09-12-23 Supplemental Information Packet — Thousand Oaks City Council, September 12, 2023

Agenda Related Items - Meeting of September 12, 2023
Supplemental Packet Date: September 12, 2023

THOUSAND OAKS CITY COUNCIL

Supplemental
Information
Packet
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):

In compliance with the ADA, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting or other services in conjunction with this meeting, please contact the City Clerk Department at (805) 449-2151. Assisted listening devices are available at this meeting. Ask City Clerk st aff if you desire to use this device. Upon request, the agenda and documents in this agenda packet, can be made ava ilable in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability. Notification at least 48 hour s prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist City staff in assuring reasonable arrangement s can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service.
2:30 p.m.

Supplemental Information:

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

THE FOLLOWING 13

PAGES ARE RELATED TO
ITEM 12A
1 TO:

Andrew P. Powers, City Manager
FROM: Kelvin Parker, Community Development Director
DATE: September 12, 2023
SUBJECT: Item 12A – Report on Mobile Ho me Park and Options Affecting Seniors Including the Consideration of an Urgency Ordinance Establishing a Senior Mobile Home Park Overlay Zone
The attached Urgency Ordinance was modified from the original submission. The following is the revised Ordinance remo ving duplicates of Parts 3 and 5.

Additionally, only the maps referenced in the Urgency Ordinance are provided in the modified Urgency Ordinance, Exhibits A and B. Should the Urgency Ordinance be approved tonight; the corrected Urgency Ordinance is attached. cdd:660-21/H:COMMON\City Council\CC Agenda Items\2023\01122023\Sr Mobile Home Park Overlay\Supplemental Revised Ord Memo.docx
2 cdd:660-21/H:COMMON\City Council\CC Agenda Items\2023\01122023\Sr Mobile Home Park Overlay\Attachment 1\Supplemental Revised Ord.docx

Page 1 ends

ORDINANCE NO.

AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF THOU SAND OAKS AMENDING
SECTIONS 9-4.202, 9-4.309 AND 9-4.2003 AS WELL
AS ADDING SECTIONS 9-4.2005, 9-4.2006,
9-4.2007, AND 9-4.2008 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE

OF THE CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS REGARDING

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SENIOR MOBILE

HOME PARK OVERLAY ZONE AND RELATED

REGULATIONS
The City Council of the City of Thousand Oaks does hereby ordain as follows:

Part 1

The City Council finds that:

WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XI, Sect ion 7 of the California Constitution and sections 37100 et seq. of the California Governme nt Code, the City Council may make and enforce within its limits a ll local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws;

WHEREAS, pursuant to California Go vernment Code Section 36937, the City Council may, by a four-fifths vote, adopt an urgency ordinance for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, containing a declaration of the facts constituting the urgency, to be effective immediately upon passing;

WHEREAS, the City Council of t he City of Thousand Oaks deems it necessary to adopt an urgency ordinance to provide protections for senior housing within the City’s jurisdiction given recent and significant actions to modify mobile home park occupancy types within the City;

WHEREAS, there are eight (8) mobile home parks in the City, five (5) of which have long operated as senior mob ile home parks, prov iding an important source of unsubsidized senior housing;

WHEREAS, the five senior mobile home parks represent approximately 865 spaces out of 1,008 total spaces of all mobile home spaces in the City;

WHEREAS, the conversion of senior mobile home parks to mobile home parks allowing occupancy by persons of all ages will result in the loss of existing unsubsidized senior housing that is affo rdable within the Cit y. Such a loss presents a threat to, and a specific adverse impact upon, public health, safety, and ATTACHMENT #1
3 cdd:660-21/H:COMMON\City Council\CC Agenda Items\2023\01122023\Sr Mobile Home Park Overlay\Attachment 1\Supplemental Revised Ord.docx

Page 2 ends

welfare and the City’s ability to provide safe and decent housing opportunities to seniors;

WHEREAS, mobile home parks represent one of a few unsubsidized affordable housing options left to senior citizens that permit exclusive residence in a detached dwelling by those individuals over the age of 55 years;

WHEREAS, the goals of the 2021-2029 Housing Element of the City’s General Plan mobile home parks as a source of unsubsidized senior housing that is vital to preserve. Fu rthermore, future change to the land use designation and zoning requires approval by a vote of the people, unless park tenants receive certain payments as prescribed by the measure passed by the citizens;

WHEREAS, the City’s Housing Element recognizes that seniors over the age of 65 represent 19 percent of the City’s population as of 2019;

WHEREAS, in contrast to other senior housing in the City, mobile home parks afford seniors the ability to live in their own homes rather than in apartments and provide a senior living community in a low-rise setting that provides a clubhouse for community events and socializ ing as well as recreational facilities inside the park so that the residents can easily walk to these facilities and events;

WHEREAS, the City Council received written requests and numerous public comments from individuals c oncerned about the loss of senior housing in mobile home parks, including concerns one of the five parks would convert from a senior- only park to an all-age mobile home park;

WHEREAS, the City is aware of one mobile home park owner who intends to convert its mobile home park from a s enior-only park to an all-age/family park and that this owner has al ready provided notice to the State Department of Housing and Community Development of this intent under the State Mobile Home Park Residency laws;

WHEREAS, currently, the City does not impose any regulations on the conversion of mobile home parks from senior-only to all-age / family parks;

WHEREAS, this ordinance is necessary to develop new zoning regulations to implement a Senior Mobile Home Park Overlay Zone to promote and preserve senior mobile home parks subject to the City’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance;

WHEREAS, this ordinance is also necessary to mitigate the unregulated effects of conversion of senior housing to housing allowing occupancy by persons of all ages, including the potential sh rinking inventory of existing quality unsubsidized affordable housing for seni ors, and restricted housing options for seniors hoping to remain in their mobile home community or transition into such a community from other housing. No feasible alternative is available to satisfactorily 4 cdd:660-21/H:COMMON\City Council\CC Agenda Items\2023\01122023\Sr Mobile Home Park Overlay\Attachment 1\Supplemental Revised Ord.docx

Page 3 ends

mitigate or avoid these specific adverse im pacts as well as or better than, or with a less burdensome effect than, the adoption of the proposed ordinance;

WHEREAS, California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civil Code, § 51 et seq.) authorizes private parties to establish hous ing for senior citizens and the Federal Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.) expressly allows for “housing for older persons”;

WHEREAS, the Federal Housing Act, California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and California Mobile Home Park Residency law permit local regulation of mobile park housing to provide “housing for older persons” to include housing that is restricted to occupancy of at least 80 percent of units by at least one person who is age 55 or older;

WHEREAS, the California Legislatur e has authorized cities to provide zoning for senior-only mobile home parks under Health and Safety Code section 18300;

WHEREAS, the ordinance would not alter ex isting General Plan land use designations or development standards;
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that , pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3), there is no possibility that this project will have a significant impact on the physical environment and, therefore, is exempt from CEQA. This Ordinance merely amends the Thousand Oaks Municipal Code to maintain a senior-only status for mobile home parks within the City that have demonstrated over a long period of time that the par k owner required at least one member of the mobile home park coach located within the park be a person of 55 years of age or older.

This Ordinance does not directly or indi rectly authorize or approve any actual changes in the physical environment. Applications for any new mobile home parks would be subject to additional environmental review on a case-by-case basis.

