THOUSAND OAKS CITY COUNCIL
Supplemental Information Packet
Agenda Related Items - Meeting of May 18, 2021 Supplemental Packet Date: May 17, 2021
2:30 p.m.
Supplemental Information:
Any agenda related public documents received and distributed to a majority of the City Council after the Agenda Packet is printed are included in Supplemental Packets. Supplemental Packets are produced as needed, typically a minimum of two—one available on the Thursday preceding the City Council meeting and the second on Tuesday at the meeting. The Supplemental Packet is available for public inspection on the City’s website at toaks.org/agendas or by contacting the City Clerk Dept at (805) 449-2151 during normal busi- ness hours [main location pursuant to the Brown Act, G.C. 54957.5(2)].
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):
In compliance with the ADA, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting or other services in conjunction with this meeting, please contact the City Clerk Department at (805) 449-2151. Assisted listening devices are available at this meeting. Ask City Clerk staff if you desire to use this device. Upon request, the agenda and documents in this agenda packet, can be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist City staff in assuring reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service. From: [email protected] To: Al Adam; Bob Engler; Kevin McNamee; Ed Jones; [email protected]; City Clerk"s Office Subject: Upcoming vote on Borchard South parcel Date: Thursday, May 13, 2021 2:39:47 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.
Dear Council Members and City Clerk:
I am writing to you about the upcoming vote on the Borchard South parcel. I ask that you reconsider the scope of this project. Current proposals would build 50 foot project homes adjacent to existing single and two story homes in an established neighborhood. As a result, the privacy, quietness, and security I have experienced for many years would be threatened. Additional development in this area would open up the neighborhood to more traffic and risk the safety of our children and elderly population. In addition, the cost of upgrading the waste water plant will cost millions. The proposed projects will change the character of these established neighborhoods forever.
We should not rush to over develop the City of Thousand Oaks/Newbury Park. Please approve the required 2,681 units as mandated by the State.
Thank you.
Thomas Kemmer 2926 Denise St. Newbury Park, CA 91320 805-480-0505
1 From: karen wilburn To: Al Adam; [email protected]; Bob Engler; Kevin McNamee; City Clerk"s Office Subject: FW: Letter To City Council Mrmbers Date: Thursday, May 13, 2021 6:16:50 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 sending this on behalf of Judy York as her emails have all come back as undeliverable.
KAREN [email protected] 213-216-1937
-----Original Message----- From: Judy York
Dear Karen,
The letter below is the one I wrote and sent to each member of the City Council individually. I have received it back as “undeliverable” 3 times. I don’t know know what I’m doing wrong, but I don’t have any more time or energy to spend on this, and I wanted to do my part as part of the collective voice opposing this project as it stands. I hate to bother you, but if you find the letter has any merit, or if it could be tweaked to have a better impact, I would appreciate it if you could do whatever it needs and send it for me. If not, I completely understand.
Thank you for whatever you can do,
Judy York
> Dear City Council Member, > > Thank you so much for all your time, thought and energy that you have devoted to this beautiful community. My family feels incredibly fortunate to have lived in the Conejo Valley since 1968, and while it has grown and developed over the years, our leaders have been thoughtful and diligent in listening to the community voice which has collectively been heard, for which I am most grateful. I am asking that you please continue to listen closely now. While development has taken place in our valley, such as Dos Vientos, it has not intruded nor has it changed the quality of life the community expects and desires. With that said, there are several current changes in the works regarding development that will absolutely impact us greatly. In particular, I am referring to the potential development plan in Newbury Park, located in the area south of the 101 Freeway, known to the majority of us as the “Wetlands.” Although it may not be defined as such, it has been that kind of area in all the years my family has lived here. I was actually caught in the well known flood on Michael Drive that occurred. That particular property was perpetually wet, even when there was no rain. I have seen the projected plans for that area and they are nothing if not overwhelming to me and the majority of this Newbury Park community. The kind of development that the owner plans for that site would adversely impact not just the Casa Conejo and Cameo Tracts, but the the entire area. I believe that parcel of land was slated for no more than 160 single family dwellings. That is a far cry from a
2 multi-story, roof-top bar/hotel, and several other commercial venues spanning that entire parcel, which would also create unparalleled traffic by extending Alice Drive, making it an major traffic zone through a residential community. This kind of development would work in a downtown area, but is completely incompatible with tracts of single family homes, whose streets and cul-de-sacs were intended to accommodate the kind of traffic a residential area was built to accept. Changing the footprint of a residential neighborhood, whose streets carry families and young children that populate the local elementary and junior high schools is not the kind of decision I would ever expect our City Council to approve. Would I expect it from areas that truly don’t have the well being at the forefront of the constituency they represent...yes, I would. Our City Council has never been known to go with the flow; had your predecessors done that, we wouldn’t have the incredible community we live in now...we would be just another overbuilt, overpopulated place like so many others that people can’t wait to leave. > > We have the opportunity to continue to build our community as we always have...one that represents the reason the Conejo Valley still remains viable, beautiful and desirable. It is not all the homes, or all the businesses or anything buildable that makes the Conejo Valley so desirable...it is the open space we still have left...the beauty around us...the growth that’s been metered with a clear view of what we never want to lose and, up to this point, haven’t lost. But if we do lose it because the long held standards of those who came before us and made the decisions not to compromise what makes us unique, are arbitrarily dismissed through shortsightedness, then we will be the epitome of the goose and the golden eggs. I do not believe any of you would be willing to compromise this community; there are several names on our City Council I recognize from the many years of service to this community. Thank you for all the time and effort you have put into making decisions that benefited the whole community...never just a few. > > I’m asking you on behalf of my family and this community, to keep our long held standards and please vote “NO” regarding the development of the ill-conceived “Wetlands Project“ before you that will adversely affect all of us. > > Thank you, > > Judy York
3 From: Cory Anttila To: Bob Engler; Al Adam; Ed Jones; [email protected]; [email protected]; City Clerk"s Office Subject: General Plan Update from a Conejo Valley Resident (Newbury Park) Date: Friday, May 14, 2021 1:38:59 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.
City of Thousand Oaks City Councilors
First and foremost I would like to thank each and every one of you for your service to our community. I am writing you this email to provide you my thoughts on the general plan changes that each of you are about to vote.
I would also like to introduce myself. My name is Cory Anttila and I am and have been a resident within the conejo valley my entire life (42 years). My family (Grandparents, Aunts and Uncles) have been in the Thousand Oaks community since the early 1950's. We have all seen the changes in the landscape, housing and commercial developments occur within the community throughout years.
