Supplemental Packet 2 — Thousand Oaks City Council, June 23, 2026

Agenda Related Items - Meeting of June 23, 2026
Supplemental Packet Date: June 23, 2026

THOUSAND OAKS CITY COUNCIL

Supplemental
Information
Packet
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):

In compliance with the ADA, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting or other services in conjunction with this meeting, please contact the City Clerk Department at (805) 449-2151. Assisted listening devices are available at this meeting. Ask City Clerk st aff if you desire to use this device. Upon request, the agenda and documents in this agenda packet, can be made ava ilable in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability. Notification at least 48 hour s prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist City staff in assuring reasonable arrangement s can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service.
11:30 a.m.

Supplemental Information:

Any agenda related public documents received and distribut ed to a majority of the City Council after the Agenda Packet is printed are included in Supplemental Packets. Supplemental Packets are produced as needed, typically a minimum of two—one available on the Thursday preceding the City Council meeting and the second on Tuesday at the meeting. The Supplement al Packet is available for public inspection on the City’s website at toaks.org/agendas or by contacting the City Clerk Dept at (805) 449-2151 during normal busi- ness hours [main location pursuant to the Brown Act, G.C. 54957.5(2)].

THE FOLLOWING
37 PAGES ARE RELATED
TO ITEM 9.O. AND 10.A.

CDD:450-10\tf\H:\COMMON\City Council\CC Agenda Items\2026\06232026\Building Professional Services Agreements\Staff Report Supplemental Memo.docx

To: Andrew P. Powers, City Manager
From: Kelvin Parker, Community Development Director
Date: June 23, 2026
Subject: Item No. 9O – Professional Services Agreements for Building and Safety Plan Check Services

Completed Levine Act forms are attached for both staff recommended consultants listed in the staff report.

1 1
CAO:650-90/tmn/Legal Files\Levine Act - Applications

LEVINE ACT DISCLOSURE FORM
California Government Code section 84308 (Levi ne Act) prohibits any Thousand Oaks City Council member from participating in any action related to a contract, agreement, or franchise agreement (excluding labor or competitively bid contracts) if the Council member receives a campaign
contribution totaling more than $500 (aggregated*) from the party to the contract, agreement or franchise agreement, their agents, or any financially interested participant
who actively supports or opposes the matter within the previous twelve (12) months.

Council
members must also disclose any eligible campaign contribution received on the record of the proceeding.

Council members are prohibited from accepting, soliciting, or directing a campaign contribution of more
than $500 (aggregated) from a party, their agent/representative, or a financially interested participant during a proceeding and for 12 months following the date a final decision is made. In addition, a party, their agent/representative, or a financially interested participant is prohibited from
contributing more than $500 (aggregated) to a Council member during a proceeding and for 12 months following the date a final decision is made.

The Levine Act also requires parties to certain contracts, agreements, or franchise agreements to
disclose any campaign contribution over $500 (aggregated) within the preceding twelve (12) months by the party to the agreement, contract, or franchise agreement and their agents. The Levine Act does not apply to competitively bid, labor, or personal employment contracts.

The Levine Act (Gov Code § 84308) DOES NOT apply to this proposal/application The Levine Act (Gov Code § 84308) DOES apply to this proposal/application and the required disclosure is set forth below:

1. Have you or your company, or any agent on behalf of you or your company, made campaign contributions totaling more than $500 (aggregated) to any council member in the 12 months preceding the date you submitted your proposal/application, the date you completed this form, or the anticipated date of any Council action related to this proposal/application? YES
NO
Council Member Name Payee Na me Payment Date Payment Amount 2 2. Do you or your organization, or any agency or representative on behalf of you or your organization, anticipate or plan to make any campaign contributions of more than $500 (aggregated) to any City Council member in the 12 months following any City Council action related to this proposal/application? ** There may be legal restrictions on making contributions during the 12 months following City Council Action. It is recommended that you consult with your own legal counsel regarding the requirements of law.

YES
NO
Council Member Name Payee Name Payment Date Payment Amount Answering “YES” to either question above does not preclude the City of Thousand Oaks from entering into or taking any subsequent action related to this proposal/application. However, it may preclude the identified Council member(s) from part icipating in any actions/decisions related to this proposal/application.
06/05_______ ______________________________ _______________________ Dat
e Printed Name/Title of Authorized Name of Business/Legal Representative Entity
____________________________________________________________________________ Signature
NOTE: You
must submit a supplemental form if you make any new reportable contribution(s) while the proposal/application is being considered *"Aggregated” contributions, as described in FPPC Regulation §18438.5, include the following types of contributions made during a 12-month period: (1) all contributions made by the party or participant; or (2) all contributions made by an individual or entity required to be aggregated with the party or participant. Contributions made by agents of the party are not included in the aggregation.
2 CAO:650-90/tmn/Legal Files\Le
vine Act - Applications
m6 Consulting Inc.
04/03/2026
Robert Woodward / CEO & Principal Engineer
04/29/2026
06/05/2026
3 1
CAO:650-90/tmn/Legal Files\Levine Act - Applications

Council
members must also disclose any eligible campaign contribution received on the record of the proceeding.

1. Have you or your company, or any agent on behalf of you or your company, made campaign contributions totaling more than $500 (aggregated) to any council member in the 12 months preceding the date you submitted your proposal/application, the date you completed this form, or the anticipated date of any Council action related to this proposal/application? YES
NO
Council Member Name Payee Na me Payment Date Payment Amount X
X
4 2. Do you or your organization, or any agency or representative on behalf of you or your organization, anticipate or plan to make any campaign contributions of more than $500 (aggregated) to any City Counc il member in
the 12 months following any City Council action related to this proposal/application? ** There may be legal restrictions on making contributions during the 12 months following City Council Action. It is recommended that you consult with your own legal counsel regarding the requirements of law.

YES
NO
Council Member Name Payee Name Payment Date Payment Amount Answering “YES” to either question above does not preclude the City of Thousand Oaks from entering into or taking any subsequent action related to this proposal/application. However, it may preclude the identified Council member(s) from part icipating in any actions/decisions related to this proposal/application.
____________ ______________________________ _______________________ Date Printed Name/Title of Authorized Name of Business/Legal Representative Entity
____________________________________________________________________________ Signature
NOTE: You must submit a supplemental form if you make any new reportable contribution(s) while the proposal/application is being considered *"Aggregated” contributions, as described in FPPC Regulation §18438.5, include the following types of contributions made during a 12-month period: (1) all contributions made by the party or participant;
or (2) all contributions made by an individual or entity required to be aggregated with the
party or participant. Contributions made by agents of the party are not included in the aggregation.
2 CAO:650-90/tmn/Legal Files\Levine Act - Applications
X
6/5/26
Khoa Duong, Vice President, Building Services
CSG Consultants, Inc.
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
From: Lisa
To: Tracy Noonan
Cc: City Clerk Department
Subject: Re: Request for Mayor Mikey Taylor’s Recusal from Downtown Project Voting Date: Monday, June 22, 2026 3:06:25 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Tracy Noonan, Esq.,
Subject:

Public Record Input: Formal Request for Mayor Mikey Taylor’s Recusal from the Downtown Project Vote Due to Potential Conflicts of Interest To:

Thousand Oaks City Attorney
I am writing to respectfully request that the City Attorney review a potential conflict of interest regarding Mayor Mikey Taylor, and I ask that Mayor Taylor recuse himself from all upcoming votes and discussions on the Downtown Project to protect the integrity of the City's decision-making process.