Accordingly, the City Council finds that this Ordinance would be exempt from CEQA under the common sense exemption;

WHEREAS, the City Council determi ned that an urgency ordinance is necessary to preserve the public peace, health, or safety of the citizens of the City, and further determined upon that basis that an urgency ordinance is necessary to prevent unregulated conversions of senior-only mobile home park conversions to “all ages/family” parks within the City; and

WHEREAS, the adoption of the text amendments herein and the zoning of the listed existing mobile hom e park properties to the S enior Mobile Home Park Overlay Zone is consistent with the City of Thousand Oaks General Plan and good zoning practice and is in the interest of the public health, safety, and general welfare.

5 cdd:660-21/H:COMMON\City Council\CC Agenda Items\2023\01122023\Sr Mobile Home Park Overlay\Attachment 1\Supplemental Revised Ord.docx

Page 4 ends

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Thousand Oaks as follows:

SECTION 1: Based on the evidence presented, and the findings set forth, the above-titled Urgency Ordinance No. [ ] is hereby found to be consistent with the City’s General Plan and the land uses permitted within said zone classification.

SECTION 2: The City Council does hereby approve changes to the Existing Trailer Park Development Zone Map in Exhibit A by adding the Senior Mobile Home Park Overlay Zone to properti es as identified in Exhibit B of this Ordinance.

Part 2
Article 2: Definitions
Article 2, Secti on 9-4.202 Definitions , of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Thousand Oaks Municipal Code, is her eby amended by the addition of the following definition in appropriate alphabetical order:
“Mobile home park" means an area or land where two or more spaces are rented or leased for mobile homes or manufactured homes to be used as dwellings. The dwellings may be either owned or rented by the occupants. A mobile home park is defined in Stat e Law, Civil Code, § 798.4, and does not include residences provided by employer s for farmworkers or other employees, nor does it include campgrounds or other sites for temporary lodging. “Senior mobile home park” means a mobile home park as defined in Section 798.4 of the California Civil Code where the occupancy of a mobile home space is restricted such that at least one person occupying the mobile home as a permanent resident must be age 55 or olde r and that person must own or be a part-owner of that m obile home or the direct beneficiary of a trust or estate that owns that mobile home. To comply with federal law, a senior park may permit up to 20 percent of the coach owners under the age of 55.

Part 3

Article 3: Establishment and Designation of Zones

Article 3, Section 9- 4.309 – Establishment and Designation of Zones, Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the City of T housand Oaks Code is hereby added to read as follows:

There is hereby established the Seni or Mobile Home Park Overlay Zone (SMHP) that provides an overlay zone within any use zone wherein properties so zoned are identified as parcels containing mobile home parks. The development 6 cdd:660-21/H:COMMON\City Council\CC Agenda Items\2023\01122023\Sr Mobile Home Park Overlay\Attachment 1\Supplemental Revised Ord.docx

Page 5 ends

of land within the SMHP Zone shall confo rm to the regulations set forth in Article 20 of this chapter.

Part 4

Article 4: Purposes of Zones

Article 20, Section 9- 4.2003 – Overlay Zones , of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Thousand Oaks Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of the following:

Sec. 9-4.2003 – Senior Mobile Home Park Overlay Zone (SMHP) The purposes of this zone are:
a. To recognize senior mobile home parks as walkable communities where seniors may live actively and independently among peers, the preservation of those qualities being central to residents’ continued health, welfare, and financial stability.
b. To recognize that senior mob ile home parks provide one of the few housing options within Thousand Oaks available to seniors that are unsubsidized and allow for independent living in a detached dwelling. c. To preserve a significant source of unsubsidized, senior housing by ensuring that senior mobile home parks within the City’s jurisdiction remain predominantly available to seniors and are not converted to allow occupancy by persons of all ages.
d. To recognize mobile home parks as communities in which residents are substantially invested and to pr ovide for the security of tenancy comparable to that of other resi dential communities less vulnerable to redevelopment.
e. To meet the purpose of the federal Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995 (42 U.S.C. § 3607).
f. To prevent senior mobile hom e parks from converting or becoming all-ages mobile home parks.
g. To ensure a sufficient supply of land for this type of use remains in the City for seniors.

7 cdd:660-21/H:COMMON\City Council\CC Agenda Items\2023\01122023\Sr Mobile Home Park Overlay\Attachment 1\Supplemental Revised Ord.docx

Page 6 ends

Part 5
Article 20, Mobile Home Park Development Zones
Sec. 9-4.2005 – Occupancy Limitations & Rentals
Section 9-4.2005 of Article 20, Chapter 4, of Title 9 is reinstated and amended to read as follows:

At least 80 percent of the occupied units in a Senior Mobile Home Park must be occupied by at least one person 55 years of age or older.

Senior Mobile Home Park occupancy satisfies the requirements of this section even if:
a. There are unoccupied mobile hom es, provided that at least 80 percent of the occupied mobile hom es are occupied by at least one person 55 years of age or older.
b. To the extent permitted by applicable law, for a period of no more than two consecutive years fewer than 80 percent of the occupied units are occupied by at least one person 55 years of age or older, provided the Senior Mobile Home Park has reserved all unoccupied mobile homes for occupancy by at least one person 55 years of age or older.

Section 9-4.2006 of Article 20, Chapter 4 of Title 9 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 9-4.2006 – Age Verification & Compliance Procedures a. The City shall determine, and maintain summary documentation establishing, that at least 80 percent of the mobile homes in a Senior Mobile Home Park are occupied by at least one resident who is 55 years of age or older. The occupancy verification documentation shall be made available by park ow ners for inspection by the City upon reasonable notice and request.
b. At least once every two years ow ners and operators of Senior Mobile Home Parks shall submit documentat ion confirming that at least 80 percent of all occupied mobile hom es are occupied by at least one resident 55 years of age or older to the Planning Division of the City. c. Upon the operative date of this Section 9-4.2006, and no later than 30 days after the request for age verification by a mobile home park owner, operator, or employee of th e owner or operator, all owners and residents of all mobile homes units located, or proposed to be located, within the Senior Mobile Home Park Overlay Zone shall 8 cdd:660-21/H:COMMON\City Council\CC Agenda Items\2023\01122023\Sr Mobile Home Park Overlay\Attachment 1\Supplemental Revised Ord.docx

Page 7 ends

provide to the park owner or oper ator, and the Plann ing Division of the City’s Community Development Department the requested age verification documents or information.
d. The City shall consider gover nment-issued identification to be reliable documentation of the age of the residents of the mobile home park, provided that it contains specific information about current age or date of birth (e.g., driver’s license).
e. Reliable documentation shall also include a cert ification in a lease, application, affidavit, or other document signed by any member of the household age 18 or older asserti ng that at least one person in the unit is 55 years of age or older.
f. If the occupant(s) of a particular mob ile home refuses or is unable to comply with these age verification procedures, the City may, if it has sufficient evidence, consider the unit to be occupied by at least one person 55 years of age or older. Such evidence may include:
(1) Government records or documents;
(2) Prior forms or applications; or
(3) A statement from an indivi dual who has personal knowledge of the age of the occupants. The individual’s statement must set forth the basis for such knowledge and be signed under penalty of perjury.
g. Failure to submit the verification r equired by this chapter or failure of the verification to confirm a mobile home park with the Senior Mobile Home Park Overlay Zone (SMHP) meets the definition in Section 9-

4.202 shall constitute a violation of the zoning ordinance, subject to enforcement in the manner provided in Municipal Code Section 1-

