12-05-2023 Supplemental Information Packet 2 — Thousand Oaks City Council, December 5, 2023

Agenda Related Items - Meeting of December 5, 2023
Supplemental Packet Date: December 4, 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.
5:00 p.m.

Supplemental Informatio
n:

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 88

PAGES ARE RELATED TO
ITEM 10A
TO: Andrew P. Powers, City Manager
FROM: Kelvin Parker, Deputy Community Development Director DATE: December 5, 2023
SUBJECT: Item 10A General Plan 2045 2019 -70760-GPA, Final Program Environmental Impact Report 2022 -70558-EIR, 2021 -2029 Housing Element 2018 -70723-HSG, and Declare Initiations for Implementation – Memo Regarding Attachment 2 Exhibit D
Errata Changes
Staff is su bmitting this supplemental memo to note the following changes to Attachment 2 Exhibit D Errata:

Revise Number 43 – the “Janet and R ay and Sherr Forum ” should be read as the “Janet and Ray Scherr Forum.”
Add Number 53 - On page 185, replace the first sentence under City Arts Funding to read: “The Civic Arts Plaza was originally authorized in 1987.” CDD:44-20/H:/COMMON/City Council/CC Agenda Items/2023/1 2052023/General Plan Supplemental/ Supplemental 10A Memo - Community Development Department/ Attachment 2 Exhibit D Errata Changes /pz (FILE ID: 2019-70760-GPA)
1 TO: A
ndrew P. Powers, City Manager
FR
OM: Kelvin Parker, Deputy Community Development Director DATE: December 5, 2023
SUBJ
ECT: Item 10A General Plan 2045 2019- 70760-GPA, Final Program Environmental Impact Report 2022- 70558-EIR, 2021 -2029 Housing Element 2018 -70723-HSG, and Declare Initiations for Implementation
Sta
ff is su bmitting this supplemental memo to note the following three items of correspondence were received on November 13, 2023 after the printing of the Planning Commission Supplemental Packet or were submitted at the Planning Commission meeting. They were provided at the dais during the meeting.

CDD:44-20/H:/COMMON/City Council/CC Agenda Items/2023/1 2052023/General Plan Supplemental/ Supplemental 10A Memo - Community Development Department/ General Plan Items Received at 11-13-2023 PC Meeting/pz (FILE ID: 2019-70760-GPA)
2 Sample ~cript: ., '
"Hi, first I'm not selling anything. I'm & your neighbor, or I'm & live in Newbury Park. I'm collecting signatures to present to our City Council to let them know the residents of Newbury Park do not want to see the Borchard Parcel zoning changed when they finalize the General Plan later this year" This should open the conversation. Many will sign without further questions. lft hey have questions these talking points should help. If they aren't familiar with the parcel show them the map. Also point out the new sign the owner just erected on it.

The City Council is reviewing & will be voting on a major update to the General Plan for the pt time in 50 years. As part of this update certain areas have been targeted for change in the Land Use designation. One of these areas is the Borchard lot at the end of Alice.
• People refer to it as the Wetland. It is a US Fish & Wildlife Wetland, but it is not is not a protected wetland. • This lot is currently zoned R-1 which would allow a maximum of 160 homes to be built. It is however considered a High-Risk Flood Zone by FEMA. The county of Ventura has an easement for the land to act as a watershed as part of flood protection for the area. The easement also gives the water protection district power over allowing building on this lot.
• THIS ZONING & EASEMENT WAS IN PLACE in 1978 WHEN THE CURRENT OWNERS BOUGHT THE LAND IN 1979.

That's why they paid so little for it.
• This could all change. In May 2021 the city voted to change this parcel to mixed use low. This would allow up to 1,080 dwelling units & and/or comm I spaces & bars. State density bonuses would allow this to be increased if the developer includes affordable units. Bldgs could be 50' or 4 stories. This change will not be finalized until later this year.
• We are requesting that they Leave the zoning as is until a formal plan is presented and impact studies can be done. We need to get 3 City Council members on our side. • In 2021 the property owner peddled a vision that he has for the property to the community. He is not bound to stick to this vision. If the land use is changed he can file a plan at the maximum building density. He can also sell the property to other developers. The point is we have no guarantees. • OUR POINT IS WE WANT THIS CHANGE TAKEN OFF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE. IT SHOULD BE REVIEWED

CAREFULLY & IN DETAIL SEPARATELY & WE SHOULD HAVE PROMISES OF WHAT WILL BE BUILT BEFORE A CHANGE THIS MAJOR TAKES PLACE.
• Traffic at the Borchard off ramp will increase when the already approved 218 apartments & 120 room hotel on the Timber school site on Newbury Rd are built. Developing the Borchard site will just make it worse. • While all of Newbury Park will be affected by increased traffic, the picture attached shows what streets will be most heavily impacted. Since this parcel is landlocked, the only access is at the end of Denise & Alice streets on the Wendy side. On the Borchard side there is a small strip of land between the first home on Michael & the shopping center at the corner of Borchard/Michael (Baskin Robbins} A bridge will need be built here across the flood channel to provide a 3rd means of egress required for public safety. • This includes a picture of the sign he just put up to start his PR campaign.