Our community deserves an impartial hearing, but a recent event has led residents across various social media platforms to rightfully question Mayor Taylor’s fairness and neutrality.

1. Attendance at a One-Sided Promotional Event
On Tuesday, June 16, 2026, Mayor Taylor attended a gathering hosted by the Chamber of Commerce at Tarantula Hill Brewery. This event was explicitly advertised as

“A Mixer for the Next Generation Ahead of the Vote to Create a Downtown Thousand Oaks,”

making its promotional purpose completely clear. The event even publicized a “complimentary” alcoholic or non-alcoholic drink for those who attended.

Photos and video footage have been featured on several social media platforms, causing significant upset In the community.

2. Inappropriate Use of City Staff and Influence
At this mixer, Deputy City Manager Akbar Alikhan gave a persuasive presentation advocating for the project in order to garner support and potentially influence decision-making, which was followed by a Q&A session. City Manager Drew Powers was also in attendance, along with staff members from Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin’s office.

Furthermore, when Dannielle Borja, the CEO of the Chamber of Commerce, spoke, she stressed how important it was for all attendees to go to the public hearing. She 13 indicated that the Chamber represents some 200 businesses in town and that they all support the project, and she actively urged everyone to write letters of support to city staff and council members before the hearing takes place

3. A Clear Conflict of Interest
Everything about this situation is unethical. The City of Thousand Oaks is the applicant for this project, and the City also provides public funds to the Chamber of Commerce. Therefore, we essentially have a situation where the applicant hosted an event offering free alcohol to community members and council officials. This creates a clear conflict of interest—or at the very least, a severe appearance of a conflict—that compromises the required impartiality of our Mayor.

Conclusion
By participating in an exclusive, pro-project rally alongside the City staff who are pushing the project, Mayor Taylor has created the appearance that his mind is already made up before the public has even had a chance to formally speak at the hearing.

To maintain public trust and avoid the appearance of impropriety, I urge the City Attorney to advise Mayor Taylor to recuse himself from the upcoming vote.

I have further concerns about conflicts of interest related to Mayor Taylor, and I can provide more details to the City Attorney's office if necessary.

I appreciate your consideration of this request and await your reply.

Respectfully Submitted,

Lisa Lemieux

14 From: Lisa
To: [email protected]
Cc: City Clerk Department
Subject: Re: Request for City Council Member C. Tie Gutierrez’s Recusal from Downtown Project Voting Date: Monday, June 22, 2026 3:31:30 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Tracy Noonan, Esq.,
Subject:

Public Record Input: Formal Request for Council Member C. Tie Gutierrez

Recusal from the Downtown Project Vote Due to Potential Conflicts of Interest
To:

Thousand Oaks City Attorney
I am writing to respectfully request that the City Attorney review a potential conflict of interest regarding City Council Member C. Tie Gutierrez, and I ask she recuse herself from all upcoming votes and discussions on the Downtown Project to protect the integrity of the City's decision-making process.

Our community deserves an impartial hearing, but a recent event has led residents across various social media platforms to rightfully question Council Member Tie Gutierrez’s fairness and neutrality.

1. Attendance at a One-Sided Promotional Event
On Tuesday, June 16, 2026, City Council Member Tie Gutierrez attended a gathering hosted by the Chamber of Commerce at Tarantula Hill Brewery. This event was explicitly advertised as

“A Mixer for the Next Generation Ahead of the Vote to Create a Downtown Thousand Oaks,”

making its promotional purpose completely clear. The
event even publicized a “complimentary” alcoholic or non-alcoholic drink for those who attended.

Furthermore, when Dannielle Borja, the CEO of the Chamber of Commerce, spoke, she stressed how important it was for all attendees to go to the public hearing. She 15 indicated that the Chamber represents some 200 businesses in town and that they all support the project, and she actively urged everyone to write letters of support to city staff and council members before the hearing takes place

Conclusion
By participating in an exclusive, pro-project rally alongside the City staff who are pushing the project, City Council Member Tie Gutierrez has created the appearance that her mind is already made up before the public has even had a chance to formally speak at the hearing.

To maintain public trust and avoid the appearance of impropriety, I urge the City Attorney to advise City Council Member C. Tie Gutierrez to recuse herself

from
all

upcoming voting and discussions on the Downtown Project I appreciate your consideration of this request and await your reply.

Respectfully Submitted,

Lisa Lemieux

16 From: R Scott Horn
To: City Clerk Department
Subject: Letter about the downtown project for Tues 6/23 council meeting Date: Monday, June 22, 2026 3:54:08 PM
Attachments: Horn Speech on Slow Growth Measure E.June 23, 2026 City Council Mtg.pdf You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello T.O. City clerk,
I am submitting a letter for the permanent record about the Civic Arts Plaza redevelopment for the 6/23/26 meeting.

Scott
R. Scott Horn
++++++++++++++++
3309 William Drive
Newbury Park, CA 91320
(805) 498-4960
[email protected]
17 Happy 30th Anniversary Measure E!
So sad to see you’re buried six feet under.

Good evening, Mayor, Council Members, and staff.

My name is Scott Horn. I live in Newbury Park.
30 years ago, T.O. voters overwhelmingly approved Measure E, the city's slow-growth initiative. We chose to protect the small-town character, open spaces, and quality of life that make Thousand Oaks unique. Measure E should shape the character of Thousand Oaks by controlling local development and ensuring that major upzoning decisions cannot happen without a public vote. Instead, the city has used slight of hand tricks to circumvent the spirit of Measure E by underhandidly moving housing units from one “bank” to another, in order to not trigger a measure E vote. Shame on you for violating the spirit of Measure E. The proposed Civic Arts Plaza redevelopment moves us in a very different direction than Measure E represents. The massive seven story buildings are not in character for Thousand Oaks.

The city says it had outreach meetings with the community before drafting the plans.

And that 250 people wayed in. That is less than .002 percent of the population.

I attended the biggest of those meetings. It was for the "Arts & Culture in T.O." in Jan. 2025. One of the main take away We the People of the T.O. arts community gave the asst. city mgr. running the meeting, was that we needed a permanent exhibition space for the visual arts, That exhibition space is not included in the proposal being presented. After a huge turn out & passionate discussion about needs of the of the Arts, the city ignored us. This is indicative of the total redevelopment plan Before approving a project that fundamentally changes the character of this civic site, I urge the council to honor the values embodied in Measure E and ask whether this proposal truly reflects the wishes of the residents who call Thousand Oaks home.

Please vote no. Or table this proposal for real civic input. Thank you.

18 From: Mary Opdahl
To: City Clerk Department
Subject: Thousand Oaks Downtown Project
Date: Monday, June 22, 2026 7:34:04 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I have resided in the Thousand Oaks area since 1974. I do NOT want this beautiful valley to become another San Fernando Valley.

I DO

NOT want 7 story buildings anywhere in this
area!

What I DO WANT is for the city council and planners to abide by the city's 2045 E Plan.

This
established a 75 foot height limit.

I also understand the head of the city planning commission is also the developer!

How can
that even be legal???
I know the state has required additional housing but this city does not have to build over and above the requirements.

Please keep this area more quiet and low-key than the
developers

want.