2.01. Section 9-4.2007 of Article 20, Chapter 4 of Title 9 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 9-4.2007 – Duty of Mobile Home Park Residents to Comply with Age Verification Request
Upon the operative date of this Section 9-4.2007, and no later than 30 days after the request for age veri fication by a mobile home park owner or operator or an employee or agent of the City, all ow ners and residents of all mobile homes located, or proposed to be lo cated, within the Senior M obile Home Park Overlay Zone shall provide to the mobile home park operator and the Planning Division of the City the requested age verification documents.
9 cdd:660-21/H:COMMON\City Council\CC Agenda Items\2023\01122023\Sr Mobile Home Park Overlay\Attachment 1\Supplemental Revised Ord.docx

Page 8 ends

Section 9-4.2008 of Article 20, Chapter 4 of Title 9 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 9-4.2008 – Duty of Mobile Home Park Owners/Operators to Comply with Age Reporting Requirement and Certification a. Within 90 days of the passage of this Section 9-4.2008, and then every two years thereafter, the ow ner or operator of each Senior Mobile Home Park shall report to the Planning Director of the City confirmation that at least 80 perc ent of all occupied mobile homes are occupied by at least one resident 55 years of age or older. The owners or operators of each senior mobile home park shall maintain procedures for verifying the age of park residents.
b. The senior mobile home park owner or operator shall provide to the City a certification substantially in the following form:
“I [name] hereby certify that there is a least one
occupant 55 years of age or older living in __
[number of such mobile homes] mobile homes
out of a total number of ___[total number]
mobile homes located in this mobile home park.

This certification is based on my personal
knowledge of the residents, evidence provided
to me in the form of official government
documents containing specific information
about the current age of the residents, resident
affidavits, or age certifications made by
residents.”
Part 6
(Uncodified)
Conflicts with Prior Ordinances

If the provisions in this Ordinance conflict in whole or in part with any other City regulation or ordinance adopted prior to the effective date of this section, the provisions in this Ordinance will control.

Part 7
(Uncodified)
Severability

If any section, subsection, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this title; it is hereby expressly declared that th is title, and each section, subsection, 10 cdd:660-21/H:COMMON\City Council\CC Agenda Items\2023\01122023\Sr Mobile Home Park Overlay\Attachment 1\Supplemental Revised Ord.docx

Page 9 ends

sentence, clause, and phrase hereof, would have been prepared, proposed, adopted, approved and ratified irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Part 8
(Uncodified)
Effective Date

This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon passage and adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of September, 2023, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Kevin McNamee, Mayor
City of Thousand Oaks, California
ATTEST/CERTIFY:

Laura B. Maguire, City Clerk

Date Attested: _________________

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Office of the City Attorney

Tracy M. Noonan, City Attorney

APPROVED AS TO ADMINISTRATION:

Andrew P. Powers, City Manager

The presence of electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the City of Thousand Oaks City Council on the date cited above. 11 cdd:660-21/H:COMMON\City Council\CC Agenda Items\2023\01122023\Sr Mobile Home Park Overlay\Attachment 1\Supplemental Revised Ord.docx

Page 10 ends

EXHIBIT A

12 cdd:660-21/H:COMMON\City Council\CC Agenda Items\2023\01122023\Sr Mobile Home Park Overlay\Attachment 1\Supplemental Revised Ord.docx

Page 11 ends

EXHIBIT B

13 From: George Senko <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:47 PM
To: Kevin McNamee <[email protected]>; Al Adam <[email protected]>; Bob Engler <[email protected]>; Mikey Taylor <[email protected]>; David Newman <[email protected]> Cc: Andrew Powers <[email protected]>; Tracy Noonan <[email protected]>; Sandra Delgado <[email protected]>; Bruce Stanton <[email protected]>; Anne Anderson <[email protected]>; George Rosenthal <[email protected]>; Pat Hostmyer <[email protected]>
Subject: Senior Overlay Ordinance
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaƟon. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Councilmembers,
On Tuesday, at September 12th’s council meeƟng, you will be voƟng on going forth with the senior overlay process. In order to protect The Ranch as a senior park, it is necessary that you vote for opƟon 1.

The Ranch was always envisioned as a senior mobile home park. he original builder, Mr. Hohn, was only given permission to build Thunderbird Oaks park if he would create the Ranch Senior Park.

CreaƟng a senior overlay ordinance is the only way to protect your discreƟon in deciding how housing will be regulated in Thousand Oaks. EnacƟng the urgency ordinance is the only way to protect The Ranch during the Ɵme it will take to fully complete the overlay process. The Ranch’s owner has already taken unilateral steps to convert that park into a totally inappropriate family park.

We ask you to please vote for OpƟon 1. It will take four of the ﬁve votes to make this happen.

George Senko
President, Chapter 1121
Golden State Mobilehome Owners League (GSMOL)
818-621-6656
14 THE FOLLOWING 34

PAGES ARE RELATED TO
ITEM 12C
15 To: A
ndrew P. Powers, City Manager
From: Clifford G. Finley, Public Works Director
Date: September 12, 2023
Subject: Agenda Item 12C – Stop Sign Installations at 12 Intersections (MI 2033) Pl
ease see attached emails received from residents pertaining to subject agenda item. 16 From: Mike Snow <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 2, 2023 3:58 PM
To: Bradley Ackart
Cc: Julie Snow
Subject: Proposal to install stop signs in my neighborhood

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizat ion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Bradley,

Regarding the proposal to install 11 stop signs in my neighborhood I would like for you and the council to be aware of my opposi3on to this plan. I have lived in the Deer Ridge neighborhood since 1998 and during those 25 years I cannot remember a single traﬃc/safety incident that this proposal would have prevented. Even more importantly I can’t remember any traﬃc accidents at all during that 3me. We drive, walk and ride our bikes in this neighborhood every single day. This is a very safe and quiet community and the very reason why people choose to live here. The stop signs and other painted lines poposed are a waste of taxpayer money for this neighborhood. It would also nega3vely aﬀect the aesthe3c of our homes and community. People here are more than careful when they approach these intersec3ons. The people visi3ng and that service us are also extremely careful. As I’ve pointed out this isn’t a neighborhood that would beneﬁt from this. I’ve lived in communi3es where what is being proposed would be welcomed but not here, not in Deer Ridge.

Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to voice my concerns.

Best Regards,

Michael Snow
3287 Erinlea Avenue
Newbury Park, CA 91320
805-857-0672

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 17 From: Gary Abrams <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 3, 2023 10:28 PM
To: Bradley Ackart
Subject: No to adding 11 stop signs

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizat ion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Thousand Oaks City Council,

We read the recently mailed City Council September 12 Meeting Notice about adding stop signs at 11 intersections in the so-called Deer Ridge neighborhood of Newbury Park.

Having lived in Deer Ridge for over 30 years and having observed zero safety issues at any of the intersections listed, we are of the opinion
that adding stop signs is an unnecessary waste of resources and will detract from the appearance of our streets. The streets and intersections in our area are all wide (over 30'), well lit at night, almost never obstructed by parked vehicles or foliage and traffic is very light. We have never felt threatened or unsafe driving or walking in the neighborhood due to lack of stop signs at the intersections - drivers are generally very courteous.

To paraphrase California Vehicle Code 21800, an uncontrolled interested is to be treated as if a "Yield" sign is in place, i.e. right of way goes to the vehicle already in the intersection, and if two vehicles approach at the same time, the vehicle on the left yields to the vehicle on the right. Drivers in our local area
seem to follow this code very well.

The question of added stop signs is reminiscent of the old refrain "a solution in search of a problem". Stop signs are simply not needed in this case. Please conserve public resources while helping to maintain the desirable rural feel of our community by canceling the proposed addition of 11 unnecessary traffic controls.

