protected]>; David Newman <[email protected]> Subject: Opposition / Concerns Regarding Caruso Downtown Thousand Oaks Proposal You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Taylor and Members of the Thousand Oaks City Council, I am a Thousand Oaks resident writing to express my strong concerns about the proposed Caruso redevelopment / transformation of downtown Thousand Oaks.
I do not believe this proposal should move forward without much more public input, transparency, and careful review of its impacts on traffic, parking, building height, neighborhood character, local businesses, infrastructure, public cost, and quality of life.
Downtown Thousand Oaks should be improved in a way that reflects the community — not turned into an overbuilt project that benefits a developer more than residents.
Please do not approve or advance this project unless there is a clear, resident-first process and a scaled plan that protects the character of Thousand Oaks.
I also ask that this email be entered into the public record for any related agenda item.
Sincerely,
Rusty Spragg
Direct: 805.628.2281 | Mobile: 818.585.8171
Email: [email protected]
*** **CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:** This email and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original message and all copies from your system.
May 6, 2026
City of Thousand Oaks Planning Commission
2100 Thousand Oaks Blvd
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
Re: Support for the Downtown Project in Thousand Oaks
2221 Rosecrans Avenue
Suite 200
El Segundo, California 90245
Dear Honorable Members of the Planning Commission,
On behalf of Trammell Crow Company (TCC), I am writing to express our strong support for the Downtown Project, scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission on May 18, 2026.
TCC is an active multifamily developer in the City of Thousand Oaks and a proud investor in a community that already demonstrates strong economic fundamentals, thoughtful governance, and a high quality of life. We are currently advancing plans for 625 new apartment homes with in the city , representing a meaningful private capital commitment grounded in our confidence in Thousand Oaks’ existing strengths and long ‑term vision. Our support for the Downtown Project reflects both our role as a local stakeholder and our belief that the plan builds upon—and extends—the City’s continued momentum and success.
The Downtown Project’s vision to integrate housing, employment, cultural amenities, retail, hospitality, and public gathering spaces into a cohesive, walkable environment reflects best practices seen in successful cities nationwide. From an investment perspective, the Project sends an important signal that Thousand Oaks welcomes smart growth, design excellence, and long‑term investment.
We commend City staff, consultants, community members, and elected officials for the extensive effort devoted to shaping this plan. We believe the Downtown Project will strengthen the City’s competitive position and meaningfully improve the daily experience of our future tenants, reinforcing the long‑term success of the apartment communities we are developing in Thousand Oaks.
For these reasons, Trammell Crow Company strongly supports the Downtown Project and respectfully encourages the Planning Commission to advance it consistent with the City’s adopted vision.
Thank you for your leadership and for the opportunity to provide comment. We look forward to continuing to invest in Thousand Oaks and to being a constructive partner in the City’s future.
Sincerely,
Jessica Murphy
Vice President
Trammell Crow Company
From: Chris Vrakelos <[email protected]>
Date: May 9, 2026 at 7:32:35 AM PDT
To: Al Adam <[email protected]>, Mikey Taylor <[email protected]>, David Newman <[email protected]>
Cc: Tie Gutierrez <[email protected]>, Al Adam <[email protected]> Subject: Transforming Thousand Oaks
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
As a 45 year resident of Thousand Oaks I ask all of you to vote NO on considering adding 7 story buildings to our beautiful City.
The attraction to this City is it's simplicity and not becoming a San Fernando Valley.
Thanks
Chris Vrakelos
805-402-7748
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important cdd:440-25\H:COMMON\Planning Commission\Agenda Packet\2026\2025-05-18\Downtown Project\07A DTTO GP-2025-70001 et al Attach 10 Public Correspondence.pdf\pz [GP-2025-70001, DP-2025-70015, SP-2025-70001, CEQA-2025-70002, et al]
THOUSAND OAKS
PLANNING COMMISSION
Supplemental
Information
Packet 1
May 18, 2026
Agenda Related Items
Meeting of May 18, 2026
Supplemental Information:
Any agenda-related public documents received and distributed to a majority of the Planning Commission after the Agenda Packet is printed are included in Supplemental Packets. Supplemental Packets are produced as needed, typically they are distributed on the Thursday or Friday preceding the Planning Commission meeting and/or on Monday before the meeting. Supplemental Packets on Thursday or Friday are available for public inspection in the Community Development Department, 2100 East Thousand Oaks Boulevard, during normal business hours (main location pursuant to the Brown Act, G.C. 54957.5(2). All Supplemental Packets are available for public review at the Planning Commission on the City’s website www.toaks.gov.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
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 Planning Division, (805) 449-2500.
Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist the City in ensuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service.
T
o: Planning Commission
Fr
om: Kelvin Parker, Community Development Director
D
ate: May 18, 2026
S
ubject: Regarding Item 07A – Downtown Thousand Oaks Project: CEQA 2025-70002, GP-2025-70001, SP -2025-70001, TTM -2025-70003, DP -2025-70015, PTP - 2025-70093, and SUP-2025-70022
A
ttachment #11 –The Tentative Tract Map was not included in the original Planning Commission agenda packet and is provided herein as supplemental material.
The following pages also include correspondence received after publication of the agenda packet.
cdd:440-25/H:COMMON/Planning Commission/Agenda Packet/2026/2026-05-18/Supplemental/Supplemental 1.docx/pz [FILE ID: GP-2025-70001, DP-2025-70015, SP-2025-70001, CEQA-2025-70002, et al]
ATTACHMENT #11
cdd:440-25\H:COMMON\Planning Commission\Agenda Packet\2026\2025-05-18\Downtown Project\07A DTTO GP-2025-70001 et al Attach 11 TTM.pdf\pz [GP-2025-70001, DP-2025-70015, SP-2025-70001, CEQA-2025-70002, et al]
SUPPLEMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENT
Environmental Impact Report
DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT
SCH No. 2025090621
Lead Agency:
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS
2100 East Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, California 91362
Contact: Krystin Rice
805.449.2335
Prepared by:
CSG CONSULTANTS
3240 El Camino Real, Suite 190
Irvine, California 92602
Contact: Glenn Lajoie, AICP
714.815.8124
MAY 2026
CSG CONSULTANTS
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT CSG CONSULTANTS 3
1.0 Responses to Late Comments
In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15088, the City of Thousand Oaks (City), as the lead agency, evaluated the written comments received on the Downtown Thousand Oaks Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR; State Clearinghouse No. 2025090621) for the proposed Downtown Thousand Oaks Project (project) and prepared responses to the comments received (Responses to Comments), which are part of the Final EIR for the project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132.
The Draft EIR for the proposed project was distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, organizations, and interested members of the public, and was made available for a 45 -day public review period, which commenced on March 6, 2026, and concluded on April 21, 2026, consistent with C EQA Guidelines Section 15087 . A list of public agencies, organizations, and interested persons that provided comments on the Draft EIR during the public review period is provided in Table 3 -1, Comment Letters Received, of the Final EIR. Each comment is assigned a letter and a number. Within the Final EIR, individual comments within each comment letter have been numbered so comments can be cross-referenced with responses.
Table 1-1, Late Comment Letters Received, identifies comment letters that were received after the close of the public review period on April 21, 2026 . Although CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a) does not require written responses to comments received after the close of the public review period, the City has, in good faith effort, prepared written responses to the late comment letters identified herein . These responses to late comments are included in the administrative record for the proposed project as a supplemental document.