Not only am I a resident within the conejo valley (Newbury Park to be specific), I am also a trained licensed architect. I studied and received a Professional Bachelor's Degree in Architecture at The Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCIARC) and have been in the practice of architecture for 24 years. In addition, I was mentored prior to and after attending SCIARC by respected architects within the Conejo Valley (Francisco Behr and Gary Heathcote). In fact, one of my first projects with Gary Heathcote was the remodel and addition to Lupe's Mexican restaurant.
It saddened me to see Lupe have to give up the restaurant and see the restaurant demolished for a new development but I believe that development turned out architecturally pleasing and appropriate with the vision for Thousand Oaks Blvd.
For the most part I am supportive of the need for a change to the general plan. Not because there is a need for housing and the city is mandated by the state to perform but because our community must evolve and attract young families, talented individuals and others to diversify within the community. (not trying to be politically correct here)
From an architectural perspective these mixed uses are 100% appropriate to be located within the Thousand Oaks Blvd Specific Plan as well as properties that are adjacent to retail and apartments adjacent to the Moorpark Road and Brazil street intersections; however, before the city moves forward with the general plan changes it is important to understand the impacts of these developments to the community (residents and businesses) and it is important to keeping the the city's benefits from the economics out of this decision.
First, the community needs to understand how the city plans on addressing the traffic and parking impacts that such developments will impose to the current residents and businesses. Currently, the 101 corridor passing through Thousand Oaks and Newbury Park has worse traffic than the 101 and 405 interchange through Sherman Oaks.
4 Secondly, the vernacular of our community is distinct from other communities and other larger cities within Southern California. This is an important characteristic to maintain. Large developments looking for increases in height will make our city look like Sherman Oaks. I work for many developers like the ones proposing these developments here in Thousand Oaks. Developers are always looking out for themselves and most of the time have little to no compassion for the community and how their development will impact their community. These mixed use developments must be within the scale and architectural language that represents our city. That said, if you proceed with approving this general plan update there must be strict guidelines developers to follow to maintain the scale and architecture.
Finally, I would like to discuss the consideration of the vacant land between Borchard and Wendy Drive. This land has been privately owned for many years. It has come to my attention that the developer, Shawn Meridian is proposing a mixed use, multi-family housing development with a brewery, hotel with rooftop bar...... I am not opposed to this property being developed at some future date; however, what I and many others have seen as a concept plan is out of scale (too large and too impactful) with the characteristic of this urban sprawled community.
I encourage each one of you to visit the app nextdoor and look at the conversations. There are one or two people in support of Shawn's plan but a greater majority of the residents oppose the development. Now some of them don't want anything at all; however, there was one comment that stuck out to me as a concept that myself and a great majority of others would support. That concept would be to develop the land as a senior (55 and older) housing / mixed use development. This could be inclusive of single and two story condos, community rooms, medical services (i.e. urgent care), pharmacy (i.e. Berts), swimming facilities, pickleball courts, Senior Living, Senior Care..... (all similar to leisure village development in camarillo). The traffic impact of such a development would be significantly less than a mixed-use multi- family development with patrons consuming alcohol on adjacent residential streets. I would also like to add that such a senior community would benefit new younger families coming into the neighborhoods. Many times seniors face life challenges living on their own in a single family home. When that occurs, such individuals move into developments and senior assisted living / care facilities. This would free up some of the housing within the community for a new family to join our unique eclectic town.
Based on the above, I would recommend to the City Council to not include this property under the general plan update for a mixed use site, but designate this land as a specific plan. That way the community can work together with the developer and help the developer put together a plan that would be supported by the residents.
In addition, I would propose this development on the Borchard land to be postponed until the impacts of the added mixed use developments on Thousand Oaks Blvd are understood and the city is able to mitigate such impacts.
I thank each of you again for your service and I hope you will take this information and look out for our current community members.
Thank you all again for your time and consideration.
Best Regards,
5 Cory Anttila, Architect | AIA | NCARB Newbury Park Resident 805.208.8563
6 From: Shawn D. Moradian To: [email protected]; Al Adam; Kevin McNamee; Bob Engler; Ed Jones Cc: Andrew Powers; Tracy Noonan; Kelvin Parker; Michael Forbes; Mark Towne; General Plan; City Clerk"s Office Subject: Moradian Family Letter in Support of Borchard Opportunity Site Date: Friday, May 14, 2021 10:13:00 AM Attachments: Supervisor Parks Survey Email 4.21.21 - Exhibit C.pdf City of Thousand Oaks - Opportunity Sites - Exhibit A.pdf Moradian Letter to City Council in Support of Borchard Opportunity Site - GPA 2019-70760.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.
RE: Moradian Family Letter in Support of Borchard Opportunity Site - City Council Study Session - May 18, 2021, and City Council Meeting May 25, 2021 - GPA 2019-70760 (collectively "Hearings")
Dear Honorable City Councilmembers:
Attached, please find our letter in support of your efforts to update our City's General Plan at the above-referenced Hearings. We're grateful for your service to our community.
Respectfully submitted, ______Shawn D. Moradian 3366 Thousand Oaks Blvd. Suite 200 Westlake Village, CA 91362 T: 805-496-1500 F: 805-496-7300
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that this material is Private & Confidential. The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
7 5/11/2021 Gmail - FYI - Thousand Oaks General Plan Survey
EXHIBIT "C" Shawn Moradian
FYI - Thousand Oaks General Plan Survey 1 message
Terry, Vanise
Good afternoon,
FYI – The City of Thousand Oaks has posted a new survey for their General Plan Lan Use Alternative. You can take the survey by visiting their website at: https://www.toaks2045.org/landusealts
*Please note Questions 2 and 3 ask your opinion on the intensity of development you'd like in the Rancho Conejo Area South of Highway 101.
Take care,
Vanise Terry
Office of Supervisor Linda Parks
625 W. Hillcrest Drive
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
(805) 214-2510
8 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=cfb6e90227&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1697697056586203922&simpl=msg-f%3A16976970565… 1/1 Thousand Oaks EDSP EXHIBIT "A" Current Conditions
OPPORTUNITY SITE OVERVIEW
For Development: Borchard Rd. Property Size: 36.66 acres APN: 662-001-003 ED Opportunity: Potential residential / commercial development site (exempt from Measure E)
For Development: Daylight Thousand Oaks LLC Thousand Oaks Blvd. Size: 9.68 acres APN: 660-005-001 ED Opportunity: Comm. / office off 101 fwy
For Development: The Oaks Mall Size: 18.19 acres APN: 525-005-247, 525-005-236, 525-002-036, 525-005-252, 525-005-246, 525-005-248 ED Opportunity: Redevelopment/additions of new uses to The Oaks Mall with potential residential
For Development: Nazarbekian Site Size: 5.97 acres APN: 669-020-104, 669-020-103, 669-020-105, 525-001-223 ED Opportunity: potential mixed-use project
For Development: Westside Properties Size: 2.81 acres APN: 670-018-223, 670-018-221, 670-018-219, 670-018-206, 670-018-222 ED Opportunity: Downtown redevelopment opp.
