Meadows units. It concluded that collector streets Alice & Shirley could handle the flow and be within the County Volumes of 300 vehicles per hour & City standards of a collector street serving no more than 250 homes.
30 acres to the east (Borchard Parcel).
Borchard parcel. It reads “in conclusion, the maximum number of dwellings units which can be constructed in this area is 113 if County policies are respected”
problems when/if the Borchard site was developed. It concluded a bridge would need to be built on the Michael side.
I realize the traffic study conclusions were based on condiƟons and standards in place in 1977 and in all likelihood, current standards would allow for higher traffic flows. However I ask you to consider, in 1977 what were the average number of vehicles per household? How many households had more than one family member working outside the home? Today most households have two or more working members. Most teenagers didn’t have cars then. A majority do today. In 1977 most young adults leŌ home aŌer high school or college. Today many live with their parents much longer. All of these 361
factors generate more cars and more car trips than were anƟcipated in the 1977 study, and even then, that study didn’t feel more than 115 homes could be added based on the current street configuraƟon.
So this is why I am proposing that some type of traffic study be conducted prior to making this change. Ignoring the flood issues, the city needs to determine how many homes and businesses could reasonably be constructed on this parcel even with a bridge access on the Michael side. Then the land use should be craŌed according to this. Some may say that a study can’t be conducted without a project plan. I disagree. Current traffic volumes can be determined. AŌer that various scenarios can be input based on different housing limits. It won’t be perfect but it will give some guidance. The City Council can’t make this major decision and kick this can down the road expecƟng others (traffic division, fire/police depts, flood control district) to stop the project if it won’t work. We all know this land owner and once the change is made he is going to push for approval of a project even if the traffic studies don’t support it. He’s going to ask for waivers and variances. We all know this. Or he’s going to sell the property to a big developer with lots of lawyers and deep pockets.
Another issue is the collector streets on the Wendy side are County streets. How will this impact the County and will the County also have a right to be involved in final approval? I have asked this quesƟon of several Council members, and some city staff and none could provide an answer. Isn’t this something that should be invesƟgated?
In 2000 City Council Members GilleƩ, Markey, and Fox voted to approve the lease to Caruso. Member Del Campo was absent but voiced his support. I am not trying to blemish their reputaƟons, but twenty years later it seems most agree this was a bad deal for the city. We received no rental income and were forced to sell the 362
property at less than the city paid for it due to the terms of the lease.
However this is part of the legacy of these four councilmembers.
Please don’t let developers, the Chamber of Commerce and other special interests pressure you into making a similar decision that may affect your legacy of service to the city. All we’re asking is to put on the brakes. Listen to the ciƟzens of Newbury Park and obtain scienƟfic input from experts.
PS- I have bookmarked comments throughout both of these documents.
Respecƞully,
Karen Wilburn
213-216-1937
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
From: George Senko <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 4:00 PM
To: Kevin McNamee <[email protected]>; Al Adam <[email protected]>; Bob Engler <[email protected]>; David Newman <[email protected]>; Mikey Taylor <[email protected]>; Tracy Noonan <[email protected]>; Andrew Powers <[email protected]> Cc: Sandra Delgado <[email protected]>; George Rosenthal <[email protected]>; Pat Hostmyer <[email protected]>; Jim Wolf <[email protected]>; Isa Brente-Shekter <[email protected]>
Subject: Senior Overlay Ordinance
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.
Mr. Mayor, Councilmen, City Attorney, and City Manager,
The problem is real and imminent:
1. The Ranch is not suitable to be a family mobile home park.
2. Homeowners in Thousand Oaks senior mobile home parks invested their considerable monies with the understanding that these were, and would continue to be, “senior” parks.
3. The action undertaken by The Ranch’s new owner threatens to override the city’s authority and responsibility to manage its own housing element.
Your corrective action is required now!