RECEIVED AT PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING OF // / / 3/"' ti~]
FROM: -v-; n;a: f t:;( Geasr
ITEM #: t (3 -._
3 WE CALL TO THE ATTENTION OF EVERY MEMBER OF THE THOUSAND OAKS CITY COUNCIL:
,
, You are hereby notified that WE, the undersigned, INSIST that you adhere to the wishes of the MAJORITY of Newbury Park HOMEOWNERS AND RESIDENTS who are directly affected by the current proposed LAND USE MAP. We CALL ON YOU to support and defend the rights of the citizens of Newbury Park who VOTED you into office as servants of the People.

We INSIST on the REMOVAL of the 36 ACRE "BORCHARD PROPERTY" from any changes on the current LAND USE MAP before it is submitted in its final form and REQUIRE THAT YOU REINSTATE IT TO ITS ORIGINAL DESIGNATION OF R-1-8 for the following reasons:
- The current property owner is constitutionally entitled to NOTHING MORE THAN WHAT WAS PURCHASED, which is an R-1-8 designation. NOT ONE PLAN has EVER been submitted to the City of Thousand Oaks in ANY FORM by the property owner. - Should the property owner choose, in the future, to submit a plan that can be studied; the City can REVIEW, STUDY for IMPACT and can AMEND the General Plan.

The consequences of PREMATURELY agreeing to such an increase in the density of this ALREADY CONGESTED AREA would be immeasurable.
- NEWLY PASSED STATE LAWS (SB9, SBlO, SB6 and AB2011) will PREVENT the City of TO from deciding what CAN and CANNOT be built on the property if the designation is changed to the EXTREMEML Y DENSE classification of MIXED-USE LOW. State Rules will trump City rules. - The City is OBLIGATED and has a DUTY to retain its MOST LEGALLY DEFENSIBLE POSITION AGAINST THE OVERREACH OF THE STATE. (Currently happening in the City of Santa Monica) - NO OTHER property being changed to MIXED USE was previously designated RESIDENTIAL. The RIGHTS of surrounding residents is being infringed and our property values would plummet by placing a MINI-CITY in the middle of our RESIDENTIAL neighborhood. - YOU promised the General Plan update would Retain the character of residential neighborhoods. - This property was not included in the RHNA # and is NOT NEEDED to meet the 2022 Housing Element. - Not ONE CITY COUNCIL MEMBER LIVES in the area of Newbury Park! You cannot vote to change the quality of our lives/neighborhoods when YOU will not be impacted. - There is NO UNDOING THE DAMAGE. If changed, SB330 will prohibit any future down zoning of the parcel. City planners will be AT THE MERCY OF THE STATE and the DEVELOPER will force their SINGLAR VISION on the entire community.
- This parcel is a HIGH-RISK FEMA FLOOD ZONE, and NO CHANGES should be made PRIOR TO a site-specific plan and IMP ACT STUDIES.
- The change to Mixed-use of the AMGEN, CV High School and Kohls parcels will cause GRIDLOCK on the Borchard overpass and surrounding streets. You CANNOT in good conscience follow through with ALL of these proposed changes within ONE SQUARE MILE without ANY IMPACT STUDIES FOR TRAFFIC AND SAFETY.

WE LIVE HERE AND DEMAND THAT YOU FOLLOW OUR WISHES FOR OUR COMMUNITY. 4 \
. . .. . . . ~ . .
. AN ORDINANCE O F THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS CREATING

A CULT URAL HERITAGE BOARD AND PROVIDING
, FOR THE POWERS, FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES

THERE OF
uRDINANCE NO. 265-,-NS ·
_ AdoptedApril 1,-1975
The City Co uncil of the C il ,Y of 'I'houeu ud Oak::,;, California does or dain as I'oll ows :

SECTION I
Eleven f 11) yrs after .
. T.O._ City incorpomtion..

N1·w Arti(' 11· ;~ 1.o Clmp1.t•1· :{ or Titk ~. iH her·ell,y added to the Thousand Oaks Municioal Code to read a s follows:

ARTICLE 2! THOUSAND OAKS COLTURAL ,
·.HERITAGE.BOARD .

Section 2-2. 201.. Title. This Arti cle shall be known as and may be cited as the "Thousa:nd-Oaks Cultural Her itage Or dinance '1. : . . . . . .

Section 2-2. 202, Purpose. Thepurpo$e of this ~r dinance is to prbmote the economic and gener al We1fare
0 of the City of.·
. Thousand Oaks by preser ving and protectirig the items defined . l . . . .
in Section 2_-2. 207, be they gover~me nt or p rivate owner ship and . having· a sp~cial historical.or 'aesthetic char acter or interest; Or .·. relocating or r-ecr-aating-an ~istoric monume~t for the use; education . . . . . . :
and view of the. gener al public in or der to rem1.iid the citizens of this commun ity, visitor~ and touri~ts. of the rich histor ic, cultural and natural her itage of the City of Thousand0 ; ks _and the Con~jo . - -_ ····•· _· .·.

Valley.
. . .. . . ·.·. . . _· .. · . .
· Section 2-2. 2 03. Thou~and .Oaks· Cultural Her ita ge Boar d.