For Development: Former K-Mart Site Size: 10.12 acres APN: 676-015-037, 676-015-036 ED Opportunity: Retail/commercial opportunity
9 KOSMONT COMPANIES 1601 N. Sepulveda, #382, Manhattan Beach, CA 7 November 2017 40 90266 10 11 12 13 14 From: karen wilburn To: [email protected]; Al Adam; Ed Jones; Kevin McNamee; Bob Engler; City Clerk"s Office Cc: Linda Parks; Michelle Koetke; Alan Lewis; Scott Horn Subject: Concerns about the May 18th staff report Date: Friday, May 14, 2021 11:14:21 AM Attachments: image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png image005.png image006.png image007.png image008.png
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 read Mr. Parker’s staff report for the upcoming meeting. Below is an excerpt from the April 8th issue of the Acorn. I raised this issue about the validity of the responses to question 9. It was clear the responses were loaded by special interest groups & Mr. Parker’s response was insulting to the residents of the community who questioned it.
Below are excerpts from his May 18th staff report. He is still trying to defend these survey results, even going so far as to add the general plan team is aware of 3 organizations encourgaging their members to respond in a particular way. I don’t disagree with this. One is probably the Chamber of Commerce, another is probably TOBA (who’s president is Mr. Moradian who owns the parcel in question). These are both long standing well organzied groups. I am guessing the group he is referring to as opposing it is Conejo Valley Residents for Sensible Planning or which I am a mbmer. This group did not exist at the time of the survey. In fact our website didn’t go live until April 22nd so we had no involvement in swaying the responses in the original survey. I find Mr. Parker’s comments offensive & biased. He works for the city not the developers or planning consultant. Please keep this in mind when considering his recommendations.
15
SEE YA IN THE
16
KAREN [email protected] 213-216-1937
17 From: Cheryl Bisera To: City Clerk"s Office Subject: Letter from life long Thousand Oaks resident Date: Friday, May 14, 2021 4:23:38 PM Attachments: Letter From Resident CB _ May 2021 .docx
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 City Clerk,
Please see and record my attached letter.
Thank you,
Cheryl Bisera 805-276-2828
18
May 14, 2021
Dear City Clerk and All City Council Members,
I am a lifetime resident of Newbury Park, I’m 49 years old, was born and raised here and have raised three children here and am now helping to raise a grandchild here. I am deeply invested in the Conejo Valley.
I am asking you to consider all the residents within our great city of Thousand Oaks. What is the rush to develop our few remaining parcels of open space into medium or high-density housing?
There are better, viable options to consider, other than what the narrow (sampling only just over 1% of our population) Raimi & Associates survey steers you toward
Besides the fact that Raimi & Associates has taken advantage of the COVID situation, using it as an excuse to not have live meetings and face our residents face to face but instead hold a suppressive virtual zoom meeting, a survey that disenfranchises over 100,000 of our residents is not inclusive, fair or honest.
A major zoning and general plan change should be put on the ballot for ALL our residents to vote on.
Referencing the article "Amgen researching potential for apartments" on page 22 of the April 29th Thousand Oaks Acorn; the proposed 333 residential apartments would provide true workforce housing; both employment- enhancing and non-disruptive to our community.
These types of viable upgrades to our existing vacant commercial properties which already have a footprint and utilities in place while NOT allowing them to increase the existing height of the property, is a win-win for employers, the city and Thousand Oaks residents and a far better option than rushing to overdevelop our few remaining parcels of open space with medium to high density houses shoehorned in, for maximum builder profit.
Senate Bill 330 is being twisted and exploited to give developers a chance to rush us into overbuilding our few remaining parcels of open space, this mistake can never be reversed.
Planning commissioner David Newman was quoted in the April 29th Acorn: “The state has only required Thousand Oaks to plan for 2,600 units in the next eight years”. So why the BIG RUSH for MEDIUM to HIGH DENSITY HOUSING? And why in open spaces and not where underutilized buildings and parking already exist?
The slow growth, open space and thoughtful planning that have historically set Thousand Oaks apart from other communities is at stake and I am deeply concerned that we could lose the very thing that makes our community so precious, unique – and valuable to our quality of life. Please do the right thing and stand up for the residents of Thousand Oaks and for what our cities planners so thoughtfully put into motion so many years ago.
Most Sincerely,
Cheryl Bisera Newbury Park resident 49 years.