I sincerely request a REVISON to the plan and lower the building heights. 19 From: andrewceco
To: City Clerk Department
Subject: Downtown - YES!
Date: Monday, June 22, 2026 11:58:43 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To the City of Thousand Oaks:

Just wanted to say that I LOVE the plan for the downtown. From the apartments to the redesigned city centers and mixed used buildings and amphitheater and block box theater and library outpost and I could go on!
I’m a 30 year old lifelong resident of Newbury park and active volunteer in our community. I cannot express how much my generation and the next generation really truly needs this kind of change.

So for the downtown?

Yes yes yes!
Thank you so much,
Andrew Ceco
20 You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: City General Email Account
To: Downtown; City Clerk Department
Subject: FW: Downtown Master Plan - Thank You
Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 8:18:42 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Good morning,

We received this email this morning, so I am forwarding your way . Please let me know if there is anyone else that needs to receive Downtown project emails at this time.

Thank you!
Rachel Riedel
Administrative Aide
City Manager’s Office
(805) 449 -2116

From:

Esteban <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 8:00 AM
To: Mikey Taylor <[email protected]>; Bob Engler <[email protected]>; Al Adam <[email protected]>; Tie Gutierrez <[email protected]>; David Newman <[email protected]>; City General Email Account <[email protected]>; Krystin Rice <[email protected]>
Subject: Downtown Master Plan - Thank You

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 City of Thousand Oaks Council members,

My name is Esteban Pineda, a Thousand Oaks resident. I am writing today in support of the Downtown Master Plan. Last week, I attended a community mixer organized by the Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce, where I had the opportunity to meet with city staff and learn more about the vision for Downtown Thousand Oaks.

I am a proud product of this city. Born at Los Robles Hospital, Los Cerritos middle school and Thousand Oaks high school graduate, double alum of California Lutheran University, a volunteer with the boys soccer program at TOHS, and now a small business owner of a restaurant in Thousand Oaks.

Growing up, I recall having limited communal space to hang out with friends. As I got older, I found myself driving outside of the city for social events. This project brings people of all 21 generations together in one space by offering something for everyone. As a member of this community, I care deeply about its future and want to see thoughtful investments that strengthen our city for my generation and those that will follow.

As a local business owner, this project excites me because of the opportunities it will bring. As any business owner, a place to gather means more potential visitors willing to explore other businesses in the area like my restaurant located on T.O. Blvd. Strong communities depend on continuous growth. This project can help drive support to all surrounding businesses by attracting current and future community members.

I am proud to call this city home, and I hope to continue building my business and one day, grow my family here. I respectfully urge the City Council

to support this project. By
embracing these opportunities, you are supporting every resident of this community.

Thank you for your dedication to serving our community.

Sincerely,

Esteban Jr Pineda

Thousand Oaks Resident and Business Owner
22 From: City Manager"s Office
To: Downtown; City Clerk Department
Subject: FW: Downtown Project - Support
Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 8:31:27 AM
Good morning,
Here is one more Downtown Project email we received from yesterday evening.

Thank you!
Rachel Riedel
Administrative Aide
City Manager’s Office
(805) 449 -2116
-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Fry <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2026 6:50 PM
To: Mikey Taylor <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; City Manager's Office <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Downtown Project - 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.

I fully support the Thousand Oaks Downtown Project as planned. This project is a great opportunity to enhance our community’s future.

Dear Mayor Taylor, City Council Members, and City Manager Powers, I am writing to express my support for the Downtown Thousand Oaks Project.

My wife and I have followed the project for several years and believe it represents a significant opportunity to create the vibrant, walkable downtown that Thousand Oaks has discussed and envisioned for many years.

For decades, residents have expressed a desire for a true community gathering place—one that offers restaurants, entertainment, cultural activities, public spaces, and housing within walking distance of one another. The proposed downtown district around the Civic Arts Plaza will help transform an area that is currently underutilized into a destination that serves residents of all ages plus a central gathering place that reflects the size and maturity of our city.

The proposal also supports broader community goals by adding housing in a location already served by existing infrastructure and situated near jobs, services, and cultural amenities. Concentrating development in a central area is preferable to continued outward expansion and can help create a more sustainable and economically vibrant community. The project includes both market-rate and affordable housing components, public gathering spaces, and significant investment in civic infrastructure.

We attended the Chamber’s Rooted & Rising presentation and commend Assistant Manager Akbar Alikhan for an outstanding job explaining the concept and answering questions from the participants. 23 This project offers an opportunity to create a destination that strengthens local businesses, enhances community life, and provides amenities that residents currently seek elsewhere.

Do not allow the naysayers to prevent us from pursuing a vision that has the potential to benefit Thousand Oaks for generations.

I encourage you to move the project forward and continue refining it with community input. I believe the Downtown Thousand Oaks Project is an investment in the city's future and a positive step toward creating the vibrant civic center our community deserves.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Jon Fry
1359 Valley High Ave.

Thousand Oaks
(805) 217-4899
24 From: Krystin Rice
To: City Clerk Department
Cc: Akbar Alikhan
Subject: Fw: Downtown - Yes! Please!
Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 8:04:25 AM
From: andrewceco <[email protected]>
Sent:

Monday, June 22, 2026 11:57 PM
To:

Krystin Rice <[email protected]>
Subject:

Downtown - Yes! Please!

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,
Just wanted to say that I LOVE the plan for the downtown. From the apartments to the redesigned city centers and mixed used buildings and amphitheater and block box theater and library outpost and I could go on!
I’m a 30 year old lifelong resident of Newbury park and active volunteer in our community. I cannot express how much my generation and the next generation really truly needs this kind of change.

So for the downtown?

Yes yes yes!
Thank you so much,
Andrew Ceco
25 From: Mary Wiesbrock
To: City Clerk Department
Subject: Downtown Project Entitlement
Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 10:32:54 AM
Attachments: Downtown Project Entitlement.pdf
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please distribute to all City Council members and put into pubic record for this project which is on tonight's agenda.

Please let us know that you have received this, distributed, and put into public record.

Thanks!
Mary Wiesbrock, Chair SOS
26 You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: Katie Morris
To: City Clerk Department
Cc: Downtown
Subject: FW: Strict Adherence to Measure E
Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 11:10:08 AM

From: Tie Gutierrez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 1:18 AM
To: Katie Morris <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Strict Adherence to Measure E

Forwarding for the record.

Tie Gutierrez
Council Member
City of Thousand Oaks

From: Wynter Barker <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, 15 June 2026 15:20:20
To: Tie Gutierrez <[email protected]>
Subject: Strict Adherence to Measure E

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.

With all the new high-density projects being thrown out there and a push to make our once beautiful area look like the SFV by building up and blocking the beautiful open space and mountains, I urge the City Council to adhere to Measure E height ordinances and tree preservation/protection.

I know Sacramento has building requirements, but with a declining population in California, it would be nice if our City Council worked for us and perhaps questioned the push for more building by Sacramento.

I’ve been here for 33 years and miss the days of “save our open spaces”, slow growth, etc.

I
don’t think the vast majority of the council’s constituents voted for high-density skylines, traffic and the loss of our small town feel.

27 I appreciate your taking the time to read this and perhaps taking into consideration the opinions of the area residents.

Very truly yours,

Wynter Barker,
Legal Secretary to Robert J. Stoll, III, Esq.

PLEASE NOTE: This email address is NOT a service address.