1. An immediate moratorium is necessary to stave off The Ranch becoming a family park in September.
2. A Senior Overlay Ordinance needs to be enacted in order to protect all of the senior parks in Thousand Oaks.
3. Since April, you have been made aware and provided with the solution to this problem. It is now time for you to act. Direct the city staff to take steps 1 and 2 immediately.
Inaction on your part says that you don’t care about your duty to protect the seniors in The Ranch and the other seniors in mobile home parks in Thousand Oaks. You will be ceding your authority to outside parties who don’t care about Thousand Oaks.
Sincerely,
George Senko
818-621-6656
495
From: Barbara Boucher <[email protected]>
Date: July 11, 2023 at 11:41:51 AM PDT
To: Kevin McNamee <[email protected]>, Al Adam <[email protected]>, Bob Engler <[email protected]>, David Newman <[email protected]>, Mikey Taylor <[email protected]> Subject: Senior Overlay Ordinance
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.
Mayor Kevin, Mayor Pro Tem Al, Councilman Bob, Councilman David, and Councilman Mikey
My name is Barbara Boucher, and I am a homeowner in Vallecito Senior Mobile Home Park, Newbury Park, CA. This message is in support of enacting a Senior Overlay Ordinance for ALL the senior parks in Thousand Oaks. I understand that it will take the city some time to examine and create such an ordinance. Therefore, it is critical that you immediately establish a moratorium on this issue so that the Ranch is not changed to a family park in September. That will happen if you do not take this action.
Thank you,
Barbara Boucher
Vallecito Senior Mobile Home Park
496
From: "jon.swift53" <[email protected]>
Date: July 11, 2023 at 11:59:31 AM PDT
To: David Newman <[email protected]>
Subject: Senior Overlay Ordinance
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.
"My name is Jon Swift and I am a homeowner in Ventu Villas Senior Mobile Home Park. This message is in support of
enacting a Senior Overlay Ordinance for all the senior parks in Thousand Oaks. I understand that it will take the city some time to examine and create such an ordinance. Therefore, it
is critical that you immediately establish a moratorium on this issue so that The Ranch is not changed to a family park in September. That will happen if you do not take this action.
Thank you."
--
Jon Swift
818-324-9208
497
From: [email protected]
Date: July 11, 2023 at 1:24:15 PM PDT
To: David Newman <[email protected]>
Subject: Senior MHP
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.
"My name is Steve Fujikawa and I am a homeowner in Ventu Estates Senior Mobile Home Park. This message is in support of enacting a Senior Overlay Ordinance for all the senior parks in Thousand Oaks. I understand that it will take the city some time to examine and create such an ordinance. Therefore, it
is critical that you immediately establish a moratorium on this issue so that The Ranch is not changed to a family park in September. That will happen if you do not take this action.
Thank you."
Respectfully,
Steve and Seiko Fujikawa
Sent from Mail for Windows
498
Name City Item # In favor/
Opposed
Comment
Heather Swanson Newbury Park 8 Opposed This comment is in regards to the proposed apartment complex on Borchard Road. How does city council think they have the right to approve building on apartments on an estuary? Where are the birds supposed to land when they migrate? Residents do not want it. Nature does not want it. Nobody wants it accept for the owner of the land and the city who will collect tax revenue. But, your job is to work for us. And we the people oppose it. Have you taken a city vote? If I buy land with a lake on it, do I have a right to vacuum up the water or throw sewage in it? The answer is no, I have a duty to uphold the integrity of the environment. It is common sense not to build on a wetland. The very purpose of the existence of this council is to veto such lack of intelligence. Please email me relevant documentation regarding this matter. Please let the record reflect that my family and I, 40+ year residence of Conejo Valley, strenuously object to any and all building on the Borchard Road wetlands on the grounds that it is previously dedicated community property for the benefit and health of our environment in housing migratory birds.
Wendy Zimmerman Newbury Park 10A N/A I realize that it is almost impossible to draw lines for seemingly perfect voting districts. I cannot say that I am in favor of any of these options though they have improved from the previous set. I thank the mappers for their time and showing their concerns for the City.