The Thousand 'Oaks Cultural Her itage Board is hereby _· established,· the mernber ahip and ter m of appointment of which shall be as follows;
(a) City Council .Appoi~tees. The City Council shall
.. appoint five members of the Cultural Heritage Boar d. ,;.1- .
z
0 en
!/)
:ij
:il:
0 (.)
(!)
z
z z < .J
a.
~
C w
> w u w
0::
5 . . ·. . . ·. . .

Each per son so appointed shall be qualified in historical . and cultural traditions ..• EachC ity Council man shall . . . : ".
nominate one member for ~onsider atipd. .
(b}
. · ·_. ·. : .

Thousand Oaks Cultural Her itage 13t>ar d .Appointees.

Two additional pcrs .ons shall hc se Icc tcd by the five City .

Council -appointed m~1~bers .. · These. two additional members·• shall be selected with regar d to. their knowledge and interest · . . . . . . . . ill hi s tot-Icu I uud c ulturu l tru dit.ious of Ll1t: City ol' 'I'housund Oaks and the Conejo-Valley.>
(c} Ter m of Appointment. ·.·.
. . ·. . ·. . . . .

The term of appointment of the City Councfl appointees shall . be for four year s; corr esponding to the established dates of . regular City Counc if.elec tions. Each Ci~y Council appointee shall ser ve coticurre~t with the t er m of the.City Council member ~ho nominated the appointee . The ter m of appointment of the.

Thousand Oaks cult urcll Heritage Board appointees shall be •.. for four years, a lter riatirig in April of the even number ed years.

Inlieu of the foregoing method of:appointment, and as a Substitute pro cedure ther efor, the City Council may enter info an agreement with the . ~ . . . . . . . . .

Ventura County Cultural Her itage Boar d to provide the ser vices. set forth in this ordinance. If ~uch ~n agreement is executed between the City of .

Thousand Oaks and the Ventura County Cultural Her itage Boar d, the City · . .· . . . ' . .· . .. . . ..
· of Thousand Oaks shall appoint the i ndi vi dual' memb~rs of. that. Boar d as theCultural Her itage Boar df or Jhe City of Thousand Oaks. When me m:ber - . . . .·· . .
ships change on that Board, the new members ~h~ll be confir me d as mernber-s of the Thousand Oaks Cu ltu r al Heritage Board during the ter m oft he agreement referr ed to ~er eiri~. · .. ·
-2-
6 Sect ion 2- 2. 204
. . .·. ·. .
'The functions of the Tho ~sand Oaks Cultural Her itage Functfonsv
Boar d shall be to :
(a) Reco mm end to the City Council a rr1endments to this Articl e when ciz-cums tances indicate.
(b) Compile and Mairitai n a current Hsto f all historic, .· . . : .
cultural, arid nat ural Iandmank s and monuments as
definedi n Secti on 2-2. 207, which sllaU be ma de avail able to the City C~unci1 andt he publtc:
(c) Inspect arid inves tigate a ny item I rs te dI n Sect ion 2-2: 207 in Thousa nd O~ks which it has rea son to beli eve is, or .· ' '
will beco me in the near future, ah hist oric land m~rk or · monument.
(d) · Rec ommen d to the City Council if indicated that a specif ic lan dmar k or . monument be des ignated an Historic · ' '
or Sce nic Landrnar k Zone.
(e) .. Deter min e whic h 'de~lgnat ed :landr:ri.ar ks and monuments . ' . . . . . .
• ·. l .. _·. ··. . ' .
shall be mar ked with.·uniform and a~sthet ic mar ker s, wher e the City Council o f the City of Thousand Oaks has · first approved such designation by a majority vote and· !,
. . . . .
. . . .
appropr iat es and appr oves the expend itur-e of public funds . . ther efo r .

Sect ion 2-2. 205. · . Power s;
' ' '
. . . . . . : . . . . .

The ·power s of the Thousan d Oaks Cultural Her itage Boar d shall be as follows: .
(a) Pres er vation of Lan<;lmar ks and Monuments . Take steps ' '
nece ssary top reser ve s~cll la~dmar ks and monuments not in conflict with thep uhlic hea lth ; safety and gener al wel- . . : . .
· .fare. Such: st eps may include the cr ea tion of civic and ·- 3-
7 Monuments; and the recoinme~dation that
such landmarks and monuments be acquired ·
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
by a gover nmental agency wher e private acquisition
. . . . ·.. .· : .
is not feasible.,' All such a~tions shall be first submitted . . . . . :
to and approved by the Ci_ty Council ,. except as other - wise provided her ein .
•
. (b) . Public Hearings .