Sincerely,

Gary and Mara Abrams
3311 Mountain Trail Av
Thousand Oaks, CA 91320

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 18 From: Buster Akrey <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 4, 2023 2:43 PM
To: Gary Abrams
Cc: Bradley Ackart
Subject: Re: No to adding 11 stop signs

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizat ion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Gary is correct !
Sign are unnecessary and would be considered pollution to myself and everyone I have spoken to in our beautiful neighborhood
We moved here because of the space and minimal signs.

I believe it would be a waste of money and angry all who live here Thank you
Frank Akrey
1039 antelope place
Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 3, 2023, at 10:28 PM, Gary Abrams <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Thousand Oaks City Council,

We read the recently mailed City Council September 12 Meeting Notice about adding stop signs at 11 intersections in the so-called Deer Ridge neighborhood of Newbury Park.

Having lived in Deer Ridge for over 30 years and having observed zero safety issues at any of the intersections listed, we are of the opinion that adding stop signs is an unnecessary waste of resources and will detract from the appearance of our streets. The streets and intersections in our area are all wide (over 30'), well lit at night, almost never obstructed by parked vehicles or foliage and traffic is very light. We have never felt threatened or unsafe driving or walking in the neighborhood due to lack of stop signs at the intersections - drivers are generally very courteous.

Sincerely,

Gary and Mara Abrams
3311 Mountain Trail Av

Thousand Oaks, CA 91320

20 From: Cindy Magnante <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 4, 2023 4:28 PM
To: Bradley Ackart
Subject: NO to Stop Signs in Deer Ridge

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizat ion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Thousand Oaks City Council,

Having lived in Deer Ridge for over 13 years and having observed zero safety issues at any of the intersections listed, we are of the opinion that adding stop signs is an unnecessary waste of resources and will detract from the appearance of our streets. The streets and intersections in our area are all wide (over 30'), well lit at night, almost never obstructed by parked vehicles or foliage and traffic is very light. We have never felt threatened or unsafe driving or walking in the neighborhood due to lack of stop signs at the intersections and drivers are generally very courteous.

Stop signs are simply NOT needed in this case. Please conserve public resources while helping to maintain the desirable rural feel of our community by canceling the proposed addition of 11 unnecessary traffic controls.

Sincerely,

Paul and Cindy Magnante
941 Remington Place
Newbury Park, CA 91320
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 21 From: Randy Hallford <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 4, 2023 4:54 PM
To: Bradley Ackart
Subject: Deer Ridge - Proposed 11 stop signs

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizat ion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Thousand Oaks City Council,

I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed installation of 11 new stop signs in the neighborhood of Deer Ridge. As a resident of Deer Ridge, I understand that traffic safety is a priority for our community; however, I do not believe there is an issue that needs addressing.

The addition of so many stop signs would create an unpleasant driving experience for residents who travel through the neighborhood regularly as they would be forced to come to a complete halt at each intersection. This could lead not only to increased congestion at peak times but also have serious implications on air quality and noise levels in our area.

Furthermore, as a father with four children, former police officer, and frequent walker within Deer Ridge, I can personally attest that there are no concerns relating to lack of traffic signage or pedestrian safety issues. My firsthand experience leads me further away from believing these 11 stop signs are necessary or beneficial for anyone living within or visiting Deer Ridge.

Thank you for your time and attention on this matter.

Sincerely,
Randy Hallford
(805) 813-3999
982 Golden Crest Avenue
Newbury Park, CA 91320
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 22 From: Jenneffer Hallford <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 10:58 AM
To: Bradley Ackart
Subject: Deer Ridge: Stop Sign Proposal

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizat ion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good morning,

I am writing this email to voice my opposition to the proposed addition of 11 stop signs to our neighborhood.

I am a mother of 4 and frequently walk the neighborhood with my children. I not only have a significant interest in the safety of my children but also the safety of my neighbors and their children and grandchildren. From my personal experience, we have never had an issue due to lack of stop signs. Cars and pedestrians (including bicycles) are well aware of the commonsense protocol involving intersections. After discussing this topic with my neighbors, I realized that my personal experience was not unique as this is an experience other neighbors share.

After reviewing the Staff Report provided on the city website, I found that “obtaining community input is a key component” when considering the installation of the stop signs.

I believe our community has been very vocal in the opposition of the stop signs.

Stemming not only from our personal experience but the love for our community and neighbors. Yet after reading the reports, it seems like our opinion will be overshadowed by a lack of choice and fall on deaf ears.

The report also states that the addition of the stop signs is “to better clarify and remind motorists the need for vehicles approaching the intersection” yet this “reminder” is not needed. I suggest inquiring into collision reports from our neighborhood and investigating whether the lack of stop signs has directly correlated with accidents, if any.

To my knowledge an accident under those circumstances has not occurred.

The proposal of the stop signs is represented as a “recommendation.” A recommendation for an issue that does not exist. The installation of this “reminder”, as represented by the report will cost about $5,500.

Although I will be unable to personally attend the City Council meeting tonight, please do not misinterpret my absence as an indifference to this proposal. My neighbors and I walk and drive on these streets daily and we are aware of issues, or in this case lack of issues present in our community. I strongly encourage you to take our input into strong You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 23 consideration. This may be a recommendation from the City, but the issue simply does not exist and is not needed. Yet, this seems to be a proposal that snowballed from a single request for a single stop sign.

Jenneffer Hallford
982 Golden Crest Avenue
Newbury Park, Ca 91320
24 From: Jeff Harris <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 4, 2023 10:50 PM
To: Bradley Ackart
Subject: Stop signs in Deer Ridge neighborhood

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizat ion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I live at 3337 Mountain Trail Avenue, Newbury Park and I’m contacting you to share that I am very opposed to the proposed addition of stop signs in our neighborhood.

The residents of the neighborhood have been driving safely for the 30+ years that these homes have been here and we like it the way it is now.

Please support our opposition to this project.

Jeff Harris
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 25 From: Samantha <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2023 10:39 AM
To: Bradley Ackart
Subject: Stop Sign Recommend

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizat ion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I wanted to right and let you know that I oppose this recommendation for the 11 Stop Signs in the Deer Ridge neighborhood.

As a driver in this neighborhood I always feel very safe with everyone who drives in our neighborhood. I have never felt worried or concerned of a problem at any of these intersections nor has anybody been that I have spoken with concerning this issue.

Thank you,
Samantha Harris
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 26 From: Sarah Harris <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2023 10:41 AM
To: Bradley Ackart
Subject: Stop Signs Recommendation

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizat ion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,

I’m writing in opposition to the new stop signs proposed in the Deer Ridge neighborhood of Newbury Park. 11 new stop signs within one small neighborhood is extremely excessive and feels politically or monetarily motivated. I feel we have a very safe and conscientious population here in Deer Ridge, and strongly oppose this insane overuse of regulation.

Sarah Harris
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 27 From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2023 6:30 AM
To: Bradley Ackart
Subject: NO Stop signs in Deer Ridge.

[You don't o+en get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at h/ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden2ﬁca2on ]

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza2on. Do not click links or open a/achments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To Whom it May Concern,

Our family has lived in Deer Ridge for 22 years, moved in when kids were very li/le. In all these years we have not experienced people driving in our neighborhood streets recklessly or fast. Not sure why tax payor dollars ought to go towards pu;ng up several more stop signs here. It seems un-necessary and wasteful.

Please DO NOT PUT UP MORE STOP SIGNS in Deer Ridge. Thank You.