Documents served to this address are not deemed served.

The only
service address is [email protected].

The Stoll Law Firm
308 East Carrillo Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Tel:

(805)963-0006
Fax: (310)5754353

SERVICE ADDRESS: [email protected]

28 You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: Katie Morris
To: City Clerk Department
Cc: Downtown
Subject: FW: Civic Arts Plaza redevelopment vote on 6/23/26 Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 11:11:56 AM

From: Tie Gutierrez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 1:15 AM
To: Katie Morris <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Civic Arts Plaza redevelopment vote on 6/23/26

Forwarding for the record.

Tie Gutierrez
Council Member
City of Thousand Oaks

From: R Scott Horn <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, 22 June 2026 16:28:07
To: Tie Gutierrez <[email protected]>
Subject: Civic Arts Plaza redevelopment vote on 6/23/26

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.

Councilwoman Tie Gutierrez.

This plan for the Civic Arts Plaza redevelopment feels so wrong for 1000 Oaks.

Iv'e lived in the Conejo since 1971.

I stood up for the original Civic Arts plaza, its two theaters, centralized city government, dedication to open space, and what it stood for.

Back then most of the citizens wanted
more culture,

but also wanted to maintain our western, semi rural feel. That worked out OK.

It was a big leap to have a high quality performing arts space, & top quality touring acts 29 coming to town.

Fast forward to now & the proposed changes & redevelopment of the T.O. Civic Arts Plaza is not in character for the modern T.O. There is no great leap forward for the Arts this time.

You should instruct staff to go back & scale this way down & in character for 1000 Oaks.

Please vote No or vote to table it.

Regards,

Scott

R. Scott Horn
++++++++++++++++
3309 William Drive
Newbury Park, CA 91320
(805) 498-4960
[email protected]

30 Name City Item # In favor/
Opposed
Comment
Steve Woodward Thousand Oaks 10A In favor I 100% support th e Downtown Project. You should vote for it 5-0! Barbara Thomas Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed I am opposed to the Downtown TO Project as it is currently drafted. The height exception of the two 7-story buildings is excessive and not in keeping with the either the city ordinances or with the draft ideas proposed in the past. The area will be too congested and the loss of so many trees is unacceptable. I saw that the traffic assessment stated that there will be adequate roads to accommodate the proposed density. That is untrue because our freeways already cannot handle the traffic load (particularly the 101 through town to the top of the Conejo Grade all day, and the 23 freeway at peak traffic periods). The current hotel occupancy rate, considered to be too high, should be offset by the other hotels being built.

Overbuilding hotels will just cause one or more to fail. The proposed "market-rate" apartment rents are too expensive for the average wage earner. The paltry number of "affordable units" isn't sufficient to make a dent in the need for affordable housing in the city. It is an absolute shame that the city fails to insist that developers put in affordable housing units and lets them buy their way out of it. Where does that money go? I don't see affordable housing, except for a token number, going in anywhere in the city.

The city needs to balance the plan with what is practical. No doubt that we need more housing but it's shameful and environmentally unsound to tear down perfectly good buildings and not leverage what's there and build around that. If you want a walkable downtown, which I agree is needed, please don't cram it into such a small footprint. There should be a way to spread out the footprint, lower the building heights and provide an enjoyable downtown area. This area should not just be shops, hotels, entertainment, and government administration. It needs to include places to recreate (tennis, pickleball courts, pitch n' putt, etc.). Why not put the pickleball courts that CRPD wants to put at Conejo Creek West in the new downtown instead? That would make it attractive for folks living there. Regarding more retail, we can't even keep decent occupancy in the current retail spaces...just look at the low occupancy/high turnover at the newer build at T.O. and Erbes and the existing shops near the Civic Arts Plaza. There needs to be a balance between rent and retail. If people have to put nearly 50% of their income to rent, there's precious little for them to spend on retail. This whole design needs to be revised to have it in keeping with the city's regulations and to better meet the needs of our growing population.

Anita Stein Newbury Park 10A Opposed This should be out for public vote! I truly believe that this project will be detrimental to o ur beautiful area. It will take away all the charm and feel of small town living.

R Scott Horn Newbury Park 10A Opposed The spirit of measure E is being violated Marty Koulax Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed We have regulations in place to keep developers from doing just what they are proposing. So me of the trees in question are more than 300 years old. We need to address the properties that we already have like the Oaks Mall and Janns Mall and the Lakes. I think that the developers should keep their projects within the scope of the regulations in place. The public wants to know if the council was being influenced by outside money. This should NOT go forward as planned.

Chris Reiber Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed RE: PROJECT NO.: Downtown Thousand Oaks Project (DTTO): Environmental Impact Report (CEQA) 2 025-70002, General Plan Amendment (GP) 2025-70001, Specific Plan Amendment (SP) 2025-70001, Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 2025-70003, Development Permit (DP) 2025-70015, Protected Tree Permit (PTP) 2025-70093, and Special Use Permit (SUP) 2025-70022 This letter is in regards to the proposed downtown projects (cited above) that will be discussed in hearing on June 23, 2026. Please enter this communication into the formal record.

I am writing to express my STRONG OPPOSITION to these proposed projects. There are many reasons that I oppose the projects, including:
1) exceeding the building height limits for buildings in Thousand Oaks; there is a reason that the people of Thousand Oaks have repeatedly acted to keep the height limits in place, and nothing inherent in this project suggests that it should be allowed to violate those standards. 2) removal of many protected trees; the people of Thousand Oaks cannot cut or remove oak trees on our properties, even if we plant a new tree; the City should be going to extreme lengths to preserve its namesake trees rather than applying for variances to allow them to destroy them. 3) the addition of many units of housing, and therefore many vehicles, in areas with small streets where traffic is already quite heavy; aside from whatever your traffic surveys seem to show, a short drive around town will clearly expose just how congested the streets here are already; adding these massive developments will make things exponentially worse. 4) the addition of many units of housing, and therefore vehicles, in areas with small streets where traffic bottlenecks could potentially endanger lives by preventing egress under emergency conditions; ask residents of the City how long they sat in gridlock trying to get out under evacuation orders when the fire threatened us; again, these massive proposed developments will only add to the problem.
5) the addition of many units of housing, when the region is regularly under water restrictions; from where will the additional water for all of this housing be drawn? The existing residents can only cut back so far before living here becomes impossible for us all. 6) the addition of many units of housing, supposedly to enable young professionals and families to get into housing, when only 39 of the 240 proposed units (16%) will be affordable housing; if the goal were truly to assist young people to get into the market, most or all of the units would be affordable… bu t, of course, that might not be a profit bonanza for the developers (sigh…).
7) the addition of yet another hotel, when there is currently plenty of space in hotels, and there are already plans for other new hotels that are being built; furthermore, even if someone has convinced you that we “need” another hotel, why does it need to be 7 stories high? 8) the city should not be applying to itself for permissions and/or variances; the city should not be acting both as the applicant and as the evaluator for these purposes… it smacks of self -
dealing and deceptive practices.

I want to be clear: I am NOT anti-development. As soon as a city stops developing, it begins decaying. I am in favor of developing housing and amenities as needed. But such development MUST be done in a manner consistent with the nature of the surrounding environment and city, and in compliance with the building regulations and ordinances that are in place. There are buildings in TO that have won awards for outstanding architecture, being built into hillsides and blending into the environs without diminishing the natural landscapes.