Hold public hearings for the purpose of identifying
historical landmar ks and n:ionuments with such bear ings . being held 15 days or more after the proper ty owner has been notified by Register ed MaH. If the conclusion of the Thousand Oaks. Cultural Heri tage Boar d is that an hiator-ical ." monument or landma r k does extst , · thep r-oper-ty owner shall be pr-ohtbite d fr om defacing, demolition,· addi tion, attera tion.:
. ·. . . •,. ·. . . . . . ·.· . . ·. . .
or removal _of the landmark witho ut having given 90 days · notice to the Thousand Oaks Cultur al Herit age Boar d that· such acti on is planned. .If the proper ty owner objects to the designation of his proper ty as a landmar k or monument, 's uch objection shall be filed ~ith the Chy Council. The : f
';' f
City Council shall schedule a public hearing and if the . . ·. . ·. . : .· . .·. · _-' : . .
decision is made that the historical significance of the landmark or monument jusHfies the expenditure of public funds, acquisition proceedings may be initiated. If the City Council finds a la ndmarko r monun1ent to be of
historical significance and· publrc funds· ar e not available, private funds may be used for acquisit ion, · or other . . . . . . -· . . . .
arrangements may be made that are satisfactory to the
proper ty owner .
(c) Register with the State.
8 the r egistr ation would assist in preser vation. The . .

Thousand Oaks Cultural Her itage Boar d may find that
. . .· . .·.
a landmark or site has local historical significance but does not war runt Stale 1·egistration. T!1'e decision to . . .
excl usively by the Thousand Oaks Cultural Heritage Boar d.

Section 2-2. 206. Hules and Hegulations.
. . :_. . · .. ··_. . :
rules and regulations as a re necessary to carry out the purpose and intent of this Articl e.

Section 2-2. 207. Definition of Landmarks and Monuments.

For purposes of this Articl e, an historical, cultural or natural landmark or monument is any real proper ty, such as:

Building, structure, ·ruins or foundation:

Route or trail ;
Place, e.g ., cave .: oakgr ove, cemetery, burial ground, ·. .. ·. .
camp or vill age ar ea, signific ant trees or other plant life;
G Natural configu~atidn, traditional Iandacape horizon, .· . . ~ .
geographic or geological formation or feature;
( ~ Traditional, historic or l"gci,dary name of any of the . above obje c ts.:

Which are of:
®P articular historic, cultural, sce riic or aes thetic significance to the City of Thousand Oaks in which
the broad cultural, political, economic or social
. . .
history of the nation, state or community is re-
fleeted or exemplified;
. @or which are i~ ntifiOd With historic personages or
I I
I
9 state or local history; . .
@ o r which show evidence ofh abitat1dn, activity or.
. the culture of pr-ehi.s.tor-Ic man; ..
(vor which embodies the dislinguishing character istics of an architectural-type s pec i me n;: inher ently valuable for a s tudy of a per iod style or method of construction; (E}or which µreseHts a wo,·k" I" a master b uil der , des igner , . . . .
u rt i s t, oi· a1·c hilt,!l'I. WhlHW i11divid11a l gt.~llillH i11l'lt1t'lll'.l!d his age; . . .
. @ o r which ar c imbued wllh. traUiuOna I •• /egc uda ry lore.

Section 2-2. 208. Standar ds.
. . . .
. . . . . . . . : . .

In designating any historicai, · cultural, or natural landma r k . . .
or monument as worthy ofp rotection under this Article, the Thousand . . . .·. . ._· . .

Oaks Cultural Her itage Boar d and the City Council shall be subject to the following atandar da:
. . . ,· .
(a) The landmar k designated shall have hiator ic , aesthetic . . . or- special character ~; inter est f6r the general public and not be Iimi ted in inter est to a special group of per sons .. . . .. . .. (b) The designation of'a uch landmark shall not require ·· ·· the expenditure by the City of Thousand Oaks of any am ount of money not comm e r s ur-ate with the value of the. object to· be pz-eser ved. '
(c) The designation of such l andmark sha ll not infr inge ' . '
. . . .
upon the rights of a private owner-.ther-eof to make any . ·. . . . . . .
and all reasonable uses of such landma rk, which are . . .: . not in conflict with the: purposes of this Article.·
SECTION 2-2. 209 . . · Funds.

The Thousand Oaks Cultural Heritage Boar d, or other inter ested . . . . .· . : . . . _- . : . . . . .
persons, may petition the Conejo Recreation, and Park District, or the City Councfl, or other appr opriate g ovE;!r nme ntal authority possess ing . . . .;.6-
I'.·. :~ ··,
y!
I
:•
_;
i .I
.1
. !;I I,,
I/ . ii
ii I'!
- I~
:iJ
-!.!I '•·1
10 funds for such purpose, tor tunas nece ss ary tu can :y uu ~ w e p ... u . pv ,_, __ .., this Al'l ic le or tu acqui 1'l' i'n • uu« UJ' 111w l1f 1·11HL'I' llWill' n llli p rir:111.H tit' rights of possession or negative easements as it deems necessary or expedient to car-r-y out the purposes of this Article. However , no petition shall first be presented to any other gove rume uta l authority untiJt hat petition has 'fir Hl b l;Cll auh mit to.d.t ouu d app1·ovcd by the City CciHiw ll 111' lltt• I 't iv 111 '1'11111111,,u d ll i1k i.,. '1'1111 t '1 Iv I '111i11, 1 I 11f Iliff t 'I!.,\' i,l' T lt11111.111,_111I .-,,11,,, ,,,,, ,,,, ,.,, (,. · 1111' 1•il' 1, lf i11·_1d ,_d tll'l,:1 ., ... ,1·,,.,,_11, ,, 11,,tl 1i1d l!111p or e xpe nd any ftllt<ls lot· 1n11·pw i1·1: :,:,,I i,,i II, Ill U,i:-: ;\ i ll,·11•. t\t'.l"''.'.1(,;
Within ten (10) days from the date of action by the Thousand Oaks Cultural H~ritage Boar d, any inter e~ted person may file an appeal, in writing with the City Cler k. A hearing shall be set not less than . '
fifteen (15) days nor _ more than thirty (30)d ays after the date of f'i Iing' · . .
paper of gener al ctr-c ulutiou iu the County or Ventura at Ieas t ten (lo) days prior to the date of said hear ing. The City Council may confir m, modify or set aside ar:iy-·or- aln nrch actions of the Thousand Oaks Cultural Her itage Boar d.