Sincerely,
Joyce Katz

Sent from my iPhone
28 From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 10:50 AM
To: Bradley Ackart
Subject: Deerridge stop signs

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizat ion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

City Engineer

I have been a resident of Deerridge for 22 years and coun.ng. Walking/ dog walking everyday for 22 years I have never seen or heard of an car accident in Deerridge. Stop signs are not needed in our neighborhood. Our community drives safely and yields to any other cars in the area. Our speed limit is 25 mph which I ﬁnd our neighbors follow.

I vote for No to the stop signs. Please use the money for other improvements in our area.

Best

Michael Katz
936 Golden Crest Ave
Newbury Park, CA 91320
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 29 From: Scott McVey <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2023 10:03 AM
To: Bradley Ackart
Subject: Proposed Deer Ridge Stop Signs

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizat ion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear TO City Council,

We recently received mail correspondence discussing this proposed stop sign installation in my neighborhood. We thought this matter was resolved early this year with the proposed 2 sign solution. What happened?

My family has lived on Mountain Trail for 25 years and both drive and walk most all of these streets where you are proposing stop signs be added. We have never personally had any issues while entering and/or exiting any of these tee intersections nor have we heard of any occurrences from our immediate neighbors or neighbors at large.

We oppose adding these signs for multiple reasons; personal experience presented above, adding these signs will detract from the quaint and natural beauty of the neighborhood, expending tax resources for signs that aren’t needed is wasteful, especially since there are other more vexing traffic safety issues within Newbury Park in which this money could be spent. Example: address the excessive speed of cars on Lynn Rd between Deer Valley and Wendy where I walk my dog daily and I swear most are doing 60 MPH. It is like a freeway there.

Thank you for you time and consideration for our opinion in this matter.

Scott and Dawn McVey
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 30 From: Terrence Enright <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2023 10:52 AM
To: Bradley Ackart
Subject: Stop Signs in Deeridge, Newbury Park

[You don't o4en get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at h7ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden:ﬁca:on ]

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza:on. Do not click links or open a7achments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

We respec@ully, but strongly, oppose the installa:on of stop signs at all T-intersec:ons within the Deer Ridge neighborhood.

There is no jus:ﬁca:on (accidents or otherwise) for this over-regula:on of intra-neighborhood, strictly residen:al, T-intersec:ons. This proposed over-regula:on is inconsistent with the majority of communi:es. Over-regula:on of traﬃc tends to invalidate other appropriate traﬃc controls (human nature).

Should the City Council approve this shotgun approach to intra-residen:al stop signs, they would be seGng inappropriate precedence for hundreds of like-uncontrolled residen:al T-intersec:ons throughout the city.

Stop signs at residen:al T-intersec:ons are most properly warranted when the residen:al street (25 mph) intersects a primary through street with heavier traﬃc and a higher speed limit. There are no through streets in this neighborhood. Accordingly, the overwhelming majority of traﬃc in this low- density community is the residents.

The city has made many outstanding traﬃc safety engineering changes! However, this proposal would not be one of them.

I recommend that city traﬃc engineering staﬀ make a physical review of other intra-neighborhood T- intersec:ons for guidance on this issue.

Respec@ully submi7ed,

Terry and Kristy Enright
(34 year residents)
3286 Erinlea Avenue
Thousand Oaks

Residents of the Conejo Valley since March 1962

31 September 6, 2023

Regarding Unnecessary Stop Signs

Dear Mayor McNamee, Councilmembers Adam, Engler, Newman, Taylor:

I am wriEng to you as a resident of the neighborhood in quesEon. I wish I could be at the meeEng to speak to you in person, but I will be out of the country at the Eme of your meeEng.

There was a complaint about where Golden Crest meets with Erinlea. Erinlea is a long street, with a steep downhill and that secEon of Golden Crest is one of the few streets that is not a cul de sac. It also gets traﬃc fed from other streets. We need a stop sign here. But our City staﬀ is thorough, they always want to do the right thing, I know this as I worked with them for 20 years, as a traﬃc commissioner. And now 7 years on the planning commission. Our City staﬀ is the best, they are pro-acEve. However, this is one of the few Emes where being proacEve is just wrong, and overkill.

One stop sign, for this one intersecEon is the right thing to do. More is not beVer in this situaEon.

It is a small neighborhood. Most streets are short cul de sacs. It is not a cut through neighborhood so those who drive here know it. 11 stops signs are too much. I hope you all drove through my neighborhood and did your due diligence and saw how small and quiet it is.

When a cul de sac meets in a T with a through street, it is already in the vehicle code that drivers must yield to the larger street. And, we do. On these small cul de sacs, drivers do not get up to any speed as they approach the T. They are naturally cauEous before turning onto the larger streets.

There is no way that the police have the resources to sit and monitor these 11 intersecEons. Everyone who drives here will know that and disregard the stop signs. And because there are so many, they will disregard the one stop sign that is necessary.

32 I believe that 11 stop signs, that will be disregarded and are unnecessary in this small neighborhood are also visual polluEon. I also think of the cost to taxpayers for the installaEon and maintenance of these is an unwarranted and unwanted expense.

I think Staﬀ remembers the Peppertree Park parking situaEon. Again, staﬀ tried to do the right thing for residents. It is a park with a lot of acEvity, a lot of sports, and parking is tough there. We had a hearing for angled parking; we could add addiEonal parking if we angled it along Reino road. It was a Wed night, a school night, just like your meeEng night. A lot of people who work, and who have kids didn’t show up to tell us how they felt. We approved it, thinking we were doing them a favor. The result was a disaster. That neighborhood did not want it and the city ended up taking it back to the way it was.

As staﬀ will state in their report, the Traﬃc Commission agreed with us residents and voted to recommend only the stop sign at Golden Crest. Please take their (and my) recommendaEon. Only do what is appropriate, and no more. One stop sign at the intersecEon of Erinlea and Golden Crest.

Sincerely

Sharon McMahon

33 From: Connor Philpott <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2023 5:01 PM
To: Bradley Ackart
Subject: T-intersection Stop Signs

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizat ion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mr. Ackart,

My name is Connor Philpott and as a resident of the deer ridge community. A community in which I have lived in my whole life and the location of a few of these stop signs. I believe the adding of stop signs in these locations is absurd. The community has been a safe place my entire life. The adding of stop signs will do two things. First the stop signs will confuse the average driver. Example if you take a stop sign such as the one on holliday st and wendy dr people don't know basic right of way rules. Leading to more traffic collisions. The proposed areas of stop signs have been safe places where people only have to do their due diligence and look before preceding. Secondly, adding stop signs in such poor locations; many people are going to make the decision to disregard such stop signs. I know personally they would be hard to respect as a driver who uses these roads everyday. I hope my viewpoints will be taken seriously as a long time member of this community. Thanks!

Sincerely,

Connor Philpott

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 34 1
Jim Mashiko
From: Elizabeth Jones <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2023 10:20 AM
To: Jim Mashiko
Subject: Fwd: City Council Sept 12 Re:Eleven proposed stop signs Attachments: image0.jpeg
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.

am forwarding my concerns to you due to Bradley Ackart out of office ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Elizabeth Jones <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, Sep 9, 2023 at 10:14 AM
Subject: City Council Sept 12 Re:Eleven proposed stop signs To: Bradley Ackart <[email protected]>

I am writing regarding the proposal to add 11 stop signs in the Deer Ridge Neighborhood in Newbury Park. I echo the comments made by Gary and Mara Abrams in the September 8, 2023 Thousand Oaks Acorn

I want to go on record that I am opposed to this proposal in its entirety.