19 From: Adam Haverstock
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 Cyndi,
Please see the attached comment letter from the Executive Committee of the Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce. We have reviewed the staff recommendation for the General Plan Preferred Alternative Map under consideration at the special meeting this Tuesday and have written the attached letter in support of the staff recommendation.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you, Adam
‐‐
Adam Haverstock Director of Government Affairs & Tourism Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce Helping Businesses Succeed and Conejo Valley Thrive! 805-370-0035 | [email protected]
20 2021 BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Natalie Yanez Chair eXp Realty Jill Haney Chair Elect/Treasurer Montecito Bank & Trust Tom Cohen Chair Emeritus Cohen Land Use Law, LLP May 14, 2021 Don Philipson Chair Emeritus ePro Marketing Matt Midura Mayor Claudia Bill-de la Peña Chair Emeritus / Secretary Pepperdine University Thousand Oaks City Council Lisa Safaeinili 2100 Thousand Oaks Blvd Director-at-Large Westminster Free Clinic Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 Elaine Salewske Director-at-Large Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd. Re: Preferred Land Use Alternative Map – Support Ed Sahakian Member-at-Large Ventura County Credit Union Danielle Borja Dear Mayor Bill-de la Peña and members of the City Council, President / CEO Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce DIRECTORS On behalf of the Executive Committee of the Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce, I Adam Antoniskis am writing to encourage your support for the preferred alternative map as recommended by The Oaks Shopping Center David Barnett city staff. The most recent version of the map has modifications which allow the Chamber to Hyatt Regency Westlake Steve Bertram advocate a support position. Atara Biotherapeutics Redonna Carpenter-Woods Bank of America Merrill Lynch As the voice of over 800 members of the Conejo Valley business community who employ Monique Corridori Corwin tens of thousands of local residents, the Chamber is a major stakeholder in the City of Stacy Diaz PennyMac Thousand Oaks general plan process. Our members continue to express that creating Michael Dutra Candu Graphics downtown areas within the city and building workforce housing are two things Thousand Darla Everett Amgen Oaks can do to help them attract and retain the highest quality young professionals and Kinsie Flame talent in our community. Jacob Flame’s Tang Soo Do University Johnathan Franklin Los Angeles Rams Eva Gomez Additionally, we believe the current map will provide opportunities for low income housing California State University Channel Islands needed for our community and also to satisfy the state’s RHNA requirements for the next 25 Jason Herbison years. HUB International William Koehler Law Offices of William D. Koehler Mark LaValle Rancho Conejo Area – Designate the Entire Borchard Site as Mixed Use Hatch Café & Market Austin Manning Los Robles Health System Andrea McClellan We support the staff recommendation to designate the entire Borchard Opportunity Site as Boy Scouts of America Dianne McKay mixed use low and add site-specific policies that would address buffering and transition from Mustang Marketing adjacent residential. Douglas Messner Ameriprise Financial Eddie Moore Oaks Christian School This 37-acre property was previously identified as an ‘Opportunity Site’ in the City’s 2017 Marja Price Janss Marketplace Economic Development Strategic Plan and should be given the flexibility for future Milla Shaposhnik Union Bank development by designating the entire site as one mixed use designation. The proximity of Candice Shehorn Key Pointe Asset Management this site to the growing biotech hub makes the designation of this property even more Kimberly Tharpe Citizens Business Bank - Camarillo important, providing a unique opportunity to create a community hub for the Newbury Park Ryan Van Ommeren California Lutheran University area. Felix Wang Best Western Plus Thousand Oaks Inn Joe Weber Recommendation: Approve this section of the map as recommended by staff, including Chatsworth Products Sepideh Yeoh the recommendation to designate the entire Borchard Opportunity Site as mixed-use. Un1teee
600 Hampshire Road # 200 • Westlake Village, CA 91361 T: (805) 370-0035 • F: (805)21 370-1083 • conejochamber.org Moorpark Road and West Thousand Oaks Boulevard Area – Designate The Oaks, Janss Marketplace and Moorpark Road as Mixed Use
We support the staff recommendation in this area, particularly a mixed use designation at The Oaks Mall and the Janss Marketplace sites with additional height allowances, as well as the mixed use designation on the properties along Moorpark Road and mixed use medium on the western portion of Thousand Oaks Boulevard.
The Oaks Mall was also designated as an ‘Opportunity Site’ and this region has enjoyed broad support during the public input process for mixed use development.
Recommendation: Approve this section of the map as recommended by staff, including the mixed use low designation at The Oaks Mall, the Janss Marketplace and along Moorpark Road as well as the mixed use medium on the West end of Thousand Oaks Boulevard.
Downtown and Thousand Oaks Boulevard Area
The Chamber supports the overall amount of mixed-use designated along Thousand Oaks Boulevard and the mixed use medium focused in the downtown corridor. In the first survey, there was overwhelming support for additional density and mixed use on Thousand Oaks Boulevard in the Specific Plan area.
Recommendation: Approve this section of the map as recommended by staff, including the medium mixed use designation in the downtown corridor.
Westlake and East End Area – Designate Mixed Use at the Former Baxter and K-Mart Sites
The planning commission and city staff have made the prudent recommendation to add a mixed use designation to the former Baxter site. This area was recently approved via a pre-screen for consideration of mixed use development by the City Council, and this map aligns the map with the previous city council action.
The staff recommendation also puts a mixed use designation on the former K-mart site. This site was another site designated by the City Council as an opportunity site and will help the city meet its affordable housing and workforce housing goals without affecting the character of the single family neighborhoods in Thousand Oaks.
Recommendation: The Chamber requests that this section of the map be approved as recommended by staff, which allows for mixed use at the former Baxter site and the former K-mart site.
22 We always appreciate our great relationship with the Thousand Oaks City Council and the city staff.
Thank you for your consideration in regard to this important plan for our City that will allow for strategic growth while preserving the single family neighborhoods, open space and parks that we all cherish.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 805-370-0035 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Danielle Borja, MBA President/CEO Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce
23 From: Rhonda Ross To: City Clerk"s Office Subject: Borchard FEMA Flood Zone Parcel Date: Saturday, May 15, 2021 8:30:47 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 urge you to vote no to the General Plan and no to changing the zoning of the Borchard FEMA Flood Zone Parcel. This is extremely important to Newbury Park and I know you care about this so please vote no on these issues.
Thank you,
Rhonda Ross
24 From: Maria Derengowski To: [email protected]; Bob Engler; Al Adam; Kevin McNamee; Ed Jones; City Clerk"s Office Subject: General Plan Update Date: Sunday, May 16, 2021 12:40:20 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.
Dear Mayor Bill-de la Pena, Council Members and City Clerk;
I write to you today to voice my concerns relating to the General Plan meeting slated for 5/18/2021. I wholeheartedly say NO to the General Plan and NO to changing the zoning of the Borchard FEMA flood zone parcel. I’m wondering if you all have ever heard the song “Big Yellow Taxi”. If not, I’ll cite some of the lyrics for your consideration, as this is what comes to mind whenever I think about the changes that are being proposed for this property.
The song says…
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot With a pink hotel, a boutique, and a swingin' hot spot Don't it always seem to go That you don't know what you got 'til it's gone They paved paradise and put up a parking lot
They took all the trees, and put ‘em in a tree museum And they charged the people a dollar and a half to see them No, no, no Don't it always seem to go That you don't know what you got 'til it's gone They paved paradise, and put up a parking lot
Hey farmer, farmer, put away your DDT I don't care about spots on my apples, Leave me the birds and the bees
Please Don't it always seem to go That you don't know what you got 'til it's gone They paved paradise and put up a parking lot Hey now, they paved paradise to put up a parking lot
Why do I say NO? Nineteen years ago my husband and I moved our family to Newbury Park from the San Fernando Valley where we both grew up. After many years of hard work and saving our pennies, our dreams of leaving that densely populated, fast paced, big city chaos behind for a slower, friendlier, smaller town vibe were finally coming to fruition and what better place to invest our savings than a home in the idyllic community of the Conejo
25 Valley? During our time here we’ve enjoyed all of the benefits that one of the safest cities in the U.S. has to offer; such as cleaner air, better education, safer streets, more open spaces and less traffic, smog, pollution and crime, to name a few. But the one thing we love most about living here… the slow, responsible growth of our city… is currently at risk and our dream will become a nightmare of epic proportions, much like the one we left behind, if you allow the zoning of the Borchard FEMA flood zone parcel to be changed from its current R1 designation on the original land map.