Ii
rl
· Section 2 -2. 211. Cooperation.

All Boar ds, Comm issions. · Departments and Officer s of the City of Thousa nd Oaks shall cooperate with said Thousand Oaks Cultural Her itage Board in carr ying out the spir it and intent of t his Article and will notify the Thousand Oaks Cultural Her itage Boar d . . . . . .
. of the discover y of items of histo:r~cal signi:fican2.e, such as burial grounds, prehistoric artifacts or histori c foundations; and to inform this Board also of proposed alteration, • demolition or r elocation . J! I'
I,
1 I
. j I :J
I
. I :i: lj ·I I ,j .

I. l
I
of designated landmarks ,or monuments;
-7-
11 and proposed changes of an r-oad and geogr-aphical nam e changes; and to inform this ·Board of all C{ty of Thousand Oaks records of historica1 significance which are to hed isposed of o:r destroyed . .

The Thousand Oaks Cultural Her-itage Boar d shall cooperate with . * ··* special distri cts, municipalities a nd departmentst her eof when. requested, and shall recommend for their consrder-ation matters covered by this Article.

SECTION 2
* Ventura County · · ·
Cultural Heritage Board·
This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days fr om and after the date of its adoption.

PASSED AND AOOPTE D this 22nd ; dayo f Febr uary. 1972
-----)
. _,,,.--/ . .
... · .. · /-, :'~ .... · ·.·. ·.·.·;,,, .. : /~J,>:f. ,, / 7 (' _,. •. ../ / ,( / /, ,,' ' '/ .•I ,; / ~ ;/ _/', _,,- ,,.,-fi' Raym nd A, Gar ia, Mayor ·
.Cttyo f Thousand Oaks .

ATTEST:
~ 4,.:.4!?~ ~
Velma S. Quinn, City Cler k ·· · ··
City of Thousand Oaks
. . .

APPROVED AS TO ADMINISTRATION:-··
enn Kendall, City anage r
ity of Thousand Oaks .

By John R. Ve ltheon, Asst. City Mgr-,
PREPARED AND AP PROVED AS TO FORM BY:·.

City Attor ney
Oaks
JI ... . ~·
'•
--~ ..
. i:
i
i
I d ·, ~
, I' . . . ; f
. . j ~ '
• i·
_: r,
. 1··
~. '
· .. ·.· ;: ! .
. i-: . : :
: I
(,
'.
·:;
-8-
12 I. VEL MA S. QUINN. DO HERE BY CE RTIFY that the above and for egoing Or dinance No. 265 '..NS was duly passed and adopted . . : . . .
. .• . . .
by the City Council of the Cit y of Thcmsand Oaks at a r-egular- ·- , .
. . . . .
meeting ther eof, he Id on the 22nd: day of February; 1972, by the following vote, to-wit:

AYES:

NOES:
- ABSENT:

Jones, B owen, F'ior e , Cohen; and Garcia
Nohe
None
. . .. Y2 .. _- ·u - __ -_,_- -- __ -- - __ -- - - -(·:. - . . . . . . . . . . .
·-·•-•-~ ,e~4;., -~ ~ ~
·- _ Velma S. Quinn, City Cler !\
_ City of Thousand Oaks, California
-9~
o-a. No~ 265-NS
. !:
. ll .
i
ii: ·
I
I
I
I.

I
l
l
I
. 'i'
i
i
I
13 ORDINANCE NO. 526-NS.

AN ORDINANCR OF T HE CIT~ OF THO~~AND OAKS
AMENDING SECTION 2-2. 205 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
TO INCREASE LANDMARK PROTECTION_ PERIOD FROM
NINETY DAYS TO ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY DAYS .
i I-
. . .

The City Council of the City of Thousand Oaks~ DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION I
Section 2-2. 205 of the Municipal Code of the City of Thousand Oaks is· hereby amended to read as follows:

Sec. 2-2.205. Powers. --
. . . . . . .
. · . . . .·
Thep owers of the Th~usand Oaks Cultural Heritage Board shall . . . . .
(a) Preservation of l andmarks and monuments. The Board shall take the steps necessary to preserve such landmarks and monu ments not in conflict with the public health, safety , and general wel- - fare. Such steps may include the creatio_n of civic Iandmarks and monu ments and the recommendation _that such landmarks and monuments be acquired by a governmental agency where. private acquisition is not feasible. AU such actfons shall be first submitted to and approved by . the Counci
(b) Public hearings. The Board shall hold public hearings for the purpose of identifying histo~ical landmarks and monuments with such hearings being held fifteen (15) days or more after the property owner has been notified by registered mail: If the conclusion of the . . ,.