As a 30-year resident of Newbury Park, I have experienced many areas of the City in many ways. Not only do I drive and shop in it, I am a cyclist who has biked many streets in TO, not just those in Newbury Park and studies them as a member of the TO Bicycle Advisory Team. In the 1990's I was an equestrian in the Waverly area. As a hiker who has participated in the COSF Challenge every year since 2015, I've been on almost all of the trails in our system. I enjoy the arts at our public concerts at parks and libraries and perusing the offerings at street fairs. I make it a point to know my community and to be an active participant.
Why is this important? Because I have had the opportunity to get to know many areas of the City first hand and to be able to look at it with a view that is bigger than the one from my own neighborhood. A privilege that many residents may not have experienced. Not criticizing them, each comment is valuable and worthy of your consideration.
I ask the Council to look at this decision with a broad perspective in making this decision on behalf of all of the RESIDENTS of Thousand Oaks. One that will be in place for a very long time.
One that limits the rights of residents to choosing only ONE Councilmember instead of all FIVE. It is your duty to look at this matter beyond retaining your seats and personal interests in favor of what is best for all of the residents. Not easy perhaps, but the right thing to do. If your new, smaller set of voting district neighbors wants you to remain on the Council, you will. If they find that someone else can better meet their needs, please be gracious and supportive. This issue is bigger than dividing up the TO pie to retain your seats.
Businesses are not voters. Some people who operate businesses are voters in Thousand Oaks but homes and business may not be in the same district. Others do not live in the City at all. We have seen that businesses in this City can, and do, make themselves heard quite well through their various organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce and the Boulevard Association.
The Council has frequently granted their wishes. I do not believe that we need to worry about them in forming a voting district to the potential disadvantage of residents who live in the same areas. PEOPLE who reside in Thousand Oaks vote. This matter is about how best to serve the VOTERS under these new circumstances.
NOW FOR ACTUAL MAP COMMENTS
I've reviewed the options as to map lines and statistics. I wish the colors for Districts 1 and 5, which are next to each other, were not both a pinky lavender color so they were more distinct.
One should be yellow or something that is not pink to make it clear to the viewer where one starts and the other begins.
I don't think any map really has it right, but at this time I am unable to devote enough time to draw a better one. After reviewing the options, my top two are 113 and 106B.
District 4 makes no sense to me. Newbury Park and Westlake are far apart in both geography and character as well as it sprawls on both sides of the freeway.
Higher density housing already exists on the North side of the 101 along much of the Conejo Valley with more coming. It belongs in District 5, not District 1 on the south side of the 101 which is 97% single family homes and that community of interest should be protected as Thousand Oaks promised to do in the general plan process as well.
There is a pink section North of 101 on Map 113. I can't tell if it is in District 1 or District 5. It is closest to District 2 which has large commercial and industrial sections on its West end. I think it should be in either District 5 or 2, not District 1. Please clarify.
Tina Hoover Newbury Park 10A In favor I love that our city is moving to the district election format. I think it has the ability to give all groups more equality of voice and to ensure some minority groups have a leader more accountable to them. With that in mind I am greatly in favor of map 113 since I think it considers this more than any other. Thank you for all you do for our wonderful city!
Sylvia Johnson Newbury Park 10A In favor I support the boundaries shown on map 113 as being the most equitable in keeping with givi ng communities of interest a voice in our city.
Steve Carrington Newbury Park 10A N/A Do not remove this property from the Newbury Park district Sarah Garcia Newbury Park 10A N/A I support map 104 and do not support anything that takes the Borchard Property out of the Newbur y Park District. 72&281&,/
0((7,1*'$7(
499
Name City Item # In favor/
Opposed
Comment
Rose Ann Witt Thousand Oak s 10A In favor The California Voting Rights Act of 2001 requires that "c ommunities of interest" be provided opportunities for representation in government using an approach that centers equity and fairness.