Adding more of those sorts of buildings, or buildings that similarly respect the nature of the city and its surroundings, would be a joy; but adding 7 story multiuse concrete boxes would be an abomination. And the city should not be applying to and policing itself in a matter of this caliber. PUT THE PROJECT ON T HE BALLOT! TO COUNCIL: 06/23/2026 - MEETING DATE: 06/23/2026
31 Name City Item # In favor/
Opposed
Comment
Ronnie Ross Stein Westlake Village 10A Opposed I am opposed to congestion in the area to and the height of some of the buildings. I have lived in the area for 48 years and resent that politicians are disregarding the values of our community and are siding with monied individuals.

Mary Opdahl Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed I have resided in the Thousand Oaks area since 1974. I do NOT want this beautiful valley to become another San Fernando Valley. I DO NOT want 7 story buildings anywhere in this area!
What I DO WANT is for the city council and planners to abide by the city's 2045 E Plan. This established a 75 foot height limit.

I also understand the head of the city planning commission is also the developer! How can that even be legal??? I know the state has required additional housing but this city does not have to build over and above the requirements. Please keep this area more quiet and low-key than the developers want.

I sincerely request a REVISON to the plan and lower the building heights.

Kent Brizendine Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed My fami ly moved here in 1972 when I was a year and 1/2 old. We lived on the Newbury Park Adventist Academy campus. Most of the acreage of that campus has been sold and converted to retail. It will never be the same. Thousand has always felt like a small community. That's why lots of people live here. It has also been one of the safest communities for years. I understand that the horizon has been preserved due to there being an ordinance not allowing buildings to be above the top of the land/hills behind them. Even though the community has grown it still feels small. This will change and never return should this project move forward. This community will become like every other large city community. We will lose forever what makes us unique and that is valuable and rare.

Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed What is the obsession with fixing what ain’t broke? Cheryl Shawver Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed I have lived in Thousand Oaks since 1966. I worked at Jungleland the last three years before it closed, and bought my property in l974. For sixty years I have enjoyed living here in Thousand Oaks.

I want to express my serious opposition to the proposed Civic Arts Plaza Redevelopment project in its current form. I feel it compromises the safety and charm that has defined the city all of these years. I hope you will reject this proposal and reconsider a scale that fits the existing character of this community.

Please protect the unique character, safety and rural nature of Thousand Oaks. Please listen to the community and halt the rush of this current massive urbanization project.

At the very least slow things down, let the residents be involved, and reconsider a scale that fits our existing city.

Thank you
Cheryl Shawver
Jon Fry 10A In favor I fully support the Downtown Thousand Oaks project as planned. This project is an excellent opportunity to enhance our community’s future.

Do not allow the naysayers to prevent us from pursuing a vision that has the potential to benefit Thousand Oaks for generations.

Edward stein Westlake Village 10A Opposed Too much congestion now. Not adequate city planning.

Heather Wynalda Oak Park 10A Opposed As a long time resident of the area, I do not want downtown Thousand Oaks to turn into Reseda.

Bob Bushnell Newbury Park 10A Opposed A Better Path for Civic Arts Plaza I am not opposed to development, redevelopment, or additional housing in Thousand Oaks if projects are well-considered and supported by the community. My concern is that the proposed redevelopment of the Civic Arts Plaza is simply too large, too tall, too dense, and too dependent on exceptions to the General Plan (GP) for such a prominent civic site.

Many of us chose to live in Thousand Oaks because of its open space, natural beauty, oak trees, and low-rise development. The proposed project departs significantly from those values and does not respect our community’s character.

The seven-story hotel and seven-story mixed-use apartment building do not belong there. They far exceed the GP’s height restrictions and require significant variances. One variance leads to another, and soon we become another San Fernando Valley, and eventually Los Angeles.

I am also concerned about traffic and public safety. We live in a high fire-risk community. During a major evacuation, Thousand Oaks Boulevard serves as a critical route to limited freeway access points. Adding a project of this size raises legitimate concerns about evacuation capacity and emergency response. Public safety should be given greater weight in evaluating this proposal.

There is a better alternative.

Rather than concentrating so much development on a small site, the city should eliminate the proposed hotel and significantly reduce the apartment and commercial components.

Buildings should not exceed the four-story scale residents have long supported. Add more parking spaces.

The city can still meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligations another way. Throughout Thousand Oaks are aging commercial centers and underutilized retail properties with large parking lots and high vacancies. These sites are far better candidates for redevelopment. Housing can be added where commercial uses have declined, creating opportunities while breathing life back into struggling shopping centers.

Finally, many residents feel that significant public opposition has been acknowledged but not genuinely considered. City leaders need to listen to the community and re-plan this project, so it reflects who we are and what we want for our city going forward.

Please vote NO on this issue, send it back to the design committee but this time, do a better job with community outreach and genuinely seek community input on what is appropriate to do with this site. Keep the Developers, Planning Commission, and City Council out of the process until you've heard from a valid representation of residents. Not two out of 1000 as the current process was structured.
32 Name City Item # In favor/
Opposed
Comment
Fred Kershaw Newbury Park 10A Opposed I've lived in T.O. For over 45 yrs. I oppose the 7-story apartment complex and hotel that is being proposed for the downtown development project. All new buildings/development should be NO taller than 3 stories high. I don't want nor do I believe we need a hotel in the downtown area next to the civic arts plaza. There is currently several large development projects throughout the city, I think any further development should be on hold until we see how the current 3 large projects affect our city. We don't need a downtown area that looks like Playa Vista, Santa Monica or Encino. Our downtown area should follow a similar model like Camarillo, Ojai or Ventura.

Regards, Fred
Adrienne Podell Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed I oppose the Thousand Oaks Downtown Project for the following reasons:
1)Density of buildings being close together creates a block of tall concrete ediﬁces which do not conform architecturally with the look of TO Blvd. The buildings are too close to TO Blvd. and should have a buffer of trees to soften the appearance. 2)There is already a height limitaƟon of 75 feet which is already too tall for our city and to change the limitaƟon to 95 feet to accommodate this project is self serving. There was a reason to keep it at 75 ft which should be adhered to for this project also. 3)Traﬃc on TO Blvd. between Rancho Rd. and Hampshire Rd. will be increased with adding many addiƟonal car trips – the concept that this will be a pedestrian friendly area is nice on the surface but anyone staying at the hotel, living in the apartments or shopping at the retail/restaurants will drive there first. 4)TO does not need another hotel with vacancy rate at exisƟng hotels in Conejo Valley at 30%. The ﬁnancial viability of the planned hotel is quesƟonable and if it were to fail, it would add to the many vacant buildings we already have.

Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed With this project the Council is going against the height and density limits that were put in place yea rs ago to protect the City from becoming like the Valley. We don’t want 7 story buildings! We don’t want our main thoroughfare lined with huge buildings! The traffic from these buildings will be horrendous, and it is already getting much worse all over the city. We already have to accept the monstrosity of a development near Kohls which looks horrible and will ultimately jam up our freeways!! Where are the environmental impact studies? Common sense says this plan is NOT good for Thousand Oaks residents.

Bob Bushnell Newbury Park 10A Opposed Good evening, Mayor, City Council Members, and staff.

My name is Bob Bushnell, and I want to address one issue: water.

The City tells us that Thousand Oaks has sufficient water supplies through 2045 and that this project will not negatively impact that projection.