Thousand Oaks Cultural HeritageBo ard is that an historical monument . .
or landmark does exist. the property owher shall be prohibited from . defacing, demolition , addition, alteration, or removal of the iandmark without having given one hundred eighty- (180) days' notice to the . '. . . . . . . .

Thousand Oaks Cultural Heritage Board that ~uch action is planned . . .

If the property owner objects to the designation of his property as a . . . . .
. . . : .
iandmark or monument, such. objection shallb e filed with the Council . -'1-
14 The Council shall schedule a public hearing, and if .the decision: is made. that the historical significance of the landmark or monu ment justifies the exp enditur e of pub lic funds , acquisition proceedings may be initiat'ed. . . .

If the Council finds a landmark or monument to be of historical signifi- , .
. .
· cance and pub lic funds are not available, private funds.may be used for acquisition, or other arra~gements may be made that are satisfactory (c) Registration ·:with the State;. The Board shall register with the app~opriate State agency a landmark or site which has historical . . . . . .
significance i~d where the registration would assist in preservation. . . . . .

The Thousand Oaks·cultural·HeritageBoard·rnay find that a Iandmark · or site has local historical significance but' does not warrant State regis tration. The decision to register or not register with the State shall be •· -- ..... ,· ..
exercised exclusively by the Thousand Oaks Cultural Heritage Board.

SECTION II
This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption._
******
. . . .

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of April, 1975.
·~ . ·
~ - . .
9ity of'Tbousund Onks, California
ATTEST:
- """":::C.:d.:::::~ :L..11~ ;..Js;Jo-,,.k:ii~ U..,c;,;~ ~ ,,, Ve ma S. Quinn, Cit Clerk
· City of Thousand Oaks, California
APPROVED AS TO FORM:'
15 nade
B the
sd ,
ifi.;.
i .
ctor)'
rith
1 a.
rk
egis-
s
..

APPROVED AS TO ADMINISTRATION:
~ ~ ·
Glenn Kend all , City Manager
I. VELMA S . QUINN. DO HEREBY CERTIFY. that the above and foregoing Or dinanceN o . 526-NS was duly passe d and ad opted by th e .

City Council of the City of Thousand Oaks at the re gu lar meetin g . thereof held on the 1st day of April, 1975 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

Fiore. Bowen., Irwin, Horner, Grattan
.None .

ABSENT: None
. · ~
. . .
.. · · .. . ✓
. I . - ..
.5a- ·<<Z-?-i:.&~ < 1'~ °4(44 4.-::{ <
Velma S; Quinn , City Clerk
City of i housand Oaks. Califoi·nia
-3-
I
16 FIGURE 7.S Historic and Cuhural Resources
(\,. __ .,,.-2--- ---------- -,, ,~ \
\
I
.,,Jl -1
<,
I
/
r-
' /
/
/
I
City of
Camarillo
City of
Simi Valley
----------------------
Conejo Valley
0 0.$ 2 Mile,
'
City of
Westlake
Vil/age
,,.,,.,,.,,./ '
,,.,,.
.,,_,,,.,,,,,..,,,,..,,.

City of
Agoura Hills
.................. ,,,,. ___________ .,,.

Roimi + Associates 2023 I Doto Source: City of Thousand Oaks, County of Ventura, County of Los Angeles 17 Conejo Valley Landmark Designations
1976-1988
1988-1992
1997- 2004
2004-2023
Near
Decade
3 Near Two
Decades
0 3 5 8 10
18 Historical Landmarks/Po ints of Interest
City#1: Stagecoach Inn - State Landmark #659, County #30 (designated May 1976). National Register of Historic Places and designated a State Historical Landmark in December of 1975. The original structure was built 1876 but was destroyed by fire in the early 1970s. The present location is not the original site.

City#2: Sycamore Tree - County #44 (designated June 1978).

City#3: Pederson House and Water Tower - County #45
City#4: Hunt Olive Tree - County #64 (designated January 1982) City#5: Oakbrook Regional Park Archaeological Area - County #90 (designated February 1983)
City#6: Dos Vientos Ranch Buildings - County #99 (designated May 1986. These historic barns were dismantled during the construction of the Dos Vientos residential development. The lumber was catalogued and is now in storage with the Conejo Recreation & Park District. Location: West Potrero Road.