Table 1-1
Late Comment Letters Received
Comment
Letter No. Person, Firm, or Agency Letter Dated
Organizations (Late)
L-1
Lozeau Drury LLP, on behalf of Supporters Alliance for
Environmental Responsibility (SAFER)
Richard Drury, Partner
May 13, 2026
Via Email May 13, 2026 Marcella Ketelhut, Chair Kara Buss, Vice Chair Mic Farris, Commissioner Don Lanson, Commissioner Sharon McMahon, Commissioner Planning Commission City of Thousand Oaks 2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 Krystin Rice, Planning Division Manager Community Development Department City of Thousand Oaks 2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 Re: Comment on Environmental Impact Report, Downtown Thousand Oaks Specific Plan Project (SCH 2025090621) May 18, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting. Dear Chair Ketelhut, Vice Chair Buss, Honorable Planning Commissioners and Ms. Rice:This comment is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) prepared for the Downtown Thousand Oaks Project (SCH 2025090621), which proposes the construction of a seven-story, 142-key hotel, a seven-story, 161-unit mixed-use building with subterranean garage, and a four-story, a 79-unit mixed-use building with subterranean garage, located at 2100 East Thousand Oaks Boulevard in the City of Thousand Oaks (“Project”) to be heard at the May 18, 2026 Planning Commission meeting, SAFER is concerned that the EIR fails as an informational document and fails to impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s impacts. For example, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has submitted a comment letter stating that levels of cancer-causing perchloroethylene (PERC) are far above residential standards, and recommending mitigation. In response, the Final EIR refuses to impose any mitigation measures. This clearly constitutes a failure to impose feasible mitigation measures. SAFER requests that the Community Development Department address these shortcomings in a revised draft environmental impact report (“RDEIR”) and recirculate the RDEIR prior to considering approvals for the Project.
May 13, 2026 Comment on Environmental Impact Report, Downtown Thousand Oaks Specific Plan Project (SCH 2025090621) May 18, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting. Page 2 of 2 SAFER reserves the right to supplement these comments during the administrative process. Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist., 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121 (1997). Sincerely, Richard Drury Lozeau Drury LLP
RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS DOWNTOWN THOUSAND OAKS PROJECT CSG CONSULTANTS 6
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER L-1
Lozeau Drury LLP, on behalf of Supports Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) Richard Drury, Partner
May 13, 2026
L1-1 The commenter is writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER). The commenter summarizes the Draft EIR’s project description, scheduled Thousand Oaks Planning Commission date, and states that the Draft EIR fails as an informational document and fails to impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the project’s environmental impacts. In particular, the commenter cites the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC) Comment Letter, dated March 17, 2026, and claims that DTSC’s Comment Letter states that levels of cancer-causing perchloroethylene (PERC) are “far above residential standards” and recommends mitigation. The commenter further claims that the Final EIR refuses to im pose any mitigation measures, which constitutes a failure to impose feasible mitigation measures . As such, the commenter requests that the City address the claimed shortcomings in a revised environmental document and recirculate the document for public review prior to considering project approval. The commenter also states that they reserve the right to supplement their comments during the administrative process.
As described in the DTSC Comment Letter and summarized in Response to Comment A1 -1, DTSC summarizes the Draft EIR’s project description and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment findings regarding Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and tetrachloroethene (PCE). DTSC notes that reported concentrations of VOC did not exceed commercial/industrial acceptable screening levels; however, as the project would include residential uses, the commenter recommends that the City of Thousand Oaks enter into a voluntary agreement to address any potential contamination on the project site or receive oversight from a self -certified local agency, including DTSC and the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. The commenter concludes by summarizing the overall voluntary agreement processes. Overall, DTSC does not state that levels of PERCs would be far above residential standards , nor does DTSC recommend mitigation measures . Rather, DTSC recommends regulatory oversight via a voluntary agreement process to address any pot ential contamination of the project site. As a result, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, a recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required. Nonetheless, this comment is acknowledged and will be provided to City decision- makers for consideration. The commenter also states that they reserve their right to supplement their comments during the administrative process. This comment is noted, and no further response is necessary.
Outlook
Form Submission - Contact Us
FromSquarespace <[email protected]>
Date Wed 5/13/2026 4:34 PM
To Downtown <[email protected]>
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Sent via form submission from Downtown Thousand Oaks
Name: Catherine Ahrens
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (805) 796-7846
Message: Guess you all don't want the small town, quiet community any longer. turning Westlake and Thousand Oaks into the valley. Your building looks stale and cold.. especially that playground area. Young people do not want to live in Thousand Oaks. If this is all about tax dollars, do it correctly. You have the old K-mart monstrosity also going in.
Email opt-in:
Manage Submissions
Does this submission look like spam? Report it here.
Outlook
Vote NO on Master Plan & Civic Center redevelopment
Fromtina frugoli <[email protected]>
Date Mon 5/18/2026 1:21 PM
To Lori Goor <[email protected]>; Krystin Rice <[email protected]> You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Thousand Oaks Planning Commissioners,
Please reject the proposed Master Plan and Civic Center redevelopment plan.
People come to Thousand Oaks to get away from exactly what this plan exemplifies: traffic, overcrowding, tall buildings and the paving of green space.
I figured it would be a bold proposal with a handout to the ultra-rich, but my jaw dropped when I saw it. If you want to destroy this city, take from the current residents and give to wealthy developers, this is the plan.
There are only 3 roads that pass through Thousand Oaks: the 101, TO Blvd and Hillcrest. We have no alternatives for getting through town. Other cities have a grid of options. The daily traffic increase will affect every resident. The 101 in Newbury Park is already stop and go most of the day. Bottle necking TO Blvd in front of the Civics Arts Plaza will make things much worse. The irrational excuse that it will encourage people to walk is laughable.
Your plan rightly shows the Conejo Valley as extreme fire danger. We have seen how little fire fighters are able to help when the winds are strong. I know several people who have lost their homes to fire. It's more and more difficult to get insurance, but at least we were able to evacuate. If this proposal is approved residents will not be able to evacuate. It will create a death trap during the next big fire.
This design lacks the intention and creativity needed to develop and still preserve the atmosphere of this unique community.
Please vote NO on these plans. Prove to us that our local government represents the residents and not the developers.
Sincerely,
Tina Frugoli
720 Rancho Rd
Thousand Oaks, CA
91362
May 18th, 2026
Thousand Oaks Planning Commission
2100 Thousand Oaks Blvd
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
RE: Collective Business Support for the Downtown Thousand Oaks Project Dear Chair Ketelhut and Planning Commissioners,
On behalf of the Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce and the undersigned coalition of over 100 local businesses and organizations, we are writing to express our unified, enthusiastic support for the Downtown Thousand Oaks project.
For over a decade, our business community has identified the creation of a Downtown as a top economic priority. This project is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to develop the Thousand Oaks Boulevard corridor into a dynamic, walkable destination that serves as the cultural and economic heartbeat of Thousand Oaks.
As representatives of the diverse industries that power this region, we support this project because it will:
• Drive Economic Vitality: By creating a central hub for commerce, we will increase foot traffic for local retailers and restaurants, ensuring that discretionary spending remains within our community to fund vital public services. • Fuel the Innovation Ecosystem: A vibrant downtown is a critical retainment and recruitment tool for our growing life science and tech sectors. To attract top-tier talent, Thousand Oaks must offer the “complete" community experience, balancing high-quality jobs with a walkable, connected lifestyle. • Enhance Community Connection: With new public gathering spaces and a public market, this project provides the social infrastructure needed to foster community pride and ensure Thousand Oaks is a premier place to live, work, and play.
This vision honors our city’s character while building a sustainable future. We urge you to recommend approval and help us finally create the heart of Thousand Oaks.
Sincerely,
The Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce and the Undersigned Coalition of Local Businesses
The Downtown Thousand Oaks Business Coalition
5-Star Theatricals
AFG BT&Y LLC
Always Best Care
AQMS Moving
Art Trek
Athens Services
BEAM Design &
Consulting
Beautyhabit
Benjamin Griffes,
M.A., D.C.
Best Western Plus
Thousand Oaks Inn
Bioscience Alliance
Bonibi
Bo’s House of
Omelettes & Waffles
Boys & Girls Clubs of
Greater Conejo Valley
California Lutheran
University
Citizens Business
Bank, N.A.