Map 113 considers household income level, home ownership status, residence type, preferred languages, and race, while proportioning population size as evenly as possible. Map 113 also creates a district (#5) which follows the 101 freeway and includes the older, more central parts of town, best prioritizing "communities of interest" -- including low-income families, renters, Spanish-speaking families, people of color, and people with disabilities. For all of these reasons, Map 113 does more to uplift the voices of traditionally and systematically unheard and underrepresented residents than any of the other proposed alternatives.
Map 113 is a fairer map, which rightly incentivizes candidates interested in representing the new District 5 to listen to and connect with T.O.'s lower income constituents and apartment dwellers in order to be elected, and/or re-elected, allowing the concerns of T.O.'s "communities of interest" to better and more fairly be considered in Council proceedings. Just as importantly, a fairer map, like 113, also provides more opportunity for a renter, person of color, lower income resident, or Latino to be elected to office. Enabling a wider variety of perspectives to inform City Council discussions allows all of our neighbors to participate in civic life and feel heard, which expands community understanding and cohesion, and in turn benefits all of our residents.
I urge all members of the Thousand Oaks City Council to vote in accordance with the equity and fairness intentions of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 by adopting District Map 113 for the conversion of T.O. from an at-large to a district voting system for future City Council elections.
Thank you for your consideration.
Philippa S. Ohillips 10A N/A Please count me as in favor of proposed Map 113. It seems to be the most equitable of the choices.
Paul Blakelock Newbury Park 10A N/A I am writing in support of district boundary Map 113. That map has the most equal population sp lit of the proposed maps while it also takes into consideration income levels, home ownership, and race.
My gut reaction was that some consideration should be given to preserving areas for existing council members. That was short sighted. We clearly wouldn't consider it if 3 of the members lived in the same housing tract.
National Demographics Corporation (NDC) has been unresponsive to public input and dismissive of criticism. They have had issues in a number of other localities.
They also provided incorrect information during this process and were reluctant to admit the error or to fix it.
Knowledge of local considerations is critical. Map 113 best considers the required criteria for creating the districts that are representative of voters, not businesses.
Lynn Ranch Resident Thousand Oak
s 10A N/A Our family will not support any map that removes the Borchard property from the NP district.
Removing that property from the NP district disenfranchises NP voters and violates the whole point of the Voting Rights Act.
Lori Peters Newbury Park 10A In favor I am IN FAVOR of Map 113, co ncentrating where many of our Latino, lower-income, disability residents live to the greatest extent possible. Our multi-family housing, low-income communities deserve to have their voices heard, and we need more input from the fastest growing, youngest parts of our city. That is why this district area should be protected, and is only accomplished on Map 113. Thank you! Kirk DeWitt Newbury Park 10A N/A The Borchard parcel should not be moved to Thousand Oaks! I don’t support a map that does that to our city.
Jim Osborne Thousand Oak s 10A N/A As an attorney and resident of Thousand Oaks, I strongly urge the City Council to implement the plan that best complies w ith the intentions of the Voting Rights Act- not only because it’s the right thing to do-but because it will avoid litigation and save us money and time in the long run. Overall, from my interpretation of the data, map 113 has a lowest deviation (0.20%) and is well-balanced between districts.
Jean K Kammerer Newbury Park 10A N/A I am in favor of map 113. I am opposed to using incumbency as a criteria for the maps. I am op posed to making the business district a "group." I support efforts to bring representation to under heard groups and get diverse voices to the table. Thank you. 500
Name City Item # In favor/
Opposed
Comment
Hannah Batten Newbury Park 11A Opposed Hello councilmembers, my name is Hannah Batten and I have lived in Newbury Park my whole lif e. I’m here today to speak about the Borchard parcel beside the 101 freeway that has been frequently debated and why it is important that we do not change the land use in the general plan update.