City#?: Crowley House - County #109 (designated December 1986)
City #8: Janss House - County #112 {designated July 1987) City#9: Banning Dam also known as Lake Eleanor Dam - County #120 {designated May 1988)
City #13: Goebel's Lion Farm Site (aka Jungleland) - County #6:

Currently owned by City of Thousand Oaks. The original buildings and animal compound were built in the 1920s and later demolished in the mid 1970s. {The Thousand Oaks Civic Arts Plaza currently occupies a portion of this site.)
City#10: Hillcrest Center - Designated an historic landmark on April 8, 1997, by the Thousand Oaks Cultural Heritage Board (CHB Resolution No. 1)
City#11 : Joel McCrea Ranch (Placed on the National Register of Historic Places and on the California Register of Historical Resources on April 18, 1997
City #12: Former Timber School House and Timber School
Auditorium (Designated by Thousand Oaks Cultural Heritage Board Resolution No. 3, July 13, 2004)
County #166
1976 - 1988 (12 yrs) = Ten County Landmark Designations (seven remain)
1988 - 1997 (9 yrs)= No Designations
1997 - 2004 (7 yrs) = Three Landmark Designations
2004 - 2023 (19 yrs)= No Designations
19 Historical Landmarks/Points of Interest https://www.toaks.org/ departments/ city-manager-s-office/public-information-office/history City#1: Stagecoach Inn - State Landmark #659, County #30 (designated May 1976). The Inn was placed on National Register of Historic Places and designated a State Historical Landmark in December of 1975 and is owned by the Conejo Recreation and Park District. The original structure was built 1876 but was destroyed by fire in the early 1970s.

The Inn is a Monterey style structure of northern California redwood with a wrap-around porch and balcony. The original structure served as a school, post office, steak house, church, gift shop and movie set. Location: 51 South Ventu Park Road. The present location is not the original site of the structure. Its original location was nearer the Route 101 Freeway where a historical marker is placed.

City# 2: Sycamore Tree - County #44 (designated June 1978). This unusually large and old specimen of California Sycamore was over 150 year old when designated as a landmark. The Chumash Indians are said to have bent the lower branches to mark the location of underground water. Location: Stagecoach Inn, 51 South Ventu Park Road.

City#3: Pederson House and Water Tower - County #45 (designated June 1978). The House is owned by California Lutheran University. This typical turn-of-the-century farmhouse and water tower were built in 1913-1914 for Lars and Karn Pederson, members of the Norwegian Colony that settled the northern end of the Conejo Valley in 1890. In 1967, the Pederson's son Richard gave the land for California Lutheran University and the buildings were restored. Shown by appointment Location: California Lutheran University, Faculty Street.

City#4: Hunt Olive Tree - County #64 (designated January 1982). This is the only surviving tree an orchard planted by R. 0. Hunt on the Saito Ranch, which he established in 1876. The tree was moved to its present site in 1993 and is in excellent condition. Location: Southwest corner of Hillcrest Drive and Lynn Road on property owned by Circuit City Stores.

City#S: Oakbrook Regional Park Archaeological Area - County #90 (designated February 1983). The 428-acre park contains 11 archaeological sites within a few yards of each other along the streambed of a narrow oak-wooded canyon, with bedrock mortars and shelters containing Chumash pictographs. At the park is a small interpretive museum, a Chumash village reproduction, and hiking trails, all of which are open to the public. Location: 3290 Lang Ranch Parkway, off of Westlake Boulevard.

City#6: Dos Vientos Ranch Buildings - County #99 (designated May 1986): These buildings are owned by the Santa Monica Mountains Recreation & Conservation Authority and the Conejo Open Space Conservation Agency. These two large barns, built in 1930, were on the Dos Vientos Ranch, a portion of the 30,593-acres Rancho Guadalasca Mexican land grant made to Isabel Yorba in 1836.Joseph Lewis, a business partner of Adolfo Camarillo, farmed approximately 8,000 acres of Dos Vientos Ranch. He established the lima bean industry in Ventura County. Note: These historic barns were dismantled during the construction of the Dos Vientos residential development. The lumber was catalogued and is now in storage with the Conejo Recreation & Park District. Location: West Potrero Road.

City#7: Crowley House - County #109 (designated December 1986): This house is currently owned by the Conejo Recreation and Park District and is used as their District Sports Office. It was built in 191 0 for newlyweds Frank and Mae Casey Crowley on the Newbury Ranch, the house earned the nickname "Mother of Thousand Oaks" because in the early 1920's it served as a real estate office for the first housing development in the Conejo Valley. Carloads of prospective buyers were brought from downtown Los Angeles, shown lots among huge oak trees and given dinner in the Crowley House dining room before making the return trip. Later, Louis and Kathleen Goebel owned the house. The two-story white frame, five-bedroom house still has its hardwood floors, mahogany beams and volcanic rock fireplace.

Location: 2522 Pleasant Way (next to Parque de la Paz). Shown by appointment only.

City #8: Janss House - County #112 (designated July 1987): This house is owned by the City ofT housand Oaks and houses the Arts Council. It was built for Peter Jam s as a weekend retreat in 1931. In 1943 it became the principal home of Janss' younger son, Edwin Janss. TheJanss farr ily in the US began with Peter Janss' immigration in 1870 from Denmark. He became a physician, then moved from Chicago to Los Angeles in 1893. In Los Angeles, he became a land developer and was joined in his business by his sons Harold and Edwin. The Janss Corporation planned and developed in Monterey Park, the San Fernando Valley, the Conejo Valley and Westwood Village, donating the land on which UCLA is built. Location: 482 Greenmeadow Drive
City# 9: Banning Dam also known as Lake Eleanor Dam - County #120 (designated May 1988): Currently owned by the Conejo Open Space Conservation Agency and bt ilt 1889 the dam is in a gorge with sheer cliffs and drops of 40 to SO feet. It is considered either the first or second concete arched dam built n the State of California. Its 8-acre lake and 529 acres of surrounding open space create a habitat for wildlife. Location: Eleanor Creek, South Westlake Boulevard.