Cohen Land Use Law
Conejo Awards
Conejo Simi
Moorpark Association
of REALTORS®
Cowe
Communications
Crawford’s Social
Daland Swim School
Edward Jones -
Jasmine Alicea
Élan Pilates Studios
Elite Express Car
Wash
Escapology
Express Employment
Fazio Cleaners
FirstLight Home Care
Galt Green
Engineering
Glass Arts Collective
Gotcha Covered
Thousand Oaks
Go West Creative
Hampton Inn & Suites
Agoura Hills
Hampton Inn & Suites
Thousand Oaks
Harmony Family Yoga
HER Consulting
HLTransformation /
Wendy Asarch
Homewood Suites
Agoura Hills
Housing Trust Fund
Ventura County /
Housing Land Trust
VC
HUB International
Hyatt Regency
Westlake
IBP
Jacob Flames Tang
Soo Do University
Jessicurl LLC
Kevin Barry Art
Advisory
Kirk Jewelers
Ladyface Mountain
Film Festival
Latigo Group
La Quinta Inn
Thousand Oaks
Lakeview Canyon
Le Macaron French
Pastries
Live Better Financial
Los Robles Health
Lowermortgage.net
Made in Italy Bistro
Manna Conejo Valley
Food Bank
Many Mansions
MainStreet Mortgage
Marketing Maven
Medicare Planning of
California
MGR Development
Moms of Conejo
Valley
Monitz Mediation
Mouthful Eatery
Mustang Marketing
Newberry Candy
New York Life
NU Med Spa
Oneness Clinic
Opolo Wines
Own your Crown
Park West Insurance
Paula Kropp Realtor
Pegasus Transit
PEQ Performance
Consulting
Pets First Veterinary
Hospital
Pizza Cookery
Thousand Oaks
Pletcher Law, APC
Premier America
Proactive Sports
Performance
Proactive Sports
Therapy
RCI Builders
Richard M. Hoefflin, A
Law Corporation
Rick Hore - State
Farm Agent
Rincon Strategies
Selvin Properties
Shapell Properties
Simple Loans Inc
Smart Shopper
Southern California
Orthopedic Institute
(SCOI)
Stephens Law Group,
P .C.
Sugar
Sunland Vintage
Winery
SunMed | Modern
Wellness
SWPPP CAL
Takeda
Tarantula Hill Brewing
Co.
The James
Storehouse, Inc.
The Oaks
The Wine Girl
The Zierhut Group
TOArts
Trammell Crow
Company
The SL Group
United Defense
Tactical
Valibus Productions,
Inc
Voss Growth Partners
Wendy Williams,
Realtor®
West Tasting Room
May 15, 2026
Thousand Oaks Planning Commission
2100 Thousand Oaks Blvd
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
RE: Support for the Downtown Thousand Oaks Project
Dear Chair Ketelhut and Thousand Oaks Planning Commissioners, As a long-standing member of the Thousand Oaks community, Amgen is proud to support the Downtown Thousand Oaks project. Since our founding more than 45 years ago, we have seen this city grow into an exceptional place to live and work, and we believe this project is an essential investment in its future.
For many Amgen employees, Thousand Oaks is more than the location of our headquarters—it is home. For these individuals and families, the character of the community matters deeply. The vision for a pedestrian-oriented Main Street and central community hub reflects the kind of environment that helps people feel connected to the places where they live. It creates opportunities for neighbors to gather, for families to spend time together, and for residents to enjoy a stronger sense of community and belonging. These qualities are increasingly important to people looking for not only professional opportunity, but also a community that supports a balanced, engaged, and fulfilling lifestyle.
A thriving downtown also contributes to the long-term vitality of the broader community. By developing the Thousand Oaks Boulevard corridor into a dynamic destination, this project would strengthen Thousand Oaks as a place where the best and the brightest want to remain, invest, and put down roots.
Amgen appreciates the thoughtful planning behind this effort and the opportunity it presents to shape a downtown area that will serve the community for years to come.
We respectfully urge the Planning Commission to approve the Downtown Thousand Oaks project.
Sincerely,
Ben Chu, Executive Director, Amgen, Inc.
Amy Commans, Vice President Community, Employer & Government Relations | 805-370-4292 [email protected]
Thousand Oaks Planning Commission
2100 Thousand Oaks Blvd.
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
RE: Support for the Downtown Thousand Oaks Project
On behalf of Los Robles Health System, I am writing to formally support the Downtown Thousand Oaks project. Los Robles views this landmark initiative as a vital step in enhancing both the social fabric and the economic future of our region.
Our perspective is rooted in the understanding that a community’s physical environment is a primary driver of its overall well-being. By prioritizing walkability and providing high-quality outdoor gathering spaces, this project creates an active infrastructure that encourages healthier lifestyles and social cohesion. A centralized, pedestrian-friendly core is a proactive investment in the long-term wellness of the residents we serve.
Additionally, this project is a strategic necessity for our workforce development. To maintain our standing as an integral economically viable and resilient community, Los Robles is proud to be at the epicenter of our communities’ infrastructural needs. At Los Robles Hospital, we must successfully compete for specialized medical talent in an increasingly demanding recruitment landscape. A modern, culturally engaging downtown makes Thousand Oaks a more compelling destination for the healthcare professionals and innovators we aim to attract and even more importantly to retain.
This project represents a pivotal opportunity to modernize our city’s core while honoring the character of the Conejo Valley. On behalf of Los Robles Health System, I urge the Planning Commission to approve the Downtown Thousand Oaks project and help us build a more connected, prosperous and vibrant community.
Kind regards,
Amy Commans
Vice President, Community, Employer & Government Relations Los Robles Health System
Thursday, May 7 2026
Thousand Oaks City Council
2100 Thousand Oaks Blvd
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
Re: Support for the Thousand Oaks Downtown Project
Dear Chair Ketelhut and Planning Commissioners,
The Hyatt Regency Westlake expresses strong support for the Thousand Oaks Downtown Project from the perspective of the local hotel and hospitality industry. The project presents a valuable opportunity to strengthen Thousand Oaks as a destination, sup port local businesses, and create a walkable, vibrant city center that benefits residents, visitors, and employers. Hotels rely on the strength of the surrounding destination. Visitors choose where to stay based on the overall experience, including dining, enter tainment, shopping, public spaces, and ease of exploration. The Downtown Project’s vision to connect housing, walkable retail and resta urants, a boutique hotel, and the Civic Arts Plaza into a cohesive destination will enhance the city’s competitiveness fo r leisure, group, and business travel.
From a hotel perspective, the project would help extend visitor stays and increase local spending. Guests who attend performa nces, dine locally, shop, and explore the area contribute to economic activity that supports restaurants, retailers, service workers, and small businesses throughout the community. The Civic Arts Plaza is already a major asset, with the Kavli Theatre, Scherr Forum Theatre, civic facilities, and approximately 200,000 annual visitors for performances and events. The Downtown Project wou ld build on this by encouraging visitors to arrive earlier, stay longer, and return more often—supporting hotel occupancy, group bookings, and the city’s ability to attract meetings, events, and cultural tourism.
Walkability is a key feature visitors seek, and the project’s emphasis on pedestrian -friendly design, outdoor spaces, and convenient parking will enhance the overall experience. These elements are practical drivers of economic activity, making the area mor e accessible, appealing, and memorable.
The project also reflects extensive community input, addressing important topics such as arts and entertainment, sustainabili ty, accessibility, and preservation of local character. This thoughtful approach helps ensure the project aligns with both econom ic goals and community values. A successful downtown will strengthen Thousand Oaks’ identity, provide a central gathering place, and give visitors a clearer sense of what the city offers. It will also support local businesses and enhance the experience for residents and guests alike.
For these reasons, continued advancement of the Thousand Oaks Downtown Project is strongly encouraged. From a hospitality perspective, it represents a forward-looking investment in tourism, economic growth, and the long -term vitality of Thousand Oaks.
Sincerely,
Jeff White David McGovern
General Manager Director of Sales and Marketing
Hyatt Regency Westlake Hyatt Regency Westlake
May 14, 2026
Chair Marcella Ketelhut
Thousand Oaks Planning Commission
2100 Thousand Oaks Blvd.
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
Re: Downtown Project - Support
Dear Chairwoman Ketelhut,
On behalf of Takeda, a major employer in Thousand Oaks that completed a $170 million investment in 2025, we have long supported the vision for a future downtown that appeals to our employees and strengthens the community’s ability to attract new talent.
We are excited to see this underutilized area transformed into a pedestrian-oriented destination that highlights culinary arts and enhances the theatre experience. A true “downtown” will be an important amenity as we recruit talent nationally, creating an experience not currently available in our city and helping catalyze future reinvestment along Thousand Oaks Blvd.
The plan also supports our diverse workforce, from young professionals to senior leaders, through a mix of gathering spaces and much-needed variety of housing options.