I have lived in this neighborhood for 30+ years and have extensive personal experience with all the proposed T- intersections either as a pedestrian or driving. Rarely have there been accidents at an y of these intersections. I can recall
a singular accident. The same that was reported at the Traffic Commission meeting.

The CA DMV handbook states for T intersections without Stop signs the vehicle on the through road have the right of way and when coming to an intersection be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary. The picture I have included is the intersection of Erinlea and Golden Crest. Item 1 on the the proposed list of stop signs and 1 in the picture. Item 2 in the picture is Erinlea and Wendy. Item 3 is the opposite side of Erinlea and Wendy. At the Traffic Commission meeting, it was asserted that a stop sign was needed as the visual reminder to stop. Drivers stop just fine at the Wendy intersection where there is no stop sign (picture Item 2). As a compromise the Traffic Commission settled on suggesting on 1 stop sign- at intersection 1. This compromise is an unneeded solution. Note the close proximity to the next intersection (picture item 2).

Adding stop signs would not make these intersections any safer. More likely less safe as a driver would now be expecting cross traffic to stop at stop signs and would be unprepared for drivers “blowing” the stop sign.

An additional concern is the reduction in available parking by adding these stop signs. These signs would eliminate street parking for all the homes in front of the signs. There is already parking congestion in many of these areas.

The money spent installing these signs in areas where there is little need is a poor use of tax dollars.

Elizabeth Jones
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 35 2
1099 Antelope Pl
Newbury Park
36 1
Jim Mashiko
From: Lili Goczal <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2023 3:26 AM
To: Jim Mashiko
Subject: Re: Staff Recommendation to install 11 stop signs at Deer Ridge T-intersections. [You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

September 9, 2023

Re: Staff Recommendation to install 11 stop signs at Deer Ridge T-intersections.

My husband and I are newcomers to this area. The attraction was its beauty and peacefullness. While I encourage safety for all, I do not see the benefit of installing these stop signs. I must preface that I regularly use only 7 of these intersections, namely by your #'s (1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11), Never have I felt in danger at these T-intersections. They are unobstructed areas with little traffic. The driving code for approaching a T is sufficient. Only a reckless driver severly impaired would not follow the rule, and such a driver would likely ignore the stop sign also.

I suggest that the monies that would fund these stop signs would be more appropriately used toward resurfacing and fixing the many potholes along these avenues. The worst hole, growing weekly, is when turning right from Golden Crest Ave onto Deer Valley Ave.

Thank you for your attention.

Lili Goczal
Richard Goczal
3301 Mountain Trail Ave.
(805) 375-6556
37 From: Tom FitzGibbon <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 4:42 PM
To: Bradley Ackart
Subject: Sep 12, 2023 City Council Meeting re Deer Ridge Stop Signs

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizat ion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi -

We have lived in Deer Ridge for 14 years. I am not familiar with any accidents at any intersection in our community during that time. There is very little traffic here as it is all residents going to or from their homes. Thus, there is really no need for the proposed stop signs, with the possible exception of (1) a stop sign on Golden Crest where it joins Erinlea near Wendy Drive (#1 in the Meeting Notice), and (2) the stop sign on Antelope at Golden Crest (MN #8). All of the others are not necessary as it is clear the right-of-way belongs to cars passing straight through T intersections, rather than those making turns.

Save the money and use it for more bicycle infrastructure.

Let me know if you have any questions: 310.795.1410.

Thanks
Tom & Dara

Tom FitzGibbon & Dara Rogers
3324 Erinlea Ave.

Newbury Park, CA 91320
E: [email protected]
T: 310.795.1410
E: [email protected]
T: 805.338.5340

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 38 1
Jim Mashiko
From: Ed Simmons <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 9:02 PM
To: Bradley Ackart; Jim Mashiko
Cc: Ed Simmons; Kevin McNamee
Subject: Stop Signs Proposed - Deer Ridge
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To: Thousand Oaks City Council
Council Meeting 9/12/23
Re: Agenda Item 12.C (Department Reports)

Bradley Ackart,

There is also the matter of enforcement. Enforcement of the existing yield law California Vehicle Code 21800 which applies to uncontrolled intersections should suffice as it appears to have been the case for over 30 years since the development of Deer Ridge. Allocation of law enforcement dollars from the police budget on this idea, if allocated at all, would be better spent on enforcing existing speed limits within Deer Ridge and on Wendy south of Lynn and installing flashing lights for the pedestrian crosswalk on Wendy at Erinlea.

Furthermore, as a frequent walker within Deer Ridge, I can personally attest that there are no concerns relating to lack of traffic signage for pedestrian safety issues. I do not believe all of these 11 stop signs are necessary or beneficial for anyone living within or visiting Deer Ridge.

Thank you for your time and attention on this matter.

Ed Simmons
Consultant - Parking, Transportation and Real Estate
3117 Deer Valley Ave.

Newbury Park, Ca. 91320
310-991-2743
[email protected]
39 1
Jim Mashiko
From: Mary Simmons <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 8:34 AM
To: Bradley Ackart; Jim Mashiko
Cc: Kevin McNamee
Subject: Fwd: Stop signs in Deer Ridge
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To: Thousand Oaks City Council
Council Meeting 9/12/23
Re: Agenda Item 12.C (Department Reports)

Bradley Ackart,

I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed installation of 11 new stop signs in the neighborhood of Deer Ridge. As a resident of Deer Ridge, I understand that traffic safety is a priority for our community. However, I do not believe there is an issue that needs addressing.

Allocation of law enforcement dollars from the police budget on this idea, if allocated at all, would be better spent on enforcing existing speed limits within Deer Ridge and on Wendy south of Lynn and installing flashing lights for the pedestrian crosswalk on Wendy at Erinlea.

Thank you for your time and attention on this matter.

Mary Simmons
40 From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 11:48 AM
To: Bradley Ackart
Subject: Stop signs Deer Ridge

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizat ion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Thousand Oaks City Council,

I am writing to express my opposition to the ridiculous proposed installation of 11 stop signs in the Deer Ridge neighborhood. Our neighbors have been very careful driving in Deer Ridge and we feel strongly that these stop signs are not needed to improve safety.

I have never seen or heard about any problems or accidents to merit this absurd action to install the 11 stop signs.

Our neighborhood is more than 30 years old and we enjoy a certain way of driving our streets, there is no need to change this. Adding stop signs will lead to new congestion and increase noise levels as well.

Thank you for supporting our opposition to this matter.

Sincerely,
Debra Violette
971 Golden Crest Ave

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 41 From: Bey Levy <be[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 2:59 PM
To: Bradley Ackart
Subject: TRAFFIC ISSUES

[You don't o2en get email from be[email protected]. Learn why this is important at hps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden7ﬁca7on ]

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza7on. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To Thousand Oaks City Council

I am a resident in the Deer Ridge Community of Newbury Park/Thousand Oaks

I think it’s a ridiculous waste of tax payer money and 7me to install stop signs in this neighborhood.

It’s just another way to regulate and control people. Why don’t you put up cameras instead? Why not just have police on every corner to make sure we obey the rules!

Duane & Bey Levy
1026 Antelope Place
Newbury Park
42 From: Pamela Rhodes <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 4:57 PM
To: Bradley Ackart
Cc: Kevin McNamee; Al Adam; Bob Engler; David Newman; Mikey Taylor; Kelvin Parker; City Clerk's Office; Community Development Department; Public Works Department; [email protected]
Subject: Re: NO STOP SIGNS TO DEER RIDGE!