My home is in the Fox Meadows neighborhood of Casa Conejo and directly faces the opening of that parcel located at the dead end of Denise Street. While I agree with the need for more affordable housing and respect the city’s desire to meet California’s growth requirements, I feel very strongly that this should not be done at the expense of the long-term home owners of the surrounding neighborhoods. These zoning changes cannot possibly take areas of single family homes and change them to areas of multi-family or mixed use while still preserving the character of single family homes, as promised. This parcel requires a detailed study before making any changes because the county has a flowage easement on it. The property owner paid very little for this parcel nearly 30 years ago because it was not easily buildable, if at all, and he pays less in yearly property taxes than most of the existing homeowners. We have much more invested in our property/homes, that we stand to lose if the property owner is allowed to proceed with his proposed plan of high density, mixed use in a residential neighborhood.
The community members surrounding this parcel are not okay with this. I personally am not okay with looking out my upstairs windows or walking out my front door to four… five… six story buildings blocking my view of the majestic Santa Monica Ridgeline, (one of the things that drew me to this location), from my “lake front property” when it rains. But more importantly, this entire community is not okay with the increase in noise, pollution and crime, or the likely decrease in our property values that this plan will bring with it. We are not okay with being pushed out of our homes because the density will be unbearable. Another thing that drew me to this exact home is the fact that Denise is a dead end and the majority of vehicles coming down Denise St. and Nicole Dr. would likely be those of the residents, with few exceptions such as deliveries and visitors. I was finally able to worry less about allowing my daughters to play on the surrounding streets with their friends and neighbors. As grown adults they are now also opposed to the idea of overdeveloping this parcel, as they would like to someday raise their own children here in their childhood home. But just like mine have grown up, so have all the others and now there is a whole new slew of youngsters living in this area and this community is not okay with the amount of traffic and potential for danger that the property owner’s proposed plan will bring to our streets and the children who play on them; specifically Alice Drive, Denise Street, Nicole Drive, Bella Drive, Strauss Drive, Michael Drive and Borchard Road, where there are several already approved sites less than a mile away that will also add to the increase in traffic.
This community is respectfully asking you to do the job we trust and elected you to do, with our best interests in mind. Wait to assimilate those changes and assess the impacts before allowing the current designation to be given away because once it’s gone, there is no going
26 back. We are not against change; we are against too much change happening too fast, especially when these changes are being made during a global pandemic. The property owner will still have the right to bring forward a detailed proposal with studies and request an amendment to the land use map, but with only 2600 homes necessary to be added to the plan at this time, you have the power to slow this process down. We are intelligent human beings who deserve to be heard and understood. So, please, give us a voice and then listen carefully as we graciously ask you to leave the land map designation for the Borchard FEMA flood zone parcel as it is on the ORIGINAL map. On a more personal level, I am begging you… USE YOUR POWER! Please, please, please don’t allow this developer’s dream to become my nightmare.
Thank you for your service, time, and careful consideration of my request. I am confident that you will do what's best for this community.
Sincerely,
Maria Derengowski
Nicole Drive
805-390-1054
27 From: Conejo Valley Advocates for Sensible Planning To: Al Adam; [email protected]; Bob Engler; Kevin McNamee; Al Adam; City Clerk"s Office Subject: One Small Problem with the Borchard lot Date: Sunday, May 16, 2021 2:08:08 PM Attachments: image002.png
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.
One Small Problem
Borchard floodplain, water shining, in 2017
This Developer first gets his property, the only single-family residential property in the city to be changed in the General Plan Update, proposed for a shopping center and apartments (commercial Mixed-Use). He also benefits from survey “shenanigans” that coincidentally skew survey results to his favor. But what’s missing in all this?
The property— it floods, it floods, it floods
After all his lawsuits and pumping and draining work done in 2015, it still floods. And that’s precisely why County Flood Control has owned a flowage easement over the entire property since 1978, to hold
28 stormwater so it doesn’t flood homes. That’s why the property was so cheap when he bought it in 1989.
Because it floods, it floods, it floods
See link below for Hydrological Impacts of building on this site. https://cvasp.org/hydrology-reports/
Stop the Developer Power Grab!
Conejo Valley Advocates for Sensible Planning https://cvasp.org/ Follow us https://www.facebook.com/cvasp2021/ Twitter@cvasp2021
29 From: [email protected] To: [email protected]; Bob Engler; Al Adam; Ed Jones; Kevin McNamee; City Clerk"s Office Subject: Borchard FEMA Flood Zone Parcel - A Long Time Neighbor"s Perspective Date: Sunday, May 16, 2021 5:43:11 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.
May 16, 2021
Claudia Bill-de-la Pena, Mayor Bob Engler, Mayor Pro Tem Al Adam, Councilmember Ed Jones, Councilmember Kevin McNamee, Councilmember
RE: Borchard FEMA Flood Zone Parcel – A Long Time Neighbor’s Perspective
Dear Mayor Bill-de la Pena and Councilmembers,
My name is Jennifer Gross and I have lived in Newbury Park for 40 years. I have owned and lived in my home in the neighborhood to the north of the Borchard FEMA Flood Zone Parcel for 19 years. I live two houses away from the south border of the Parcel. If you asked any of my friends and family they would tell you that my house is my forever home and that I am eagerly looking forward to my upcoming retirement -- until last week.
Two of the things I had planned to spend the majority of my time doing during retirement were hiking the local mountains and tending my backyard garden. I love the slow, close to nature life that Newbury Park gives me. The opportunity to spend time in nature so close by, work my small piece of land, stop, lean on my shovel, look up at the expanse of blue sky, judge the time of day by where the sun is in the sky and gaze with gratitude at the beauty of the mountains - this has been the bulk of my retirement plan – until last week.
30 I was aware during the COVID Pandemic that something was going on with the Parcel. It was being mowed regularly, groomed. The owner wanted it looking nice. Someone special was watching. All the critters had fled and were living in our yards. My back was turned. I was focused on my family, health, mental health, as I should have been.
About a month ago I heard whispers that it was going through, building was going to happen on the Parcel. I resigned myself that after 3+ decades of saying “NO” the City decided it was time to build on land that required Herculean efforts to build on in order to do the work of Nature, rather than let Nature do the work of Nature. I resigned myself that the houses were coming. Our neighborhood was growing. 160 houses I thought it was, somewhere around there. I let my kids know. It was a bummer, but, oh well.