We appreciate the city’s thoughtful approach to community outreach, including its focus on sustainability aligned with our company priorities, and how the project has evolved in response.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Dritz
Head of Manufacturing, Thousand Oaks Facility
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited
CalLutheran.edu
Office (805) 493-3100
Office of the President
60 West Olsen Road #1300
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
May 18, 2026
City of Thousand Oaks
Thousand Oaks City Hall
2100 Thousand Oaks Blvd.
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
Re: May 18 Council Meeting
Letter of Support
On behalf of the California Lutheran University (CLU) community, I am writing to express our enthusiastic support for the Downtown Thousand Oaks project.
For more than 65 years, Cal Lutheran has evolved alongside this city, transforming our campus into a modern learning environment that meets the needs of a diverse, vibrant student population.
We recognize that such transformation requires bold vision and a commitment to adapting to the future. The Downtown project represents a parallel opportunity for the City of Thousand Oaks to breathe new life into an underutilized area, creating a dynamic and inclusive destination for residents and visitors alike.
For CLU, this initiative is particularly significant for the following reasons:
• Enhanced Student Experience: A vibrant downtown provides our students, faculty, and staff with a vital sense of community beyond the campus gates—a factor that is increasingly essential for student engagement and retention.
• A "Public Square" for Connection: The proposed mix of amenities, including the public market, offers the kind of cultural and social touchpoints that appeal to a new generation of students, professionals, and families.
• Recruitment and Retention: A thriving downtown serves as a powerful recruiting tool, signaling to prospective students and faculty that Thousand Oaks is not just a place to study, but a place to truly live, explore, and belong.
This project clearly reflects a shared vision shaped by extensive community input. We appreciate the City's leadership in moving this transformative initiative forward and look forward to the positive impact it will have on our collective future.
Sincerely,
John A. Nunes, Ph.D.
President, California Lutheran University
May 15, 2026
Thousand Oaks Planning
2100 Thousand Oaks Blvd
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
RE: Strong Support for the Downtown Thousand Oaks Project
Dear Chair Ketelhut and Thousand Oaks Planning Commissioners,
As a major healthcare provider and employer in the Conejo Valley, Kaiser Permanente is proud to express our enthusiastic support for the Downtown Thousand Oaks project.
At Kaiser Permanente, we understand that health extends beyond the walls of a medical office. It is rooted in the environments where our members live, work, and play.
The vision for a walkable, vibrant, and connected downtown aligns perfectly with our mission to improve the health of the communities we serve. By creating ten new public gathering spaces and a pedestrian-friendly Main Street, this project encourages active lifestyles and fosters social connections that are vital to mental and physical well-being.
Furthermore, as we continue to grow our presence in this region, the ability to recruit and retain top-tier medical professionals and staff is paramount. Today’s workforce increasingly seeks "complete" communities, places where high-quality professional opportunities are balanced by a dynamic local culture and accessible amenities. A thriving downtown will make Thousand Oaks a more attractive destination for the talent we need to provide world-class care.
This project is a once-in-a-generation investment that honors the city’s character while building a sustainable future. We urge you to move forward with the approval of the Downtown Thousand Oaks project.
Please feel to contact me at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Matthew L. Jacobs
Government and Community Relations Manger
Kaiser Permanente Panorama City & Antelope Valley
[email protected]
1990 S. Bundy Drive, Suite 500 • Los Angeles, CA 90025
May 14, 2026
Thousand Oaks Planning
2100 Thousand Oaks Blvd
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
RE: Support for Downtown Thousand Oaks Redevelopment
Dear Chair Ketelhut and Thousand Oaks Planning Commissioners, As a long-term partner in the growth of Thousand Oaks, Shapell is pleased to support the Downtown Thousand Oaks project. Our company has a significant presence in Thousand Oaks, both in multi-family and commercial properties. We also have a deep appreciation for the high standards, thoughtful planning, and quality of life that define this community.
Our experience in both regional and localized development has shown that vibrant, intentional placemaking provides a foundation for residents, businesses, and visitors to thrive. The ability to create a successful pedestrian-oriented downtown district can be challenging and requires substantial faith and investment from the business community to succeed. The proposed Downtown project is of a scale necessary to provide the drawing power required for such districts to thrive, while including open and event space that will generate recurring visits and interest to sustain the project over time. We believe it to be a natural and necessary step in the city’s evolution, and will provide a social and civic outlet to complement the lifestyle choices of both businesses and residents of the city.
As we work to attract world-class companies to our new project, Conejo Spectrum — particularly companies founded on advancements in biology and technology, the presence of a vibrant downtown core is a significant competitive advantage. Today’s workforce is increasingly seeking communities that offer a high quality of life, walkable amenities, and authentic gathering places. A dynamic downtown zone will support Thousand Oaks’ ability to attract and retain the next generation of emerging industry talent.
The proposed plan balances a commitment to exceptional quality, while addressing the future needs of our local economy and community. We are confident this vision will serve as a catalyst for long-term economic vitality and community connection, and we respectfully urge you to move forward with its approval.
Sincerely,
John A. Love
Vice President, Development
warnerpacific.com | (800) 801-2300
32110 Agoura Road, Westlake Village, CA 91361
Arizona License #1800000049, California License #0764260, Colorado License #351162, Florida License #L003488, Illinois License #0136272, Iowa License #0138031 and #1001001757, Minnesota License #20195635, New York License #0116113, Ohio License #2209, Oklahoma License #0100151962, South Carolina License #1909243413, Texas License #1641424
May 11
th, 2026
Thousand Oaks Planning Commission
2100 Thousand Oaks Blvd
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
RE: Strong Support for the Downtown Thousand Oaks Project
Dear Chair Ketelhut and Planning Commissioners,
On behalf of Warner Pacific, I am writing to express our strong support for the Downtown Thousand Oaks project. For over 40 years, our organization has been a dedicated partner to the insurance broker community and the employers they serve throughout the region.
We recognize that for our regional economy to remain competitive, our communities must evolve to meet the needs of a modern workforce. The Downtown Project represents exactly the kind of forward-thinking investment required to sustain this momentum.
A vibrant downtown core offers critical benefits for the local business ecosystem:
• Talent Attraction and Retention: To support our carrier and broker partners, we rely on a highly skilled professional workforce. The next generation of talent increasingly seeks communities where career opportunities are balanced by a dynamic local culture, walkable amenities, and diverse housing options.
• Economic Vitality: By creating a central hub for commerce and community gathering, this project will stimulate investment and ensure that more discretionary spending remains within our community, benefiting our local small businesses. • Community Connection: As a family-owned organization, we value the social fabric of the areas we serve. The addition of public gathering spaces and a pedestrian-friendly Main Street will foster social connections that make the Conejo Valley a leading place to do business.
warnerpacific.com | (800) 801-2300
32110 Agoura Road, Westlake Village, CA 91361
Arizona License #1800000049, California License #0764260, Colorado License #351162, Florida License #L003488, Illinois License #0136272, Iowa License #0138031 and #1001001757, Minnesota License #20195635, New York License #0116113, Ohio License #2209, Oklahoma License #0100151962, South Carolina License #1909243413, Texas License #1641424
The vision of a downtown in Thousand Oaks has been decades in the making. We urge you to move forward with this project to ensure our region continues to thrive as a hub for innovation, talent, and opportunity.
Sincerely,
Debbie Adrian
President of Sales
May 6, 2026
Thousand Oaks City Planning Commission
Attn: Chair Ketelhut
2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, CA 9362
Re: Project Design Services for Downtown Thousand Oaks Project – Support
Dear Chair Ketelhut and Planning Commissioners,
On behalf of Premier America Credit Union, I am writing to express our continued support for the Downtown Thousand Oaks Project. As a long-standing partner in the Thousand Oaks community, Premier America is deeply invested in the city’s continued economic vitality and its commitment to creating vibrant, inclusive, and sustainable spaces.
As a trusted financial institution in Southern California for over 60 years, we recognize the thoughtful planning and significant effort that have brought the project to this critical phase. From robust public engagement to a clear vision for sustainable and pedestrian- friendly design, this initiative reflects the best of what public-private collaboration can achieve. We are particularly encouraged by the emphasis on increasing accessibility, supporting small businesses, and incorporating green infrastructure… all elements that contribute to a thriving and inclusive community.
We urge the Planning Commission to support this recommendation to the City Council and approve this transformative project. Premier America is committed to supporting this vision and looks forward to working with the city and community stakeholders as the project progresses.