In the winter, if you’ve ever glanced over at this land while driving along the freeway, you’ll notice it’s overgrown with tall green plants and parts of it are covered in water, creating large ponds. The change in the land is noticeable after it’s rained, and this was especially noticeable early this spring after we had all those heavy rainstorms. Unlike our streets and parking lots and cement structures that force rainwater to run off and away into storm drains, this land has formed in a way that allows it to hold a large amount of water, hence why we see ponds collected on the surface. This mechanism is crucial for this area when we receive heavy rainfall. During the winter, when we get our usual winter rain, which we got plenty of late last year and into the early months of this year, this land reduces the threat of flooding to the nearby neighborhoods by taking in a large amount of this rainwater. While the land dries up in the summer, the cycle always repeats in the winter to offset the brunt of the heavy rainfall we receive. Nine times in the last 40 years, this land has taken on most of the flooding during large storms when the Arroyo Conejo creek has overflowed, sparing the surrounding area from what could’ve been much larger flooding events. This land is incredibly important for the people living nearby as this land lessens the amount of flooding they would otherwise be subjected to if this land were developed.
There is an easement on the Borchard parcel that was granted to the Ventura County Flood Control District because of the land’s effectiveness at controlling flooding. This easement dates back to the 1970s prohibiting development, showing just how important this land has been for Newbury Park over the years.
I want to thank you all for listening to me today and hope that I was able to express why the land use for this area should not change for the safety of those living in the surrounding neighborhoods due to its ability to reduce flooding. Thank you.
Gordon Clint Newbury Park 10A N/A We are confident you have read or heard the concerns about the District Maps being proposed. The question now is what values will determine how you will vote and what kind of Thousand Oaks will be your legacy.
Will you vote for a map that is best for all our residents, or one that assigns each current councilmember a district? Map #113 addresses all the important considerations and has the most equal population distribution. It creates five districts with their own essential “communities of interest.” And, it offers better representation to people who have not had much influence on the City Council decisions that affected everyone in Thousand Oaks.
We urge you to build a better, more inclusive future by adopting Map #113.
Sincerely,
Gordon Clint and Barbara Leighton
Doug Baker Thousand Oak
s 10A N/A Hello,
I am writing regarding Agenda Item 10A, specifically the proposed district boundary maps. Based on my review of the maps presented, I am in favor of adopting Map #113 based on the following criteria:
1. The City Council should avoid selecting any maps which protect the current incumbents and prevent any vacant or competitive districts. This kind of short term thinking would be detrimental to the long term representation of the city and could open the city up to potential legal issues with respect to the Voting Rights Act.
2. Among the maps which provide competitive or vacant districts, Map 113 has one of the lowest district population deviations from the ideal. In addition, District 5 of Map 113 provides a critical voice for underrepresented populations like renters, lower income families, Latinos/Spanish-speakers, people of color, and people with disabilities.
Therefore, I ask that the City Council move to adopt Map 113 for the upcoming district elections. 501
Name City Item # In favor/
Opposed
Comment
Cindy Liu Unincorporated 10A N/A Dear Councilmembers,
I'm writing in support of map 113 and encourage the majority to vote in favor of it.
Map 113 provides essential representation to current under-represented communities in T.O. like renters, lower income families, Latinos/Spanish-speakers, people of color, and people with disabilities. This map provides an opportunity for DIRECT representation to lower income families, apartment residents, renters, and people of color, as it requires a council candidate in the new District 5 to be elected (and re-elected).
Map 113 also allows the greatest concentration of lower income families, apartment residents, renters, and people of color. As we have witnessed our aging and disabled communities being financially squeezed in real time, due to higher rents, limited housing options and higher cost of living, a representative voice that understands the needs of these communities has to be on the council.
As a female, person of color advocating for our disabled and aging populations, I don't see anyone on City Council that reflects my image or represents my needs.
For this next election cycle, it appears that 2 incumbents will run against one another when map 113 is adopted. I believe this is also the most democratic approach based on merit rather than gerrymandering. Elected officials need to earn our votes every election cycle. Incumbency already has its advantages, and I'm confident that any incumbent will continue to work hard for our community and be able to win an election based on the merit of their work and demonstrated understanding of the community they are asked to serve.