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizat ion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 04:43:57 PM PDT, Pamela Rhodes <[email protected]> wrote:

To the Thousand Oaks City Council and all other interested parties,

Our family moved to 929 Remington Place, Newbury Park on 8/30/1988. We moved in when Deer Ridge was still under construction. We love our Deer Ridge neighborhoods and neighbors.

We respect each other in more ways than can be listed but one of those ways is in our manner of driving. We drive slowly and respectfully through the neighborhood.

Our intersections are approached cautiously and we do not have a problem with speeders going through our neighborhood.

This email is being sent because of the notice we received in our mail notifying us of the city's intent to install 11 stop signs.

We have not observed any safety issues or close calls in our entire 35 years living here. Our street is a cul de sac off of Deer Valley Ave. In 35 years I can honestly say that we have had to yield to an oncoming car on Deer Valley Ave. less than 20 times. There was no speeding and the turn/yield was safe and cautious. As we have traveled through other Deer Ridge streets over the past 35 years, we have had even less contact with cars yielding. The streets are short enough and curvy enough that speeding is not an issue ever. We drive slowly here. I doubt you have record of even one accident in our Deer Ridge development. If so, I would ask that you would provide those records to us.

By adding stop signs you will be creating situations that could actually increase the likelihood of problems as our residents are not used to having to be stopped at EVERY intersection.

I believe, that should you go forward and install these unnecessary stop signs, you are being irresponsible in the handling of our tax payer monies and city resources. I am You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 43 really in the dark as to why you would pursue such a needless project. Deer Ridge warrants no project of this type and I really hope you listen to our Deer Ridge residents when they tell you that WE DO NOT WANT THIS!

Please use our tax dollars to improve other areas of the city. As an example I can point you to the intersection down by Islands Restaurant/Wendy Drive off ramp/ and Lowe's commercial property. The traffic signals there are incredibly dangerous with drivers running a red light daily, near misses, and I'm sure accidents. Those are not problems you will find in Deer Ridge!

Please do the right thing and cancel this stop sign project. There is absolutely no reason to have it go through.

Unfortunately my husband and I have separate church commitments tomorrow and are unable to attend the meeting. I am giving Gary and Mara Abrams permission to speak on our behalf if given an opportunity to do so.

Sincerely and with hope that you will listen to us,

Donald & Pamela Rhodes
929 Remington Place
Newbury Park, CA 91320
805-390-0729
805-390-8412

44 1
September 4, 2023

Thousand Oaks City Council – Public Works
2100 Thousand Oaks Blvd., Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
Attn: Bradley Ackhart – [email protected]

First, I would like to thank the Thousand Oaks City Council and Public Works for scheduling a Meeting to improve the safety conditions of my Neighborhood.

Your staff has recommended 11 stop signs in the area I have lived in since the Deer Ridge tract was developed in 1988. I do not see a need for any stop signs in this area. Also, gasoline & electricity are expensive and each time a vehicle comes to a complete stop and accelerated it uses more energy. So, I feel it also is environmentally wasteful for our energy sources.

How many vehicle or pedestrian collisions or deaths with current traffic conditions have there been since 1988 in this designated area due to a lack of stop signs at these intersections? How much does it cost for each stop sign to be installed?

If there is any available money from our high property taxes in our area of homes there is an extremely, dangerous road condition that I feel is the highest priority of funds to make it safer and that is crossing of Wendy Drive from the Deer Ridge tract on Erinlea Avenue. In the past I have requested the City of TO to install a stop light on Wendy Drive at this intersection of Erinlea Avenue and Wendy Drive and it hasn’t been installed. Residents cross here all day and night to walk their kids to Banyan School, walk their dogs, go to Banyan Park, and residents of other neighborhoods cross to walk and ride bikes in our tract. Crosswalk at Knollwood & Lynn Rd. you installed seems like also a good alternative. I’ve read you have a grant for installing something like this crossing, but it is not done. When is it scheduled?

I have noticed that in front of Tarantula Hill Brewery on TO Blvd., that has a speed limit of 35 mph, there is installed a safety lit up crossing walk lane on the street with flashing lights on the road and posts with flashing lights on either side of the road. Wow great job! But you are expecting people and animals to cross on Wendy Drive and Erinlea Avenue with a speed limit of 45 mph with a painted crossing lane?

We need a Stop Light on this intersection crossing with a mounted post that has a push pad to activate the stop light and a crossing path with flashing lights on the street and posts with flashing lights on either side of the road before a tragedy occurs that could have been avoided.

My husband and I have had numerous close calls over the years crossing here and it’s even more dangerous now that we are older, and we take our grandchild in a stroller or our daughter’s French bulldog with its short, little legs to Banyan Park with these traffic conditions. Many neighbors have complained to me about this problem for 37 years!

The other extremely, dangerous road intersection whether driving in a car or walking across the street is the intersection of Wendy Drive and Potrero Road. The visibility south on Potrero Road is limited and as they are proceeding downhill drivers can pick up speed. Also, this is a very, high usage road crossing for the trail head into the National Park where people enjoy walking and mountain bike riding. This is also an intersection that is used all day every day for water trucks going to deliver in the Hidden Valley homes. A crosswalk and stop light here is a very much needed for safety concerns for vehicles, bike riders, and pedestrians.How many pedestrian, vehicle collisions or deaths have occurred here in this road intersection over the years? 45 2
In the past, I have called you about a possible sink hole in the road of our tract at the corner of Antelope Place and Golden Crest Avenue. Thank you so much again for fixing this problem your crews were there for weeks.

Unfortunately, this intersection has a problem again. There is a big pothole which you know can harbor nails or sharp debris and can cause damage to a wheel or a flat tire. Wide cracks are everywhere in the road and Public Works needs to have someone assess the problem. With all the wonderful rain this year the ground water engineers need to evaluate this section of road, in my opinion before money is spent on a stop sign here. *I have enclosed 3 photos of the road.

Last time our streets were resurfaced within days the roads had cracks everywhere. I called to complain. I was told that you had fired the contractor doing the resurfacing for the other phases of the Deer Ridge tract to be done because the product and application were faulty. The other sections of the Deer Ridge tract were resurfaced properly. I called you back to ask when you were going to redo and correct the resurfacing and it wasn’t done to the level of the other sections of the track. I live on Mountain Trail Avenue, and it was the 1st section that was done.

When have you scheduled the resurfacing of the streets that were done incorrectly years ago?

Thank you for maintaining the vegetation land areas on the perimeter of our tract on the roads of Wendy Drive and Lynn Road. These are huge areas of land, and the hard-working crews work constantly to maintain it. Unfortunately, many of the pine trees have dead branches in them that need to be pruned. There is also debris very thick under the trees that need to be cleaned away. As the fire danger in our area is always present these ground covered areas are ladder fuels to ignite brush fires. *I’ve enclosed a photo of one of the pine trees and one of the ground debris.

Our tract used to have a concrete sign with the letters “Deer Ridge” imprinted in it at the corner of Erinlea Avenue and Wendy Drive. It looks like the pine tree roots have grown to topple it over and it was removed.

When is it going to be replaced? If the trees you planted broke it, it seems like the City of TO would be responsible for replacing it. If it isn’t, can the landscaping crew at the very least level the soil and plant it? It’s a real eye sore. What do you suggest? *I have enclosed a photo of the area.