Together, we can ensure the Downtown Thousand Oaks Project becomes a lasting legacy of innovation, community spirit, and economic resilience.
Thank you for your leadership and dedication to our city’s future.
Sincerely,
Marci Francisco, SVP/Chief Experience Officer
PREMIER AMERICA CREDIT UNION
14048 Valley Blvd, City of Industry, CA 91716
(888) 336-6100
May 12, 2026
Thousand Oaks Planning Commission
2100 Thousand Oaks Blvd
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
RE: Support for the Downtown Thousand Oaks Project
Dear Chair Ketelhut and Thousand Oaks Planning Commissioners,
As a long-standing partner in the City’s infrastructure and sustainability efforts, Athens Services is proud to express our strong support for the Downtown Thousand Oaks project.
Our perspective is rooted in the belief that environmental health and economic vitality are inextricably linked. The proposed Downtown Project is a model for sustainable urban planning; by transforming the Thousand Oaks Boulevard corridor into a walkable, mixed-use destination, the City is taking a proactive step toward reducing vehicle dependency and promoting efficient resource management.
From our vantage point as a service provider, we see several key benefits to this vision:
• Sustainable Infrastructure: The emphasis on green design and the preservation of our iconic oak trees mirrors our own commitment to stewardship. A well-planned downtown allows for more streamlined and sustainable urban service management. • Economic Resilience: A vibrant Main Street acts as a catalyst for local businesses. A thriving local economy generates the tax revenue necessary to reinvest in the public services that keep Thousand Oaks a premier community.
• A Complete Community: To maintain a high quality of service, we rely on a local workforce.
The inclusion of diverse housing options ensures that those who work in our city can also afford to live here.
This project fulfills a 30-year vision to create a social heartbeat for the Conejo Valley. We urge the Planning Commission to recommend approval, ensuring Thousand Oaks remains a forward-thinking and connected place to call home.
Sincerely,
Rondi Guthrie
Vice President of Government Affairs
Athens Services
Outlook
Fw: Agenda Item 7 A Public Hearing Written Comment (Downtown Project) FromCommunity Development Department <[email protected]> Date Mon 5/18/2026 11:15 AM
To Lori Goor <[email protected]>; Krystin Rice <[email protected]> FWD
Community Development Department
City of Thousand Oaks
2100 E Thousand Oaks Blvd.
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
(805) 449-2500
From: Christopher <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 11:12 AM
To: Community Development Department <[email protected]> Subject: Agenda Item 7 A Public Hearing Written Comment (Downtown Project)
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Short Summary: This Conejo Hills resident and family are against the proposed Resolution and we are against the Downtown Project. We note that our family never agreed with the basic concept of a Downtown because we appreciated the diversity of the multiple businesses and residencial areas along the entire corridor of Hillcrest in Newbury Park to Thousand Oaks Blvd in the east.
Reason: Before moving to Thousand Oaks from Canoga Park, I commuted to Ventura beginning in 1991. As I drove through Thousand Oaks on the 101, I was aghast at the sight of a tall building being constructed on Thousand Oaks Blvd. blocking the view of the distant mountains above the Ventura - Santa Paula area. I was shocked when I learned this building was the new Thousand Oaks City Hall.and Civic Arts complex. Why the City wanted to tarnish the landscape with the horribly tall Civic Arts complex was beyond me yet my family moved here anyway in 1994. Now City Staff is supporting the further destruction of the Downtown Area with 7 story structures and the associated congestion of all these projects in a small area.
Clearly there is a motivation and determination in City Hall staff to destroy the character of our community. 7 story buildings are inconsistent with the community we think exists here as well as inconsistent with the notion of compressing all these projects into a small area. City Staff are not aligned with all the residents, especially in the case of our family.
There may be something else going on that is not clearly seen. It may be about increasing revenue to pay for higher outrageous salaries for City Management - the same people that couldn't keep an eye on the Quality Inn scandal playing out in the courts - the same people that couldn't get a similar job in the private sector if they tried and the same people that want to destroy the character of Thousand Oaks so we can be more like the failed Oxnard Esplanade.
We are against this Downtown Project and we vote.
D. Christopher Fall and Family
Conejo Hills - Thousand Oaks
Outlook
Support for the Downtown Plan
FromGeoffrey Friberg <[email protected]>
Date Sat 5/16/2026 1:00 PM
To Krystin Rice <[email protected]>
Cc Downtown <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Planning Commission Team,
My name is Geoffrey Friberg, and participate in YALA here in Thousand Oaks. I want to show my support for the recent Downtown Thousand Oaks Project.
I've always loved participating in the performing arts since I signed up for my first musical when I was 8, and I believe having a place inside where art music and all arts are able to flourish is something necessary and beautiful to a city. Having to leave my TO community to find other places for art and music to be taken seriously is difficult especially as a young person growing up here, If we had access to a downtown with an outdoor amphitheater and a new performance venue it would mean so much for the expression of art in Thousand Oaks. I believe a project like this could allow artists like me to grow and build something, but also bring our community together through the arts.
I really hope you will support this project, and thank you so much for your time and consideration.
Thank you,
Geoffrey Friberg
Westlake Village
[email protected]
Outlook
Thousand Oaks Downtown project
FromTracey Giller <[email protected]>
Date Sat 5/16/2026 8:39 AM
To Krystin Rice <[email protected]>
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Ms. Rice,
While I understand progress happens, I am firmly against any building height above 4 stories. I grew up here, graduated from Newbury Park High School, went to CLU for college, and as a long time resident, what makes Thousand Oaks so special is its beauty, open spaces, views of mountains and oak trees. When you introduce massive scale building projects, you are directly impacting that beauty, limiting views, likely removing our oak trees… everything that makes Thousand Oaks a place where people do their best to stay and raise their own families, as I have. I work in the valley… and it is straight up ugly, overdeveloped, and lacks any charm/character at all. Please don’t allow the Conejo Valley to become an extension of the valley, I guarantee we will lose many people who grew up here and end up not even recognizing the community anymore. Progress is okay, yes let’s renovate TO Blvd., and make it a more desirable destination, but massive overdevelopment is not what any of our residents are looking for.
I believe I’m quite progressive on the whole, but at the end of the day, if you can’t afford to live here there are other places to go, as it has always been for decades. We cannot build in all our open spaces and into the sky just so people who can’t afford what’s already here can suddenly come to Thousand Oaks. Thank you for recording my comment against this project’s ridiculous height.
Sincerely,
Tracey Giller
Sent from my iPhone
Outlook
Fw: Public Comment Submission - Item 7A Downtown Thousand Oaks Project FromCommunity Development Department <[email protected]> Date Mon 5/18/2026 11:12 AM
To Lori Goor <[email protected]>; Krystin Rice <[email protected]> 1 attachment (2 MB)
Downtown Chamber Coalition Support Letter 5.18.26 FINAL.pdf; FWD
Community Development Department
City of Thousand Oaks
2100 E Thousand Oaks Blvd.
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
(805) 449-2500
From: Josh Gray <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 11:11 AM
To: Community Development Department <[email protected]> Subject: Public Comment Submission - Item 7A Downtown Thousand Oaks Project
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good morning,
I’ve attached the Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce’s Downtown Thousand Oaks Business Coalition Support Letter for tonight’s Planning Commission meeting for Item 7A, the Downtown Thousand Oaks Project.
Additionally in the attached document, you’ll find 10 individual letters of support from the following local employers in support of the Downtown Thousand Oaks Project: Amgen, Los Robles HS, Hyatt Regency, Takeda, California Lutheran University, Kaiser Permanente, Shapell Properties, Warner Pacific, Premier America, and Athens Services.
Please let me know if you have any concerns or questions.
Thank you!