Serving the community is a privilege and a responsibility. I encourage Councilmembers to have a long view of what is right for Thousand Oaks and vote in favor of MAP 113 this evening.
Sincerely,
Cindy Liu
Christine Elowitt Thousand Oak
s 10A In favor As a long time Thousand Oaks resident/homeowner who enthusiastically walks, hikes, shops, and attends community events in all corners of our beautiful city, I try to keep up on local issues. I have been very interested in the process of creating city council voting districts, as it intersects closely with my area of expertise. I attended graduate school in Geography, then went on to spend four years working for the U.S. Census Bureau as a Geographer. Not only did I interact closely with the state demographers from California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington in that job, but it was part of my job to take maps and population data to divide seven states into workable field manager and field supervisor districts for the 2020 Census. It is with my educated eye that I eagerly studied the maps that have been submitted for consideration for the council districts. To me, map 113 makes the most sense. It groups together the areas with higher population density and lots of apartments and condos, leaving the more suburban areas in their own districts. It is logical in its grouping of suburban neighborhoods, putting them together with others that tend to go to the same shops, schools, and parks. The districts are mostly divided by major roads, allowing easy access between all parts of a given district. It is also similar to the recently adopted school district maps. I would encourage the council members to vote for map 113. If I had to pick a second choice, I would probably choose map 115 for most of the same reasons.
Brenda Bevilacqua Newbury Park 10A N/A Regarding the maps I am only in support of map #104. Any map that removes the Borchard prop erty from Newbury Park should not be supported! Removing this site from the Newbury Park district is not fair to Newbury Park voters since what ultimately happens with this site will be impacting Newbury Park residents the most. This parcel needs to remain in the NP!
502
Name City Item # In favor/
Opposed
Comment
Betsy Connolly Lynn Ranch 10A N/A I appreciate that the City Council moved maps forward for focus that recognized the Community of Interest made up of the apartment dwellers living closest to our freeways. This is where more of our low-income, Latino and Black, and disabled residents live. It's where our affordable housing is located. Members of this community face many of the same challenges and their voices and perspectives deserve to be heard and concerns heeded. The maps that keep this community intact should be the only ones you consider.
Map #104 and now #113 keep Las Casitas, the Los Feliz Neighborhood, and the older homes near the 101/23 freeways in one district.
Maps #106 and #111 have a significant flaw, they do not include Las Casitas. That area, west of Ventu Park and south of Hillcrest, is part of our most important community of interest, apartment dwellers living close to the freeway.
In addition, Map #106B puts Conejo Oaks (the expensive homes east of the CVUSD offices and south of Janss) into District #5, the lower income district. That makes no sense. Map 111B places the Waverly Equestrian neighborhood (north of Janns Rd and west of the 23fwy) in District #5. It's not a good match.
Although there has been little mention in public, I suspect that #104/113 could give the council majority pause because it places Council Members Adam and McNamee in the same district, and creates a district where none of the current council resides.
If preserving district seats for incumbents is a concern, I hope you will give Map #116 serious consideration. Map #116 protects incumbents and also keeps Las Casitas, Warwick, Many Mansions affordable housing, and the Los Feliz neighborhood together. The Waverly Equestrian neighborhood is in district 2, which is more in keeping with its character and the Conejo Oaks neighborhood is in District 3 – the NE-TO section of town. That makes better sense and concentrates the community that the Voting Rights Act sought to protect.
Barbara A Ballenger Thousand Oak s 10A N/A I think Map 113 is the fairest map, keeping neighborhoods to gether, with least population deviance, an improvement on focus map 104.
I think the other 2 focus maps should not be chosen as they are based on incumbency over community interests. I don't think consistency with school & park maps is very important.
Amy Ylizaliturri Newbury Park 10A N/A I’m in favor of map #104… it is the most fair for our area. Thank you! 503