Until last week -- when a neighbor left a map on my door of what the City was planning to approve for development on the Borchard FEMA Flood Zone Parcel. Not 160 houses. Far from 160 houses. And what is on the agenda to approve, whether they know it or not, is eliminating the view of the mountains for all existing residents of the neighborhood to the north of the Parcel and granting it to the future apartment dwellers. I am certain those apartments will be well designed to allow for maximum appreciation of the view. My view will become a view of an apartment building and my forever home will become FOR SALE. Though this is not my only issue with this planned development, it is the reason I will sell this house and move from this home that I have loved for nearly 20 years.
This morning I went to Judy’s to get a donut. I took the opportunity to count the number of empty retail and restaurant spaces there were in the closest shopping centers to the Parcel, the Baskin Robbins center, the Library center, the Azar’s center and the Smart & Final center. In total, not counting the businesses upstairs from Smart & Final there were 18 empty retail and restaurant spaces in those 4 shopping centers, all within .25 miles of the Parcel. 18 empty retail and restaurant spaces. And the City is about to approve the building of more. To what end? First prove the concept to me by making The Lakes a success. Make the shopping center in Dos Vientos a success before you force another one on Newbury Park. Fill those 18 empty retail and restaurant spaces first, make the existing spaces viable first.
If you can’t halt development on the Borchard FEMA Flood Zone Parcen then we need to talk. I’ve been busy the past year+. So have my neighbors. Let’s take the time to talk now that you have our attention. If you won’t talk, then here is my list of the top four ways I would like the Borchard FEMA Flood Zone Parcel used:
1. Take the fence down and let us walk in the wilds of the Parcel like we used to be able to do 2. Leave it as it is 3. Build the houses and if you are going to dedicate land to parks or open space, include the land to the south of Denise, all of it, as not to be built on, but to be walked on and played on 4. If apartments of any height are going to be built, build them further east and north and 2 stories is enough, we don’t want to become the San Fernando Valley Jr. And, we don’t need any more retail, restaurant or bars. Absolutely no horses please – there are plenty of places for people to board and ride their horses in and around Newbury Park. And again, dedicate the land to the south of Denise as parks, open space, walking space, whatever – just don’t build on that spit of land.
Thank you,
Jennifer Gross
31 2839 Shirley Drive Newbury Park, CA 91320 (805) 312-2524
Graduate, Newbury Park High School Former Board Member and Past President Newbury Park High School Aquatics Boosters (multiple years) Former Board Member AYSO Region 42 (multiple years) Former Board Member Thousand Oaks Library (multiple years) Small Business Owner and sponsor of dozens of soccer, softball, baseball and basketball teams 16 year player of Conejo Park & Rec Softball, 8 years as a Manager And much, much more . . .
32 From: [email protected] To: City Clerk"s Office Subject: Fwd: General Plan Meeting 5/18 Date: Sunday, May 16, 2021 9:06:55 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.
From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: 5/16/2021 8:59:54 PM Pacific Standard Time Subject: General Plan Meeting 5/18
Dear City Clerk
I am a 20 year resident of Newbury Park. My husband and I moved here from the San Fernando Valley. We were drawn to the area for it's natural beauty and open space.
We are asking you to consider all options regarding housing development and the general plan when making these important decisions that will affect ALL residents of this great community. What is the rush to development the few remaining parcels that are left into medium to high density housing?
The state has only required Thousand Oaks to plan for 2600 units in the next 8 years. Why not look into putting these units into existing vacant commercial lots that already have an existing footprint and utilities already in place?
An example would be referencing the article in the Acorn, "Amgen researching the proposed 333 residential apartments" on page 22 of April 29 issue. This would provide workforce housing and it would not be as disruptive to our community.
These types of viable upgrades to our existing vacant commercial properties which already have a footprint and utilities in place while NOT allowing them to increase the existing height of the property, is a win-win the city and it's residents. It is a far better option than rushing to overdevelop our few remaining parcels of open space with medium to high density houses crammed in for maximum profit for the builder.
A major zoning change and General plan change should be put on the ballot for ALL residents to vote on. The Raimi & Associates survey was NOT an accurate measure of what residents in this community desire. The Survey was only a sampling of 1% of the population.
Raimi & Associates need to stop using COVID 19 as an excuse not to allow live meetings and allow for face to face discussions with the residents. Instead they are using virtual zoom meetings to suppress the true desires of our community.
My Husband and I witnessed the destruction of the San Fernando Valley. We would hate to see that happen to our community. Please do the right thing and stand up for the residents of Thousand Oaks and for what the City planners so thoughtfully put into motion many years ago.
33 Thank you, June Boynton
34 On May 16, 2021, at 8:36 PM, Joan Edwards
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 Andrew, can you please distribute my comments to all of the city council members? And file this in the permanent record. Sorry, I have lost the name of the woman that I should be sending this to. Thanks, Joan Re: the new general plan To: T.O. City Council mtg May 15, 2021 Fr: Joan Edwards 2031 channelford rd westlake Vlg 805 231 9618 Because I know you are in the business of approving developer projects, I realize I am asking you do do a hard thing. Please don’t approve any of Mr. Raimi’s maps. I believe our city should revolve around its beautiful open spaces, trees, and waterways. When you approve an application for a project, it usually means removing or encroaching on many of our huge legacy trees. It means forcing natural streams into cement and metal culverts. This is so sad. There are those in this town who truly love our trees and wildlife. I am one of them. Buildings can be designed around nature. Please do not bow to store owners who prefer crepe myrtles and Chinese pistache, just so everyone can read their signs. They are too small and do not provide shade for decades.
Everyone needs beauty in their life. We should all be in love with the beauty of our grand old Trees and black walnut orchards. An oak tree on every corner should be our #1 rule. I also beg you to treat the sidewalk trees with respect. They are now considered problems when their trunks buckle sidewalks. Please give them room, allow their dead leaves and acorns to become mulch. I suggest you keep the original general plan in place. Marilyn and Dave Carpenter helped write the original plan, limiting density and height. That plan has served us well. We have enough empty retail, so re‐configure all the empty buildings for affordable housing. This would eliminate the need for “mixed use”.
If CLU needs housing, they have a huge campus to build it on. If Amgen needs housing, they too have the room on their campus to build it. Please don’t ruin a city we love here with a massive increase in housing permits and unwanted high‐ rises.
35 From: Reed, Tony To: City Clerk"s Office Cc: Clark, Phil Subject: Written comments for the May 18 General Plan update meeting Date: Monday, May 17, 2021 9:05:08 AM Attachments: TOaks2045_CityCouncilMeeting_20210518_AmgenCyclingClub.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.