Josh Gray l Director of Government Affairs & Tourism
Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce
600 Hampshire Road #200 | Westlake Village, CA 91361
D: 805.267.7506
Outlook
FW: Item 7A -Support
FromLori Goor <[email protected]>
Date Mon 5/18/2026 11:09 AM
To Krystin Rice <[email protected]>
-----Original Message-----
From: Community Development Department <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 10:55 AM
To: Lori Goor <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Item 7A -Support
-----Original Message-----
From: JILL HANEY <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 10:49 AM
To: Community Development Department <[email protected]> Subject: Item 7A -Support
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
As a 67 year resident of Thousand Oaks, longtime banking professional and engaged community member serving on numerous nonprofit boards - including the Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce - I’m writing to express my support for the Downtown project. Having followed and participated in the public outreach process, I appreciated seeing how the project has evolved in response to community feedback and become even more thoughtful and reflective of the community’s long-term vision. I am looking forward to having a community gathering place to spend time with friends and family. Thank you! Sent from my iPhone
BOARD OFFICERS
Chair
Ken Trigueiro
People’s Self -Help Housing Corp.
Vice Chair
Elenore Vaughn
Housing Authority of the City of
Santa Paula
Treasurer
Karen Flock
Housing Authority of the City of
San Buenaventura
Secretary
Derrick Wada
Cabrillo Economic Development
Corporation
Former Chair
Tracy McAulay
County of Ventura
Chair -Housing Land Trust Ventura
County
Alex Russell
Homes & Hope
Chair Emeritus
Dawn Dyer
Dyer Sheehan Group, Inc.
Advisor
Mary Ann Krause, AICP
Urban Planner
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Elsa Brown
City of Oxnard
Maruja Clensay
City of San Buenaventura
Garry Collett
California Commercial Investment
Group
Angel Garcia
County of Ventura
Sarah McCarthy -Garcia
McCarthy Companies
Anthony Mireles
Laborers Int’l Union Local 585
Sean Morreale
Bank Executive
Cathi Nye
V.C. Office of Education
Lynn Oshita
City of Thousand Oaks
Stratis Perros
City of Simi Valley
Mark Pettit
Architect
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Linda Braunschweiger
May 14, 2026
Thousand Oaks Planning Commission
2100 Thousand Oaks Blvd
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
RE: Support for the Downtown Thousand Oaks Project
Dear Chair Ketelhut and Thousand Oaks Planning Commissioners, The Housing Trust Fund Ventura County is pleased to express our support for the Downtown project, which represents an important opportunity to advance housing, economic vitality, and a more connected community for future generations. Our mission is to support the creation and preservation of affordable housing for our region’s workforce by leveraging public-private partnerships to provide low-cost, flexible loans early in the housing development cycle. This project represents a critical step in addressing the "missing middle" housing crisis that persists across Ventura County.
The Downtown Project is a model for how we can create high- quality housing for our local workforce without relying solely on limited public grant funding. By utilizing a smart density approach, the project is set to deliver nearly a quarter of its units for moderate-income residents, those earning between $84,000 and $119,750. These are the teachers, public safety officers, and healthcare professionals who are the backbone of Thousand Oaks but are increasingly priced out of the community they serve. Creating this specific tier of housing is notoriously difficult, and this project provides a viable path to achieving it through private investment.
This development offers a rare opportunity to build a walkable, inclusive downtown that allows our workforce to live near their jobs. We urge the Planning Commission to recommend approval, ensuring that Thousand Oaks is a leader in solving the housing challenges facing our region.
Sincerely,
Linda Braunschweiger
CEO
Housing Trust Fund Ventura County and
Housing Land Trust Ventura County
Outlook
Fw: DTTO 5/18/2026
FromPlanning <[email protected]>
Date Fri 5/15/2026 2:33 PM
To Krystin Rice <[email protected]>
Please see the letter of support for Downtown TO.
Planning Division
Community Development Department
From: Hi You <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2026 12:57 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: DTTO 5/18/2026
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi City Of Thousand Oaks,
I strongly support the DTTO and
I am looking forward to the upcoming Downtown Thousand Oaks Project and future revitalization of the Civic Arts Center as it’s very much needed to bring in foot traffic for the Arts Center. This is long overdue and a long anticipated project from the beginning of the development of Thousand Oaks as the founders and developers of the early days had intended.
It will provide much needed housing and shops & restaurants together to form a walkable neighborhood that has added great restaurants nearby like Basta and a social eatery and bar Tarantulas Brewery.
I just wish that in all the new developments happening in the Conejo Valley, that the new developments of mixed use and non-mixed use were less market rate rentals and more affordable housing and more for sale Townhomes/Condos.
I also urge the city to try and connect with Non-Profit Affordable Housing developers for proposed required affordable housing locations to maximize the number of mixed affordable housing needs in our community before working with for profit developers.
Thank you, Marci Keele
Thousand Oaks Resident
( just around the corner from this DTTO )
Sent from my iPhone
Outlook
Fw: Item 7A- Support - May 18, 2026
FromCommunity Development Department <[email protected]> Date Mon 5/18/2026 11:23 AM
To Lori Goor <[email protected]>; Krystin Rice <[email protected]> Fwd
Community Development Department
City of Thousand Oaks
2100 E Thousand Oaks Blvd.
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
(805) 449-2500
From: Ladd, Julia <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 11:22 AM
To: Community Development Department <[email protected]> Cc: Danielle Borja <[email protected]>; Commans Amy <[email protected]>; Buttell Phil <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 7A- Support - May 18, 2026
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Chair Ketelhut & Commissioners,
As a 22-year resident of Thousand Oaks and a professional who has spent more than two decades in commercial real estate, I am writing to express my strong support for the Downtown Thousand Oaks project.
I am deeply invested in the continued vitality and long-term success of our community. In my current role as Vice President of Property Management for Macerich, I have had the opportunity to work closely with thoughtfully designed mixed-use environments across the country. I have seen firsthand how walkable, well-integrated downtown districts not only enhance economic resilience, but also create meaningful spaces for connection, culture, and community life. These developments, when done well, become enduring assets that evolve alongside the needs of their residents.
From my perspective as both a real estate professional and an engaged community member, Thousand Oaks is at an important moment. Our city has long been recognized for its quality of life, but we must continue to think proactively about how we serve the next generation of residents—particularly young families and professionals who seek vibrant, connected places to live, work, and gather. Additionally, through my role on the Los Robles Hospital Board of Trustees, I am continually reminded of how critical strong, cohesive communities are to overall wellbeing.
This project represents a meaningful opportunity to create a central gathering place that supports not only economic growth, but also social connection and long-term community health.
As we look ahead to the next 30 years, it is essential that we build with intention—balancing growth with character, and innovation with the values that have long defined Thousand Oaks. The Downtown Thousand Oaks project reflects that kind of thoughtful, forward-looking vision.
I respectfully encourage the Planning Commission to support this initiative and help ensure that our city continues to thrive for generations to come.
Julia Ladd | VP, Property Management
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Macerich
401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700
Santa Monica, CA 90401
p. 424.229.3301
Outlook
FW: Written Comment: Item 7A - Downtown Thousand Oaks Project FromCity Manager's Office <[email protected]>
Date Mon 5/18/2026 12:55 PM
To Lori Goor <[email protected]>; Krystin Rice <[email protected]> Hello,
We received this email in the city manager's inbox and Katie had asked if anyone sent over anything regarding the project to send it over.
Thank you,
Jessica Lopez
Administrative Aide
City Manager’s Office
(805) 449-2190
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Pletcher <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 12:01 PM
To: Community Development Department <[email protected]> Cc: City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; Mikey Taylor <[email protected]>; Bob Engler <[email protected]>; Al Adam <[email protected]>; Tie Gutierrez <[email protected]>; David Newman <[email protected]>; Andrew Pletcher <[email protected]> Subject: Written Comment: Item 7A - Downtown Thousand Oaks Project [You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Re: Downtown Thousand Oaks / Civic Center Redevelopment — Economic Development, Local Business, Housing, Public Art, and Placemaking
Honorable Chair, Commissioners, and City Staff:
I write in support of the City’s continued effort to create a true Downtown Thousand Oaks, and to encourage the City to evaluate this project not only as a land-use application, but as one of the most important economic- development decisions Thousand Oaks will make for the next generation.
The City’s Downtown Core vision properly recognizes the Civic Arts Plaza area as the nucleus of a future downtown.
That vision is about more than buildings. It is about creating a place where residents, visitors, workers, families, artists, restaurants, local businesses, and civic institutions can interact in a way that produces sustained activity and long-term economic value. That is the correct ambition. But to achieve it, the City must be intentional about the economic ecosystem this project will create—not just the physical project it will approve.