But let's look at the facts.

One of our primary water sources is Northern California snowpack. This winter brought near-normal precipitation, yet much of it fell as rain instead of snow and could not be collected.

As a result, our state-wide reservoir capacity is at only 65%.

Dry fuel and urban interface analyses indicate an early and intensely severe, 2026 wildfire season requiring a high reserve of water emergency supplies statewide. Yet, ours is in serious decline.

Our other major source is the Colorado River.

The Colorado River serves seven states, two countries, 30 tribal nations, 40 million Americans, and five million acres of farml and. Yet the river system is only about 36% full, and federal officials continue discussing additional water delivery reductions of 40% for California, Arizona, and Nevada.

So, I have a simple question:

If one of our primary water sources is essentially gone for the year, and the other is barely one-third full and facing potential future cutbacks, how can anyone guarantee adequate water supplies through 2045?
No one can predict future rainfall, snowpack, droughts, wildfires, or Colorado River allocations over the next 20 years. Who would’ve predicted the level 4 water restrictions placed on us by the City Council in May of 2022? No one.

Yet we are being asked to approve a seven-story hotel, a seven-story apartment building, and significant additional development based on those assumptions.

Water is one of California's most fundamental constraints on growth.

Before approving this project, I urge the Council to ask whether that confidence is truly justified. I don’t think it is.

Please vote no.

Thank you.

Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed A seven- story building is too tall for our town. I don’t want us turning into another Los Angeles, especially with traffic on the 101 already so congested.

If we’re adding housing, it should be for the people who work here—service workers, retail employees, and seniors on fixed inco mes—who currently can’t afford local rents. Affordable housing waitlists take years, and even Many Mansions units are still too expensive for many.

I support keeping property values strong, but we need balanced growth that allows the people who keep this community running to actually live here. 10A In favor We need revitalization in TO, particularly in the downtown area R. Bosweii-Thomas Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed Let’s leave Thousand Oaks a beautiful suburban community not San Fernando Valley West.

Munira Husain Thousand Oaks 10A In favor I think this is very beneficial to our city and I am in full support of the project RonThomas Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed We don’t need 7 story buildings and more empty hotels just so city officials and builders can m ake more money at the expense of destroying our town.

Meta Davidson Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed We do not have the water or road size to handle this project. We already have gridlock on M oorpark Road. We need to able to evacuate in case of fires. Do not risk the safety of my family by approving this project.
33 Name City Item # In favor/
Opposed
Comment
Faraz Thousand Oaks 10A In favor I am in full support of this project Zeeshan Husain Thousand Oaks 10A In favor I support this project and I think that it is very beneficial to our city Michele Winer Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed I am opposed to overbuilding my city. There are already many projects approved that will p ut a strain on resources. Water snd power. Plus a major impact on traffic Marci Thousand Oaks 10A In favor I am looking forward to the Downtown Thousand Oaks Project and the future it will offer for our co mmunity. Much appreciated and longtime overdue considering how long ago the controversial Civic Arts Center was constructed. The development on and around the Arts Center has long lacked proper facilities, shopping, arts, dining, nightlife and housing along the boulevard. One unfortunate exception to this is building affordable residential for-sale townhomes/condos with new multi-use developments and this particular project I can see the exclusion for doing so. The community needs this along with more areas in the city for activities for our youth as well. Outdoo r open space isn’t enough.

Yay, for Downtown Thousand Oaks Project.

Vigilant Citizen Newbury Park 10A Opposed Please don’t San Fernando the Conejo!!! Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed Do not over develop our town. This is crossing a massive boundary. No skyscrapers, no crowds, no overcon sumption, enoughs enough.

Kelly McGee Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed This development will forever devastate the landscape of this beautiful city. Thousand Oaks is one of the last frontier cities. That small town charm that has drawn people to leave L.A. and the Valley for a more quiet, slower paced, family friendly Thousand Oaks. Landscaped with rolling hills and majestic Oak trees, for which so many have already been sacrificed in the name of growth. So much of the recently developed space in town sits vacant. Let's redevelop that space first. The sheer scale of this development reflects the total disregard for the esthetics of this beautiful, western city. And, the significant lack in judgment by city leaders. 7-story buildings that look more like a military compound does not honor the history and landscape of our town. Thousand Oaks Boulevard will become nothing less than a mirror of Ventura Boulevard in the valley. Skyscrapers will slowly replace the scenic hills and valleys currently visible as you drive through the area, for which Thousand Oaks is known. This is the first of many more development projects to come, all aimed at turning our beautiful city into a parking lot. While I do agree this area needs improvement, it must be thoughtful and not monetized.

Kenna Newbury Park 10A In favor I was born and raised in Thousand Oaks. I turned 30 last month and graduated with my Master’s degree last August. I am at a point in my life where I have to decide where to set down roots. All of the decisions I am making now will be the foundation for, in a very real sense, the rest of my life. And I have to decide if I want to live here. It has been a hard choice that I am still making. I am looking to settle down somewhere that is affordable, diverse, accessible, walkable, and has good job opportunities. I worry about worsening heat, environmental conditions, and fires. I have watched some of my favorite mom and pop shops go out of business from rising rent and get replaced by soulless chains. If Thousand Oaks isn’t making specific efforts to address these concerns, I can’t stay. This downtown project won’t make a difference in affordable housing in time for me. But it does make a difference in whether Thousand Oaks is the kind of place I want to stay in. It will be a while before we gain the benefits from the downtown project, but I want to live in a place that is making choices that support the future that I want and that my generation needs.

Jeanine Kennedy 10A Opposed Please do not vote to build this development in our beautiful community. Keep conejo valley special an d not overcrowded and overbuilt. I have lived here since 1970.

Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed I am opposed to this because it is high density population and erodes the character of TO community. The parking is already a nightmare over there. And the 7 story buildings will be a sore eye to the beauty of the city. It feels greedy, remember- sometimes less is more.

Michael Bridge Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed The City has often permitted buildings that when finished, seem to be about two stories to o tall. Upper floors and roof lines block out views of the ridge lines and scenic valley. We had more stringent regulation in the past, which preserved the appearance of the Conejo. We could turn the ship back in that direction. Santa Ynez doesn't look like a mini-city. Montecito doesn't look over built. I believe maintaining an aesthetic is possible, with some restraint.

Belinda Macauley Thousand Oaks 10A In favor I support the Downtown project because I trust this City Council to modify it as neede d and implement it to ensure responsible development.

Kristina Manafian Agoura Hills 10A Opposed I am writing to ask that each council member take the time to realize how this project w ill negatively affect our community. The sudden growth and expansion in our area is not what residents want. We moved here to be away from over expansion and overcrowding. I say this as I watch the horrific and grotesque project being built in Agoura Hills next to Wizins Marketplace. It’s not just an eyesore but also a huge problem of overcrowding during an evacuation. Anyone voting for these expansions should be held liable for any harm caused to our community members due to their support of these projects that create overcrowding. We want single family homes! Not rat cages! Please rethink this project accordingly. Thank you for your time and attention to our concerns.
10A Opposed Not enough infrastructure to maintain a property with this many units.

Sarah Finch Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed This development is completely out of character for this community. Apartments are not "hous ing". Apartments are rentals that enrich the developer, not the renter. There are easily 100 units for rent in this area, today, in this same price range. Rents of $2,500 to $4,800 require salaries of $100,000 to $180,000 and up. Is there really a demand for APARTMENTS from this bracket? We need condominiums and townhomes for our young people to buy and reinvest in their community.