My family moved to Newbury Park in 1963. I have raised my daughters in Newbury Park with my husband, Michael Estrada, a retired Battalion chief for VCFD here. Each year the freeway and roads become more congested, and crime and the cost-of-living increases. We did not have to lock our home or car doors in Newbury Park and lower income citizens and new immigrants were able to buy homes in this area. People are leaving Los Angeles County and similar places because of congestion and high-density housing which raises the crime rate and the cost of living and lowers to quality of life to move here! Please VOTE to preserve our quality of life here with low-density housing and safe roadways that many residents live in and have invested in! Your decisions can raise the cost of living while lowering the quality of life for all income brackets and raise the crime rate. I look forward to the City of Thousand Oaks improving some of the issues I’ve addressed soon.

Sincerely,

Sally Estrada
3325 Mountain Trail Avenue
Newbury Park, CA 91320-5820
[email protected]

Attachments: 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, 3A

46 From: CarolRaeDeanHenderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2023 10:46 AM
To: Bradley Ackart
Cc: Kevin McNamee
Subject: Proposed stop sign at Campbell Avenue and Fordham Avenue

[Some people who received this message don't o3en get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at h6ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden9ﬁca9on ]

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza9on. Do not click links or open a6achments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Some points to keep in mind when considering this proposed stop sign:

One, this is not a 4-way stop. Fordham as it con9nues past Campbell toward Lynn Road dead ends several feet from intersec9on. There are no homes facing this small sec9on of roadway nor main driveways facing this short sec9on of roadway. Basically traﬃc does not use this sec9on of roadway except for an occasionally parked car.

Two, has an independent licensed traﬃc engineer reviewed and approved the installa9on of a stop sign at this loca9on?

Three, this intersec9on has unfe6ered line-of-sight approaching this intersec9on and many people will be inclined not to stop or roll through it crea9ng a dangerous percep9on for motorists and pedestrians, not to men9on the family of six children who live on the corner of Campbell and Fordham who have made this small sec9on of Fordham their private playground and will believe everyone is going to stop looking all direc9ons before they proceed with the protec9on of stop signs. I personally had a young child ride into the intersec9on in front of my vehicle. There is a dip in the street at this intersec9on which makes you come a rolling stop so fortunately I was able to stop for this young child.

Four, streets are not playgrounds for children. They are meant for traﬃc ﬂow. Playing in them should not be encouraged.

Five, Campbell Avenue is the main artery so maybe a stop sign at Fordham but that creates a three-stop.

In my last interac9on with traﬃc engineers they usually do not recommend three-way stops as it sets up the percep9on that everyone is going to stop.

Six, is there a history of accidents at this intersec9on that might indicate the need for addi9onal traﬃc control.

Thank you for your considera9on.

Carol Henderson
1929 Campbell Avenue
Thousand Oaks CA. 91360
8 05-905-1086

47 48
49 Name City Item # In favor/ Opposed Comment
Susan Ringheim Thousand Oaks 12A In favor We who live here at the Ranch Mobilehome park, are so appreciative of your commitment to helping us, my parents lived here since 1992 and died here peacefully. I've gotten to know a lot of wonderful poverty level seniors in this park, this senior park has been a godsend for many of us, please help us to keep it a senior park and thank you for reading my words.

Jarryd Gonzales 12A Opposed Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council:

The Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association (WMA) represents the owners and operators of mobilehome parks and manufactured housing communities throughout California.

Having been founded in 1945, WMA is one of the oldest, largest and most respected non-profit trade associations of its kind in the United States.

WMA and its Thousand Oaks members oppose creating a Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone for the following reasons:
• A senior overlay zone will not solve or help the affordable housing shortage in Thousand Oaks; in fact, in a way, it discriminates against non-seniors who live in or wish to live in mobilehome parks;
• If a senior resident sells his/her home, this type of ordinance will limit those who could purchase the property, as non-senior families are disqualified from buying the home, thus making it more difficult for the seller to find a buyer (must be a senior buyer); •
This would hurt low-income city residents seeking affordable housing; for example, single mothers with children who could otherwise purchase and occupy an affordable mobilehome would not be eligible and further exacerbating the affordable housing shortage in Thousand Oaks and, therefore the state;
• This attack on private property rights is a far-reaching attempt to essentially tell parkowners who their customers must be (seniors 55 and over);
• It’s a short-sighted approach that creates more unintended consequences, such as administering the compliance of such an ordinance – this would undoubtedly increase the city’s budget at a time when none of the current senior mobilehome park owners have any desire to change to an all-age mobilehome park.

We respectfully request that the City Council take no action toward establishing a Mobilehome Park Senior Overlay Zone.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Jarryd Gonzales
WMA
Elizabeth Kasting Thousand Oaks
12A In favor I moved to The Ranch Mobile Home Park at the age of 55 knowing that this was going to be my retirement home and to spend the rest of my days on earth here. To think of it becoming a family park is causing so much stress to the all ready sick and aging population here. It is senior abuse. It is a wonderful place for younger seniors to start their journey to old age not for young families to start their journey. Their are no areas for children to play and no side walks. It is too dangerous here at The Ranch for children.

TO COUNCIL: 09/12/2023
MEETING DATE: 09/12/2023
50 Name City Item # In favor/ Opposed Comment
Resident of Ranch Mobil Thousand Oaks 12A In favor I moved to The Ranch Mobile Home Park at the age of 72. I moved here because it was a Senior Park. Please don't allow this to become a family park. It will be to stressful for both the children and the seniors. The seniors are having a hard enough time just getting through their days and their is no place for children to play and also no sidewalks. The park would be very prone to accidents if children were allowed in here.

Thousand Oaks 12A In favor Please don't convert into family park. This is my retirement home. It is very quiet here and peaceful. Many of us have to take naps during the day to rejuvenate. With kids running around that would be hard to do.

Mark Wiemann Thousand Oaks 12A In favor I moved to The Ranch Mobile Home Park knowing that it was a senior park. It has been a senior park very several decades. My elderly Mother lives with me too. We both need to sleep during the day. Having children run around during the day would not be a good fit for this park. Please keep this a senior park. It is a great place for younger seniors to come to start their retirement.

Todd Thousand Oaks 12A In favor I am a heart attack survivor and have other illnesses that would make my life very stressful if the park was loud with children running round. I moved here because it was quite. I also suffer from PTSD and Misophonia. Please keep this a senior park. We are here because we need to be in a senior park. We can't afford assisted living. Thanks, Todd Ann Forman Thousand Oaks 12A In favor It is important to keep this a senior park as their are many vulnerable people in here that can't be around loud noises and disturbances. The elderly residents here need a calm environment to live peacefully. Thank you for your consideration.

Sandy Gill Thousand Oaks 12A In favor Please keep this a senior mobile home park. I moved here because it was a peaceful place to live in my senior years. Having kids in here would create too much stress for the elderly in here.

Newbury Park 12A In favor Save our senior parks. It is our only option to avoid homelessness. 12A In favor We are so concerned about losing our homes at Ventu.

Please protect our seniors.
12A In favor We at Vallecito are so worried. We nearly lost our homes 10 years ago via condo conversion.

Our seniors need and deserve protection from greedy out of town land owners. 12A In favor The very problematic RSO 1559 destroyed the Ranch MHP. Without protection, Ranch will no longer be available to low income seniors. Please vote yes on the overlay. 51 Name City Item # In favor/ Opposed Comment
Ed Simmons Newbury Park 12C Opposed I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed installation of 11 new stop signs in the neighborhood of Deer Ridge. As a resident of Deer Ridge, I understand that traffic safety is a priority for our community; however, I do not believe there is an issue that needs addressing.

Thousand Oaks City CouncilSeptember 12, 2023

Thousand Oaks City Council
September 12, 2023