Dear Ms. Rodriguez: Attached is a letter written by the Amgen Cycling Club regarding our thoughts on the draft General Plan to be discussed on the May 18 Special Meeting of the City Council. Please forward this letter to the Council prior to the meeting and allow it to be in the public record. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to be part of this public process. Sincerely, Tony Reed
Tony Reed, Scientist Medicinal Chemistry, Green Chemistry lead Amgen Cycling Club – Cycling Advocacy Amgen Research One Amgen Center Drive Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 805-447-7226
36
Thousand Oaks City Council May 18, 2021 General Plan 2045 2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
Dear Thousand Oaks City Council:
The Amgen Cycling Club (ACC) has been around the Thousand Oaks community for over 20 years with over 300 members working to increase biking enjoyability, safety, and accessibility for road, mountain, and commuting cyclists. Even though the focus of the General Plan has been on land use, ACC would like to focus your attention on how best to connect the various areas of Thousand Oaks, through roads, bike paths, and trails.
First, ACC has ideas of how to form the 2045 General Plan which would improve enjoyability, safety, and accessibility for the entire community while biking on roads and bike lanes.
If biking is more convenient than driving, many people will choose to bike; if biking is as safe as driving, many people will choose to bike; if biking is about as easy as driving, many people will choose to bike.
Listed are a few of our recommendations: • Create directional, protected bike lanes with barriers from cars and pedestrians. • Create wide bike lanes that allow cyclists to bike side-by-side (similar to the two front seats in a car). • Create safe freeway crossings where bikes and cars do not compete for space. • Identify crosstown routes (with signage for tourists) to connect Village Centers, Parks, Open Spaces, Neighborhoods, and Commercial and Industrial zones. • Encourage electric bikes to increase ridership and usefulness (e.g., small grocery trips, bike commuting, climbing TO’s hills). • Support cycling in the community by assuring businesses and public spaces have bike friendly amenities like racks, repair stands, and e-bike charging stations. • The Dutch Cycling Embassy is an excellent resource: https://dutchcycling.nl/en/bestpractices
Second, ACC wants to make sure that trails in the Thousand Oaks Open Spaces are safe, fun, and enjoyable for all users (cyclists, hikers and equestrians as well). With expected increases in trail use by all these groups, we believe that implementation of the ideas below would improve the experience for all trail users:
• Create directional, downhill mountain-bike-only trails with optional features: jumps, berms, etc. Mountain bikers can be moving very fast downhill, so the creation of these trails secures the safety of other trail users and increases rider’s enjoyability.
37 • Uphill mountain bike trails would be shared amongst all three groups; these trails would not be directional for hikers and equestrians; this creates a better environment for other trail users as they do not have to worry about mountain bikes speeding down a trail towards them. • Increase the signage on mountain bike trails with difficulty ratings (i.e., green, blue, black) and include suggested loops and routes on the open space website. Clear markings must delineate which groups are permitted on each trail to mitigate conflicts between groups. • Using bike paths/lanes to connect trails in open spaces with trails to other open space parks. For example: connecting Lang Ranch Open space to Sapwi trails, Conejo Creek park and Wildwood park via paved bike paths and road bike lanes. These bike routes would serve the community for exercise, commuting to school and work, while also allowing more advanced mountain bikers to string together several off-road trail sections into a longer ride. • Creation of more bike paths along existing waterways (i.e., Arroyo Creek); these waterways could be rehabilitated to natural riparian zones to benefit both citizens and wildlife.
With the current success of Sapwi Bike Park which, only a few years ago, was a seldom used open space, these resources can only add to the value and enjoyment of our community.
Last, we believe that a city with exceptional biking resources should try to encourage out-of-area users to stay in Thousand Oaks for coffee, food, shopping, etc. after their activity. Integration between trailheads and/or cycling hubs and centers of commerce with route suggestions would entice those who are not part of our residential tax base to spend their money in Thousand Oaks. Trailheads and/or cycling hubs could be sponsored by local establishments to keep post-activity meals on riders’ (as well as hikers’ and equestrians’) minds.
A city with exceptional biking resources creates less traffic, increases health, is better for the environment, and creates a better community than one requiring automobiles for even the smallest errand. Our goal is to make Thousand Oaks (which already has a great reputation for its open space, trails, and bike-friendliness) world-renowned for its amazing bike culture, takes advantage of its perfect weather, and draws on its amazing landscape to support better living for all. Therefore, ACC believes we should build on this strength by making cycling a central theme in the 2045 General Plan.
Sincerely,
Phil D. Clark, President Tony Reed, Cycling Advocacy Amgen Cycling Club
38 TO COUNCIL: 05/17/2021 MEETING DATE: 05/18/2021
Name (Optional) Community of Item #In favor/ Comment Residence Opposed (Optional) Sharon Mobasseri Westlake Village 4A In favor Please re zone the 37 acres to all mix use. We need a place to go, need entertainment, need to bring life to our neighbors! Moreover, we need the tax dollars as well as the work close to home. This will help keep our next generation local. I am for a full RE zone to full mix use completely. Mac Bernie Thousand Oaks 4A In favor Thank you for allowing my comments. Overall, I like the plan however I do not like how my neighborhood is being boxed‐in through spot zoning with medium‐high density zoning proposed on either side of Glenwood Place and on either side of Mackenzie Ct. When I spoke to the City regarding a large plot of land being up‐zoned I was specifically told spot zoning was frowned upon but now its happening around my neighborhood. I think the same type of zoning should be used between Glenwood and Mackenzie Ct and I imagine my neighbors on those streets think the same. Thank you.