We cannot move forward with this current vision for our "downtown". We cannot be bullied or intimidated into approving a plan that does not have the best interest of the citizens of this City in mind; because we are afraid the developer will "sue us into oblivion". This development has no place in our downtown area and the developer knows that. Not sure if this is a game or a dance to delay construction? Leave The Lakes as it is. Pick better tenants. Prior tenants all seem like planned obsolescence. Intended to fail. Developer knew the leases would never generate the 12% ROI required. Vote NO and go back to the drawing board.

Cheryl Newbury Park 10A Opposed Moved here in 1991 because of the beauty , the “small town” feel & now starting to feel like I live in the valley. The limitations to maintain the beauty are gone as we pave & build over paradise in the name of greed/“economic growth.” Very sad & disappointed to see more trees removed. Maybe we should consider voting a name change for our once beautiful city because we are totally losing our identity & the best characteristics of this city. 34 Name City Item # In favor/
Opposed
Comment
Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed Leave Thousand Oaks alone, please. We do not need more congestion on the road, we do not need our beauti ful Oak trees cut down.

Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed The introduction of the proposed dense, mixed-use complex will feel more like an urban commercial distri ct than our community’s garden-like city center. By increasing building heights and concentrating residential, hotel, and entertainment uses on this relatively small area, the project will visually overwhelm the Civic Arts Plaza and surrounding public spaces, eroding the open views, sky exposure, and sense of calm that residents and visitors currently enjoy.

It will bring more traffic, noise, and nighttime light pollution into an area that has functioned as a cultural and civic anchor, not an entertainment corridor, diminishing the peaceful beauty many associate with Thousand Oaks’ boulevards, oaks, and hillsides. I strongly oppose this project.

Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed
Kathleen Austin Westlake Village 10A Opposed My name is Kathleen Austin. I moved to Thousand Oaks in 1960, at the age of 6, with my parents. I grew up here and attended local public schools with many of our founding fathers’ children (Alex Fiore’s daughter (Norma), and Carroll Bowen’s son (Marshall), and others). I married and raised my family here. I have owned 4 Thousand Oaks homes over the years. I sold residential real estate here and I worked at Conejo Valley Senior Concerns for 15 years. I know, and love, Thousand Oaks.

While I support more affordable housing and I am not opposed to development or redevelopment, I DO NOT support the proposed Thousand Oaks “Downtown” project. I am disturbed at the heights of the proposed buildings and the “big box look” of it all. It’s ugly. And it’s too dense. It’s just too much.

PLEASE RECONSIDER THIS PROJECT. Please take some additional time to get more residents’ feedback and let’s not push this project through based on the 250 persons who were at an important meeting that many residents either knew nothing about or had no idea how that day would affect our city’s future. Let’s use the additional time to bring this city together through honest evaluations and resident feedback to arrive at a final decision that is the best interests of all our residents. Anything less, is unfair to all and will divide us.

Thank you.

Regards,
Kathleen Austin
Martha Kelley Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed Please do not ruin our small town vibe! Dominique Simon Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed I have already sent an email to City Council members as well as the City Manager in regar d to my opposition. We do not want Seven story buildings in our town. We do not want any old growth Oak Trees removed and we do not approve of the current building style. Traffic, Healthcare and Emergency management will also be an issue with this project.

Angie Gomez 10A Opposed Keep conejo valley peaceful, too much traffic already. Theres plenty of traffic in the valley, keep it there.

Delia Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed Keep traffic in the valley dont bring it to thousand oaks Miguel Gomez Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed Keep traffic out of our quiet neighborhood, this will only bring crime rates up Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed We dont want more traffic!
Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed we dont need more hustle and bustle here. we need more peace Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed stop building apartments, too many people already Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed we want Conejo Valley back to a hometown not another big city Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed we are losing the quality of life here if we add more apartments and tall buildings Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed Please stop this project. take funds to project that helps our people. This only takes away from our peo ple.

Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed nobody even notices the civics parking garage, save the money for something meaningful Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed I have been a resident here for 45 years and we DO NOT want the continuance of corruption of our hometow n Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed The people who love and care about Thousand Oaks are opposed to this project. We care about our hometown and want to take care of it. These buildings do not take care of us, it destroys us.

Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed I have lived here my whole life 33 years and I have never wanted to live anywhere else. I felt so lucky, but now I feel it is becoming a burden to live here with these counterproductive projects. Just another busy dirty city if you continue with this.

Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed we want our home to keep its character we dont want to be another LA city. We want to raise children in a safe neighborhood, this will only bring crime.

Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed DONT FIX WHAT ISNT BROKEN
Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed we will never stop fighting for our hometown, stop these foolish projects Jared Alvey Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed You should not be voting for 7 story appartments and hotels. This project needs more input fr om the citizens of Thousand Oaks. This is the city’s land owned by the people of Thousand Oaks and not 4 council members. The peoples concerns need to be heard.

Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed This will only bring misery to our town. Nothing was wrong with it, why fix it? Please move with love, n ot greed. Karma is very real.

Norma Fiore Leys Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed I am the daughter of founding father,Mayor Emeritus Alex Fiore. . I would like to share What my dad would say… that is …slow down. One successful project at a time. Growth is progress, but must be done with integrity and keeping in mind the standards and values of the original Master Plan. Affordable housing should look more like a Many Mansions community. A home that lifts families up. This is how you our leaders serve our community .Not a high rise where no one knows their neighbor. The project is simply too much. Erbs is unoccupied, the Hotel is still in flux, the Timber School is massive and not yet occupied. Kmart? The Oaks Mall? Gelsons Shoppi ng Center? All inter various points of consideration and construction. Too much Too Big Too Fast …Slow Down. As my father, I would encourage a no vote on this project until a more rea sonable idea is presented. Thankyou Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed I want my kids to be safe walking to school, this will do the opposite with so much traffic and new peop le. 35 Name City Item # In favor/
Opposed
Comment
Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed I oppose the Thousand Oaks Downtown Project for the following reasons:
1)Density of buildings being close together creates a block of tall concrete ediﬁces which do not conform architecturally with the look of TO Blvd. The buildings are too close to TO Blvd. and should have a buffer of trees to soften the appearance. 2)There is already a height limitaƟon of 75 feet which is already too tall for our city and to change the limitaƟon to 95 feet to accommodate this project is self serving. There was a reason to keep it at 75 ft which should be adhered to for this project also. 3)Traﬃc on TO Blvd. between Rancho Rd. and Hampshire Rd. will be increased with adding many addiƟonal car trips – the concept that this will be a pedestrian friendly area is nice on the surface but anyone staying at the hotel, living in the apartments or shopping at the retail/restaurants will drive there first. 4)TO does not need another hotel with vacancy rate at exisƟng hotels in Conejo Valley at 30%. The ﬁnancial viability of the planned hotel is quesƟonable and if it were to fail, it would add to the many vacant buildings we already have.

Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed bringing new people to live here, our city will no longer be safe.

Lindsay Ekholm Newbury Park 10A Opposed This will destroy our small feel. Stop letting real estate developers into office; they are destroying our town and don’t care about the community. Traffic and crime studies need to be done on how this will impact the community. Affordable housing isn’t affordable.

Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed you are inviting outsiders to move in with this project, meaning we wont know if we are getting good or bad neighbors. as of now we all know each other. This project opens the door to chaos.

Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed the good people of our town do not want this project to happen, we want peace.

Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed let the people living here decide whats good for us.

Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed where will our ranches go? our animals need peace too. This isnt sea world to be adding city commotion a bove our animals.

Jill Haney Thousand Oaks 10A In favor I have lived in Thousand Oaks since 1959 and have seen many changes over the years. As someo ne who cares deeply about our community I fully support the Downtown Project. I see it as a vibrant place where we can spend time with our family and friends. It will be a central gathering place where you can have coffee with friends, enjoy dinner and a show or shop with friends. As more companies move here, we need a place for their employees gather and enjoy themselves. I believe this project will create the Downtown we want and need.

Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed As a resident of Old Town, I have serious concerns about the lack of consideration being shown to the people who live here. The city and its planners are making decisions about our neighborhood that makes it very clear they are not the ones driving, walking, or biking through these streets every day. Traffic is already dangerous and nearly unmanageable and that's before the new development is even started. With 455 apartments already under construction right next door, they city is now proposing even more apartments and a hotel? What about the people already here? Because right now, pedestrians and cyclists are put at risk daily with no real plan to address it. Let's be honest, money is driving these decisions.

Development brings revenue and the residents are the ones absorbing the consequences. I want to be clear, I am not against growth. We need families in this community. We need students so we can support our schools and keep teachers employed. Growth matters! But there's a right way to do it and right now the city is moving too fast with too little regard for the people on the ground. Slow down, engage with residents, and put a real traffic and safety plan in place before more people are hurt.

Toni Gmuer Westlake Village 10A Opposed Too much change for this diamond of a city. We moved here because of the way it is.

It will be the beginning of another San Fernando Valley. And that is not a good thing.

So unfair that the residents don’t have a vote.

Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, I am a resident of Thousand Oaks, writing to formally enter my strong opposition to the proposed 7-story apartment complex into the public record for tonight's meeting. While I understand the state's housing mandates, a structure of this unprecedented scale fundamentally threatens the safety, peace, and environmental integrity of our suburban community.

I urge the Council to consider and address the following critical impacts before moving forward:

1. Pedestrian Safety for Families: A high-density project of this scale will exponentially increase vehicle trips on our neighborhood streets. I am deeply concerned about the safety of our children who walk these routes daily. Has the city conditioned this project on major pedestrian infrastructure upgrades, such as protected crosswalks and traffic-calming measures, to ensure our kids can walk safely?

2. Public Safety and Infrastructure Strain: Concentrating hundreds of new residents into a single 7-story footprint puts an immediate strain on our local emergency infrastructure. I request verification on whether the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department and local fire agencies have confirmed they can maintain our city's excellent emergency response times without adding new personnel or stations.

3. Noise and Environmental Disruptions to Local Animals: Thousand Oaks prides itself on its quiet environment and proximity to nature. A 7-story building introduces massive structural noise, operational commotion, and severe light pollution. I request that the City Council demand a comprehensive study on how this intense, vertical noise and light pollution will impact both local wildlife and domestic animals in the surrounding area.

We chose Thousand Oaks because it is a peaceful, safe hometown—not a dense, loud city. Please protect our community character a nd vote no on this project as currently proposed.

Thank you for your time and service to our city.
36 Name City Item # In favor/
Opposed
Comment
Edward Valibus Thousand Oaks 10A In favor A thriving community is one that provides the space for us to share with one another, to have experiences together, to have a common ground where we all feel welcomed and we have ample opportunity to enjoy being a resident of Thousand Oaks. This new Downtown is that space. I support the project and urge our city leaders to do the same.

Ellen Garrett Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed I am an architect and a resident of Thousand Oaks for 27 years. I participated in the comm unity feedback for the Downtown Project.

I am shocked and very disappointed in the proposal that the City Council is presentng.

The 64' and 61' high proposed new buildings proposed on Thousand Oaks Boulevard are not consistent with the the desires of Conejo Valley residents. They will be inconsistent with the scale of adjacent buildings and they will feel like large block monoliths just like the Los Angeles "mixed use" ground floor retail and upper floors of small mediocre apartments. A majority of Thousand Oaks residences moved here to get away from that.

The renderings do not show architectural design that is representative of this area nor are they groundbreaking designs that whoule invite the public.

The Civic Arts Center is hidden behind the new structures. Was that intentional? There are many critics of the Center but hiding it behind mundane office buildings, a hotel that is a questionable endeavor especially at this challenging time in our economy is not an improvement.

There are no other buildings in the vicinity along Thousand Oaks Boulevard that are taller than 35 feet.

If we want a "gathering space", there should be ample free parking close to it and a sense of a community landmark. "I'll meet you at the Farmers Market Market" or "Lets meet by the Moore sculpture."
In short, the proposed development is inappropriatly designed for the site and does not reflect the Conejo Valley residents.

Other hotels in Thousand Oaks have failed already. The Palm or Selwyn Restaurant didn't last six months. The Best Western struggles to exist, at best. There are excellent local options that are very good such as the Four Seasons. the Westlake Village Inn, and the Hyatt Regency Westlake. Who has a study showing that Thousand Oaks is in dire need of a hotel on Thousand Oaks Boulevard: Do they think that a guest might wasn to walk to Auto Zone for spark plugs or The Meat Locker for a sandwhich? Oh no... everything closes at 8:00pm.

Let us reconsider this proposal for renovating downtown Thousand Oaks. The economy is in turmoil and building costs are exteremly high. I believe another 6 to 12 months of public input would help us reach a positive direction that would reflect our populations interests.

Thank you.

Westlake Village 10A Opposed Our city infrastr ucture cannot support a project of this size. Traffic and fire safety will be severely compromised.

Kathi Oster Westlake Village 10A Opposed I am opposed to the proposed development located in downtown Thousand Oaks. I am concerned about the traffic flow during the day and evening, emergency access, destruction of our protected oaks (many of which have already been removed), overall community congestion, environmental changes due to increased congestion and loss of habitat, stress due to congestion, and aesthetic changes to the community. As noted by others, we have existing buildings with vacancies which can be utilized for housing and businesses. We have plenty of hotels. After spending 90 minutes one day last week trying to navigate from Santa Monica to the 405 in a horribly congested area where I grew up, it concerned me that the same lack of consideration appears to be replicating itself in our area. I do not want to see our beautiful area turn into a congested sea of traffic which will degrade our quality of life here.

Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed Thousand Oaks is a high-risk wildfire zone. During the Woolsey Fire, our roads were entirely gridlocked. Adding a 7-story high-density residential structure and a 7-story hotel to this specific corridor creates an extreme bottleneck. Has a modern, worst-case-scenario evacuation study been done for a wildfire event with this added density? Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed The city’s own General Plan update established a clear 75-foot height limit to protect our community’s s emi-rural character. By approving a 7-story project that exceeds this, the council is setting a dangerous precedent and bypassing the exact public process that residents trusted.

Thousand Oaks 10A Opposed Don’t ruin Thousand Oaks. With a 7!mstoey building. Updating the boulevard is one thing but we aren’t L A we don’t need tall buildings 37

Thousand Oaks City CouncilJune 23, 2026

Thousand Oaks City Council
June 23, 2026