The current proposal has the potential to reposition Thousand Oaks Boulevard as a regional destination. The City’s project materials describe a major mixed-use civic redevelopment involving a 142-key hotel, 240 residential units, 39 affordable units, restaurant and commercial space, entertainment uses, partial reconstruction of City Hall, public park space, an outdoor amphitheater, informal stages, seating areas, a splash pad, and flexible open space. That mix can contribute to a more active and economically productive downtown. But the project’s success should be measured by whether it produces sustained foot traffic, local spending, business formation, cultural participation, and a stronger downtown identity—not merely by whether it adds square footage.
First, the City should require a clear economic-impact and local-business strategy for the project. This redevelopment will affect existing businesses along and near Thousand Oaks Boulevard, both during construction and after opening. The City should study and plan for those impacts now. That means evaluating construction phasing, parking access, signage, pedestrian detours, small-business disruption, business retention, tenant mix, and opportunities for local operators to participate in the future downtown. A successful downtown project should lift the surrounding corridor with it. It should not function as an isolated development that competes with existing businesses; it should be designed as an economic engine that increases foot traffic, dwell time, and cross-shopping for the entire Thousand Oaks Boulevard corridor.
Second, the City should use its unique role as a public partner to push for more affordability than a conventional private project might provide. The current proposal includes 39 affordable units out of 240 total residential units, which is important and should be recognized. But this site is not ordinary. It is publicly significant land, at the center of a publicly led downtown vision, adjacent to civic, cultural, commercial, and transit-supportive infrastructure. The City should ask whether this project can do more—particularly for workforce housing, young professionals, service workers, artists, teachers, public employees, hospitality workers, and others who are essential to a functioning downtown economy. Affordable housing is not only a social-policy issue; it is economic infrastructure. Recent Urban Institute research emphasizes that affordable housing investment can generate local economic returns through jobs, labor income, economic output, and tax revenues. A downtown cannot thrive if the people who work in it, serve it, activate it, and participate in its civic life cannot afford to live near it.
Third, the City should recognize that we are competing in an experience economy. Downtowns no longer thrive simply because they have buildings, storefronts, or parking. People can shop online, work remotely, and dine anywhere. They choose places that offer identity, social energy, programming, culture, and a reason to return. The National Endowment for the Arts describes creative placemaking as the integration of arts, culture, and design into efforts to advance local economic, physical, and community outcomes, including strengthening local economies and promoting investment and job creation. This is especially important for Thousand Oaks. If the Civic Center redevelopment becomes attractive but static, it will underperform. If it becomes a programmed civic and cultural district—with rotating public art, live music, seasonal markets, outdoor performances, children’s programming, food events, local business pop-ups, shaded seating, and evening activity—it can become the kind of destination Thousand Oaks has long needed.
Fourth, the City should use this project as the catalyst for a future Public Art Master Plan. Thousand Oaks does not currently have a comprehensive Public Art Master Plan, and this project demonstrates why that gap matters. Public art should not be treated as a decorative afterthought, a one-time installation, or a condition added late in the entitlement process. It should be part of an intentional placemaking and economic-development strategy. The NEA’s creative placemaking resources recognize that arts and culture can help revitalize local economies, strengthen the authentic character of place, create places where people want to be, and support equitable community development. A future Public Art Master Plan could identify priority locations, funding tools, artist-selection processes, maintenance standards, community engagement protocols, and connections between public art, civic identity, downtown revitalization, parks, trails, and cultural programming.
For Thousand Oaks, this is not simply about adding sculptures or murals. It is about building a recognizable downtown brand. A future Public Art Master Plan could connect the Civic Arts Plaza, Thousand Oaks Boulevard, the new public park, the amphitheater, the hotel, local restaurants, the libraries, and existing cultural institutions into a coherent civic experience. It could also create opportunities for local artists, youth arts organizations, schools, nonprofits, and businesses to participate in shaping the identity of the district.
I respectfully urge the City to move forward with ambition, but also with discipline. Before final approvals, the City should require or incorporate: a local-business impact and retention strategy; a construction-period business mitigation plan; a downtown tenanting and activation strategy; a plan for regular programming of the plaza, amphitheater, park, and public spaces; stronger affordable and workforce housing commitments; and a public art and cultural programming framework that can serve as the foundation for a future Citywide Public Art Master Plan.
This is a rare opportunity. Thousand Oaks can build more than a project. It can build an economic district, a civic gathering place, a cultural identity, and a downtown that supports residents, visitors, local businesses, artists, and future generations. The City should treat this project accordingly.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Pletcher
Newbury Park
Outlook
FW: Form Submission - Contact Us
FromDowntown <[email protected]>
Date Mon 5/18/2026 12:52 PM
To Krystin Rice <[email protected]>
FYI
Get Outlook for Mac
From: Squarespace <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, May 18, 2026 at 12:48 PM
To: Downtown <[email protected]>
Subject: Form Submission - Contact Us
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Sent via form submission from Downtown Thousand Oaks
Name: Shannon Celia
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (805) 990-5059
Message: Hello Krystin- I am grateful for the downtown plans! As a local fine artist who was just on the Thousand Oaks Open Studio Tour for the second year, I was one of the first artists hired the Conejo Valley public art project, Conejo Cottontails, and I am someone who has been dreaming of a Thousand Oaks downtown for two decades.
I'd very much like to be informed about any meetings or plans happening about this downtown project. I've been to several focus group meetings about this subject matter. My email [email protected] and # is 805-990- 5059. Please keep me in the loop so I can share info with other colleagues too. We've been dreaming of a downtown gallery and museum space to make downtown TO Fine Art destination beyond just music and theatre (like Ojai and Santa Barbara), thank you! www.shannoncelia.com Email opt-in: I would like to receive occasional updates from the City of Thousand Oaks about the Downtown Project.
Manage Submissions
Does this submission look like spam? Report it here.
Outlook
Thousand Oaks Blvd Development
FromLarry <[email protected]>
Date Sat 5/16/2026 8:45 AM
To Krystin Rice <[email protected]>
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I am deeply disapointed in the egregious development planned for TO Blvd. Please reconsider this folly.
Larry Cote
Outlook
Supporting the Artist Project downtown TO
FromLaleh Mohajerani <[email protected]>
Date Sat 5/16/2026 8:37 AM
To Krystin Rice <[email protected]>; Downtown <[email protected]> Cc Ruben ⛳ <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
We are writing you to express our support for the proposed project to build a true downtown around the Bank of America Performing Arts Center, including an Artist Incubator, Public Market, outdoor amphitheater, and new performance venue. This type of community space is sorely needed in the Conejo Valley. Please count on our support as you move forward with the project.
Laleh Mohajerani and Ruben Maciel
310-801-9478 cell
[email protected]
Sent from my iPhone
Outlook
Fw: Urgent Opposition to Proposed Changes at Thousand Oaks City Hal FromCommunity Development Department <[email protected]> Date Mon 5/18/2026 7:46 AM
To Lori Goor <[email protected]>; Krystin Rice <[email protected]> FWD
Community Development Department
City of Thousand Oaks
2100 E Thousand Oaks Blvd.
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
(805) 449-2500
From: Eric quandt <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2026 1:25 PM
To: Community Development Department <[email protected]> Subject: Urgent Opposition to Proposed Changes at Thousand Oaks City Hal
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Members of the City Council and City Manager,
I am writing as a resident of Thousand Oaks to formally voice my strong opposition to the proposed changes regarding City Hall and the Civic Arts Plaza.
Beyond the immediate fiscal concerns, I am deeply worried that these modifications signal a move away from the core identity of our city. I urge the Council to prioritize the following:
Building Height Restrictions: We must maintain our current height limits. Allowing City Hall to set a precedent for taller structures threatens the open, scenic character that makes Thousand Oaks unique.
Preserving Our Identity: Our city should not feel like an extension of the San Fernando Valley. We value our distinct, low-density, and suburban-natural feel. Moving toward "Valley-style" urban density is a step in the wrong direction.
Aesthetic Heritage: The Civic Arts Plaza is a landmark. Any renovation should respect its original architectural intent rather than replacing it with generic, high-density modernism.
Fiscal Responsibility: A massive overhaul is a questionable use of taxpayer funds when our community's priority is maintaining the quality of life we already enjoy.