Gordon Clint & Barbara Newbury Park 4A N/A As a long term homeowners, we have been following the General Plan Update process for almost 2 years. Allowing our city to grow is the right choice for our future. New housing Leighton that is affordable will open new exciting possibilities in our city. Older long term residents can consider downsizing, our grown children will be able to stay here, and we can welcome new residents of all ages, backgrounds and income levels to our beautiful city. More of the people who work in Thousand Oaks may be able to afford to live here, providing benefits to both the workers and our community as a whole. Living closer to work will save the expense and time wasted in commuting. Parents will be able to spend more time home with their children. Local business will benefit and city tax revenue for services we all use will increase as workers living here spend their pay in our community instead of elsewhere. Less commuting will also improve traffic on the 101 freeway and reduce climate disrupting greenhouse gas pollution. The proposed Land Use Map preserves existing single family neighborhoods and keeps all we love about our community. Yet it will accommodate enough growth to enhance vitality and the diversity, equity and inclusion the City Council adopted as a goal. Since only 8% of our city is being considered for changes, enough land must be designated for higher density residential or mixed use designations to make low cost housing possible. These new zones should be distributed in various areas, including all village centers, so developers are able to find possible sites to build apartments, townhomes and condominiums. Our city is such an attractive place to live that zoning some land for a higher density of homes is no guarantee that affordable housing will be built by the free market. Without intervention by the city, developers will build what is most profitable. We do not need more luxury apartments. City Council action will be required to make rental housing or home ownership a reality for more of the lower wage families who are now excluded. Approving the Land Use Map is the first step. Then you must pass an adequate and enforceable inclusionary housing ordinance requiring that all new housing construction include a significant percentage of units that are affordable. In addition, staff should be directed to explore other innovative ways to create lower cost housing. The new housing must not only be rental. City staff will need to work with developers to encourage the building of more owner occupied condominiums so buyers can grow equity and have a real stake in the future of our community. Thousand Oaks can surely add a reasonable amount of distributed new housing units per year without harming our quality of life. Planning for limited future growth that is equitable will improve our city’s social, environmental and economic stability. Please support a Land Use Map that makes Thousand Oaks a more vital, sustainable and desirable place to live and work.
Betty Resnick Thousand Oaks 4A Opposed I am opposed to any structures that exceed 3 stories in any part of Thousand Oaks, Newbury Park, or Westlake Village. Doing so will negatively alter the beautiful views that we residents enjoy and that immeasurably contribute to our quality of life.
39 Name (Optional) Community of Item #In favor/ Comment Residence Opposed (Optional) Megan Perry Sandoval Newbury Park 4A Opposed opposed to plan in Newbury Park, especially the end of Alice/Borchard flood zone. Moridian has been denied over the years, so why now? I understand that growth is part of life: but plan correctly for the citizens of the town and WHY THEY LIVE HERE. Alice should not be opened up ( keep it dead end like Kimber near Dos Vientos). The impact and destruction to the Casa Conejo's will be irreversible. Our town cannot take on more traffic and not sure where the water will come from, especially since we are in a continuous drought condition in Southern California. Put the multiuse along TO BlVD>..revitalise the BLVD> give it a purpose as it has none at this point. Please listen to the citizens of this town. I know in Newbury Park, majority are opposed to the growth around Borchard, Michael, etc. Thank you for your time.
Newbury Park 4A Opposed They paved paradise and put up a parking lot With a pink hotel, a boutique, and a swingin' hot spot Don't it always seem to go That you don't know what you got 'til it's gone They paved paradise and put up a parking lot Maria Derengowski Newbury Park 4A Opposed I am strongly opposed to the proposed zoning changes of the Borchard FEMA flood zone parcel. In order to maintain the slow, responsible growth of our beautiful city, I ask that you please do not allow the zoning of this property to be changed from it’s current R1 designation on the original land map. When I voted tor elect ou mayor and city council members I trusted them to work for and with the people of our communities, especially when making decisions such as this that will alter our lives forever, and I hope you will all do what is best for the surrounding neighborhoods and home owners. .Thank you
Denice Stouffer Newbury Park 4A Opposed The City council and Planning commission are changing the way of life in our beautiful community. There are so many quality of life issues, I can't even begin to list them all but a few are: increased traffic, congestion, water usage in a time of prolonged drought, changing from a suburban/rural feel to a high density city development, roads are often two lanes in residential settings, freeways are congested enough already! I understand we need to build more units to be incompliance with state regulations, but around 2200 required units are a far cry from the proposed plans of 30,000+. Please stick to what is required . Adding single family homes in an appropriate manner is consistent with our city. This proposed plan is way out of line and is receiving scant public support from those of us that live here. There is a reason why only 2200 people filled out the original survey questionnaire...we didn't like any of the proposals!!!
40 Name (Optional) Community of Item #In favor/ Comment Residence Opposed (Optional) Rhombie Sandoval Newbury Park 4A Opposed I have grown up and currently live in the neighborhood adjacent to the wetlands. I believe that anyone in favor of this plan does not live close by. It is hard to imagine why this neighborhood would approve of an influx in traffic, multi story buildings that block their view of the mountains, and for the last section of open land in our neighborhood to be replaced by housing. I imagine those in favor, favor profit over community. Want to improve our community? Fund educational programs, build community centers not a lowes across the street from Home Depot. I understand that this is structured to provide affordable housing, but who is this affordable to and how will this change the housing market for those of us who live here.
Kathryn Watson Newbury Park 4A Opposed My comment is to inform the council that I and HUNDREDS of Newbury Park residents encourage you to keepe th R1 Zone ‐Alice Drive/Borchard Road as is. Do not over develop. A community park, perhaps? This would be more welcomed. We DO NOT WANT 50ft +housing.... a boutique hotel?!?!?.... trolly.... Too many developments = too many cars, too many people. Newbury Park is a breath of fresh air...peaceful, quiet easy going, easy to get around. Let's keep it that way. We moved here all the way from Pasadena to get away from the congestion. Our home backs up to the open field. We are NOT OK with years of building, construction, noise, dirt and invasion of our privacy. We love our home and spent thousands of extra dollars to get our GEM OF A VIEW...Boney Mountain. Thank you for your time.
Newbury Park 4A Opposed Absolutely not! Save the wetlands! Enough of huge apartment complexes already! If anything, how about some affordable housing! Sally Hibbitts Westlake Village 4A Opposed Do NOT build on the Borchard property owned by Moradian. Leave it alone and increase housing in downtown area, The Oaks, and Janss Mall. It needs to be left for SMMC to purchase. Kenneth Hibbitts Westlake Village 4A Opposed The idea of building apartments and multi‐use on the 37 acre Borchard property is just plain crazy. Moradian knew what he was getting into years ago when his Dad bought the land. Now he’s trying to make $$$$$ on a flood land. This is stupid. todd slater Newbury Park 4A Opposed I do nott wan to see tall building being built in the city of Thousand Oaks. Thousand Oaks is small city that does not need big city influences. We do not need mixed use zoning allowed all over the city. Thousand Oaks is wonderful for what we don’t have, mixed use and tall building don’t belong. Anita Garatie Newbury Park 4A Opposed I'm sorry I could not find a clear agenda for tomorrow. My comment was on the business move for Thousand Oaks. Many people like living here (I am one of them) because it's NOT a high rise building city. I love this beautiful area. Changes of this sort always have traffic issues, pollution and crime. Please reconsider for the safety of Thousand Oaks. thank you for your time. Anita E. Garatie
41