Planning Commission approves 297‑unit Hillcrest mixed‑use project with density bonus, tree removals and waivers

The Thousand Oaks Planning Commission on June 8 unanimously approved a proposed mixed‑use development at 195 East Hillcrest Drive that would replace underused office buildings with a five‑story apartment building totaling 297 units and a remodeled 10,000‑square‑foot commercial building.

Senior planner Carlos Contreras told the commission the 8.21‑acre site is zoned Mixed Use and that the applicant — TCLAMF Development Inc. (developer representatives said they are affiliated with Trammell Crow Company) — requests a development permit (DP2025‑70001), a land division (LD2025‑70004), a protected tree permit (PTP2025‑70002), and associated concessions and waivers under the state density bonus law. Under staff calculations, the base entitlement yields 247 units (30 units per acre); a 20% density bonus tied to providing 10% affordable units raises the total to 297 units and requires 25 deed‑restricted affordable units.

Staff described key project features: one five‑story residential building with an internal five‑level parking structure (approximately 490 parking spaces proposed), rooftop amenities and courtyards, a publicly accessible plaza along East Hillcrest Drive, and on‑site replacement plantings. The applicant requests one state concession (use of vinyl window frames) and six waivers to local objective design standards, including waivers for building length, interior corridor length, plate height, number of buildings (project proposes one building rather than three separate buildings for the 8.21‑acre parcel), and modest front‑setback modifications. Staff recommended the waivers be approved because site constraints — existing perimeter access roads, a manufactured slope along the frontage, a drainage channel, and protected trees — limit viable alternatives and could prevent the project from meeting allowable density and providing the affordable units.

Protected tree impacts were a major focus: staff said the project would remove seven coast live oak trees, one valley oak and nine California sycamore trees, and would encroach into the protected zones of additional trees. The project includes a replacement plan proposing approximately 27 sycamore trees and replacement oak plantings on site; conditions of approval require protective fencing, on‑site monitoring during construction and 3:1 replacement for any protected trees that die within five years of encroachment.

Commissioners asked for clarification on three types of deviations: concessions tied to affordability, waivers necessary to physically achieve density, and municipal‑code modifications that require findings under local law. Commissioners also pressed staff to fix numerical discrepancies in the packet — staff agreed to update the resolution to reflect the correct building length (staff and applicant gave differing measures; staff committed to change a referenced 407‑foot figure to the accurate 486‑foot measure used in the evaluation) and to change language referring to "building types" to the intended "number of buildings." Staff emphasized an addendum to the city's 2045 General Plan EIR (dated April 2026) concluded the project would not result in new significant environmental impacts beyond those analyzed in the programmatic EIR.

Public comment included support from Jackson Piper and a letter of support from the Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce (represented at the hearing by Danielle Borgia). A late letter from the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters questioned whether an addendum was an appropriate CEQA document; the city's environmental consultant (Echo Tierra Consulting) reviewed the letter and concluded the claims were unsubstantiated and did not change the addendum's conclusions.

After further discussion about tree mitigation, construction protections (sound walls, dust and rodent control), VMT and traffic screening, parking supply and unit mix, a commissioner moved to adopt the addendum and approve the requested entitlements (DP2025‑70001, LD2025‑70004, PTP2025‑70002) with the stated waivers, concession and objective design standard modification. The motion carried 5–0. Staff noted the 10‑day appeal period for aggrieved parties.