Thousand Oaks is a special place because it has resisted the overdevelopment seen in neighboring regions. I urge the Council to protect our skyline and our community’s unique "non-Valley" atmosphere.
I request that this letter be included in the public record for the next scheduled meeting.
Sincerely,
Thank you,
Eric Quandt
818-326-8717
[email protected]
Outlook
Fw: Downtown Thousand Oaks Project
FromCommunity Development Department <[email protected]> Date Mon 5/18/2026 7:47 AM
To Lori Goor <[email protected]>; Krystin Rice <[email protected]> FWD
Community Development Department
City of Thousand Oaks
2100 E Thousand Oaks Blvd.
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
(805) 449-2500
From: Eric & Theresa Quandt <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2026 2:30 PM
To: Community Development Department <[email protected]> Subject: Downtown Thousand Oaks Project
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To the Planning Commission:
I am writing to express my strong opposition to any changes that weaken our city's slow-growth ordinances, including the DTTO. Please do not amend the General Plan, especially to allow taller buildings! If buildings are needed for businesses, there are many vacant commercial buildings that need tenants.
Please do not allow the Conejo Valley to become another San Fernando Valley!! Many residents moved to the Conejo Valley to escape the overdevelopment, traffic, and high-density growth seen in the San Fernando Valley. Granting exceptions to our building height limits sets a dangerous precedent that quickly erodes our municipal policies.
Furthermore, continuously approving the removal of our protected trees makes our conservation laws meaningless.
Please safeguard our community from this aggressive “growth and progress”!!
Protecting our open spaces is primary, but protecting our “small town” feel must also remain a priority. This is an unnecessary “improvement”!!
Thank you,
Theresa Quandt
[email protected]
Outlook
Support for the Downtown Thousand Oaks Project
FromNiki Richardson <[email protected]>
Date Thu 5/14/2026 3:46 PM
To Krystin Rice <[email protected]>
Cc Downtown <[email protected]>
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
I write on behalf of TOArts, the private fundraising and presenting partner of the Bank of America Performing Arts Center, in strong support of the Downtown Thousand Oaks Project.
TOArts has spent years building a pipeline for artists in this community. Through programs like YALA, AccessArts, and the Creators Conservatory, we invest in young and emerging talent from the earliest stages of their creative development. And at the other end of that pipeline, we have two of the finest performing arts venues in Southern California, the Kavli Theatre and the Scherr Forum, where artists can perform at a professional level for a real audience.
What we have never had is the middle.
The incubator space where an emerging artist can develop new work.
The informal stage where they can take risks, test material, and build a following.
The creative infrastructure that allows someone to sustain an arts career in Thousand Oaks rather than leave to find it somewhere else.
That middle layer, the R&D space between early training and professional performance, is exactly what the Downtown Project builds.
Without it, we lose artists at precisely the moment they are ready to contribute most. With it, the pipeline becomes complete, and Thousand Oaks becomes a place where a creative career is not just possible, but sustainable.
TOArts is committed to being an active partner in making that vision real.
I respectfully urge the Commission to move this project forward.
With deep appreciation for all that you do for our community,
Niki
She | Elle | Ella
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: Planning
To: Lori Goor
Cc: Noel Doran; Krystin Rice; Fabiola Zelaya Melicher; Kelvin Parker Subject: FW: Tonight"s Planning meeting @ 6pm
Date: Monday, May 18, 2026 2:43:57 PM
Please see correspondence below.
Adrienne
From: Kris Sofley <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 2:29 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Tonight's Planning meeting @ 6pm
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Is the meeting still on? Concerned that the Sandy fire may impact the meeting.
Appreciate any info or confirmation that you can provide.
Thanks,
Kris Sofley
Email: [email protected]
Sent from AOL on Android
Outlook
Letter about Downtown Project from a YALA Student
FromIsla Speirs <[email protected]>
Date Sat 5/16/2026 1:19 AM
To Krystin Rice <[email protected]>
Cc Downtown <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
My name is Isla and I am a high school student attending River Oaks Academy in Westlake Village. I am currently a YALA member at TOArts and would love to share my support for the new downtown project.
As a big musical theatre fan, the closest professional theater to me is the Pantages. It is a big commitment to leave my area and drive to LA when I want to see a show. When I first heard about the plans for a new downtown area, I was truly thrilled as to what it would contain.
I am also a small business entrepreneur and go to craft fairs to sell my crocheted stuffed toys. Not a lot of markets happen around the area I currently live in, with the closet being in Glendale. I feel like I can speak for every art entrepreneur living around this area when I say that having a place so convenient and close to us to sell our products is a huge win.
This project would leave the city of Thousand Oaks with a new beautiful place for people to enjoy. All the new venues would allow people like me to explore their own creativity and see what they’re capable of.
I hope you find this project just as important as I do. Thousand Oaks deserves a downtown that reflects its community — and that includes us.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Isla Speirs
Camarillo
[email protected]
Outlook
Reject the proposed Master Plan and Civic Center redevelopment plan Fromgerry zucca <[email protected]>
Date Mon 5/18/2026 2:20 PM
To Lori Goor <[email protected]>; Krystin Rice <[email protected]> Cc Tina Frugoli <[email protected]>; Janet Welling <[email protected]> You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Thousand Oaks Planning Commissioners,
Please reject the proposed Master Plan and Civic Center redevelopment plan.
There are so many important reasons why this plan is bad for our city and its residents.
Will this plan make living in Thousand Oaks better or worse? It will clearly be worse.
I oppose the Civic Center redevelopment because:
· Traffic - the added high density will make moving through the city harder. We don’t want to become another traffic gridlocked city!
· Traffic unknowns – We don’t yet know how the added traffic from the K-Mart property and the other new apartments on TO Blvd will impact traffic. (most new apartment/multi use constructions have not yet filled)
· Safety - Emergency traffic flow is already greatly restricted through this part of Thousand Oaks. We only have Hillcrest and Thousand Oaks Blvd and the FWY. You only have to look back a few years to remember how bad it was during the fires. It too 1.5 hours to get across town.
· Aesthetics – 7 story buildings will not look good! We can grow the city without looking like a big city.
· History and Feel – It takes away from the history western feel of the city. · Crony Capitalism – The city should not be giving sweetheart deals to billionaires or anyone else.
· Appearance of Corruption – It just looks like builders are getting a sweet deal, why?
Please vote NO on these plans.
Sincerely,
Gerry Zucca
720 Rancho Rd
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
I would like to raise a serious public safety concern regarding evacuation capacity and the cumulative impacts of current and proposed development projects in our region.
Section 3.3.4 (Evacuation Routes) of the Wildfire Study for the Downtown Thousand Oaks Project states that Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Erbes Road, Hampshire Road, and Highway 101 are designated evacuation routes under the City's Tri-City Evacuation Plan.
The study also acknowledges that, pursuant to the City's 2045 General Plan Update and Assembly Bill 747 evacuation analysis, a major evacuation event could result in significant congestion and delayed evacuation times, and that Highway 101 and State Route 23 could become unusable during an emergency.
At the same time, the TO Ranch, Downtown Thousand Oaks, and Regency Center projects all rely on these same evacuation corridors, while Highway 101 is also identified as the primary evacuation gateway for Agoura Hills, Oak Park, the Santa Monica Mountains region., Westlake Village, and Thousand Oaks.
Most concerning is that the City Council is being asked to approve projects while fully aware, based on the City's own environmental reports and evacuation studies, that residents could face gridlocked roads, delayed evacuations, and potentially life-threatening conditions during a fast-moving wildfire. How can the Council justify knowingly increasing density and traffic in a Very High fire severity zone when the existing evacuation system is already projected to fail under emergency conditions, and when every additional project could mean more families trapped on overcrowded roads with fewer ways out during a disaster? RECEIVED AT PLANNING COMM. MTG
MEETING OF f; II f} /� ()() G
FROM: £ dyc1 tx ii 1,·c1s
ITEM#: 7-A.
cdd:440-25\H:COMMON\City Council\CC Agenda Items\2026\06232026\Downtown Project\DTTO GP-2025-70001 et al Attachment 1 Planning Commission Packet of May 18, 2026.pdf\pz [GP-2025-70001, DP-2025-70015, SP-2025-70001, CEQA-2025-70002, et al]