City#10: Hillcrest Center - Designated an histor c landmark on April 8, 1997, by the Thousand Oaks Cultural Heritage Board (CHB Resolution No. 1) as the site of the first city hall built by the City ofT housand Oaks. The historical designation applies to the exterior wall (facades and architectural style) of the Civic Center buildings. Built in 1973, the building housed the administrative offices of the City and Conejo Recreation and Park District until 1988. Location: 401 West Hillcrest Drive
City#11: Joel McCrea Ranch (Placed on the National Register of Historic Places and on the California Register of Historical Resources on April 18, 1997) - Current'y owned by the Conejo Recreation and Park District, this former cattle ranch is comprised of approximately 220 acres of gently sloping chaparral covered hillsides forming a long. narrow valley at the eastern end of the Santa Rosa Valley. The working portion of the ranch is located near Moorpark Road with a cluster of buildings including the barns, shop, milk house, corrals and bunkhouse. Adjacent to the ranch buildings, a private road runs east through the fields to the end of a small valley where the main residence and maids' residence are located Location: On the east side of north Moorpark Road near its intersection with Santa Rosa Road in the northern most portion of the City of Thousand Oaks.

City #12: Former Timber School House and Timber School Auditorium {Designated by Thousand Oaks Cultural Heritage Board Resolution No. 3, July 13, 2004) - Constructed in 1924 and 1948, respectively, the Timber School House and Timber School Auditorium buildings are part of the current Conejo Valley High School campus. The 1924 Timber School building was designed in the Mission Revival architectural style by Roy C. Wilson, the first licensed architect in Ventura County and is the oldest original school and public building in the Conejo Valley. Children of early Conejo Valley ranchers, including the Borchard, Haigh, Hays, Kelley, Janss, and Olsen families, attended the school. Location:
1872 Newbury Road.

Historic Building Preservation and Protection Measures in Effect for Timber Schoolhouse and Auditorium July 2018 Update: Demolition of buildings and equipment at 1872 Newbury Road, site of the Timber Schoolhouse historic and auditorium buildings, involves removal of only non-historic structures. The Municipal Code sets standards for preservation and alteration to these cultural resources. Monitoring of work is in place to ensure there are no impacts to protected buildings on the property. For questions or concerns regarding work activities. please contact Senior Planner Stephen Kearns.
20 Lori Goor
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
lain Holt
Monday, November 13, 2023 3:46 PM
Lori Goar
Fwd: Borchard Property
Please see this email for suppleme ntal.

Get Outlook for iOS
From: Kelvin Parker <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 3:42:55 PM
To: lain Holt <[email protected]>; Krystin Rice <[email protected]> Subject: Fw: Borchard Property
FYI -
From: David Newman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 3:31 PM
To: J B <qtltll @yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Borchard Property
Thank you for your email. I appreciate your taking the time to write and to share your concerns.

There is currently no development proposal before the city for development of the Borchard parcel. There is a hearing scheduled Dec. 5 on the General Plan Update, the first revision since 1970 of the city's General Plan. The GP covers many aspects of city life, including land-use designations for all properties citywide.

I encourage you to attend the Dec. 5 City Council meeting on the General Plan Update, either in person or remotely. You will have the opportunity to off er public comme nt at that meeting.

Thanks again for your note.

Best,
David Newman
On Nov 13, 2023, at 2:49 PM, J B <qtltll @yahoo.com> wrote:

You don't often get email from qtltll @yahoo.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Counc il Member ,
21 I am contacting you regarding the Borchard property (vacant site located southwest of the intersection of Borchard Road and Highway 101) being considered for a mixed-use district with a diversity of housing types. This not only angers me but saddens me that you would even give this consideration.

For one thing, this area has been long standing as a wetland. In addition, it is a safeguard for flooding during winter rainstorms, a place for runoff from neighborhoods and hillsides in the area.

Taking habitats away from our native wildlife is not what the Conejo Valley is known for. Those of us who live here, moved here to become one with nature, to enjoy the wildlife and open land while living in a less populated area than our surrounding cities. To take away this flood zone is scary! You may think you can grade the area to not be a flood zone but what happens when those now unexpected storms with unusual rains flood the homes you want to develop there? What will you say to the occupants? Will you be there financially to help them restore everything that will be destroyed, not to mention lives that could be lost? I think not!
Let us also consider the additional traffic that will incur. What happens when we have our fires? How will the people evacuate without being blocked in? How will fire crews have easy access? There are not enough access streets to safely enter and exit the area that you will allow for development. Please keep in mind what just happened in Lahaina, Hawaii.

Is it worth risking the already existing residents along with new residents if you choose to rezone the area? Please think long and hard about what you are about to do. You are the ones that will have to live with the consequences. Here is a quote to keep in mind when you make that final decision - "To say that everything is permitted, is to understand that we are the architects of our actions, and that we must live with their consequences, whether glorious or tragic."
Will you be the one to do what's right, to the lead way for the people, the ones that voted you into office?
Jayne
2 22
1 Sandra Delgado
From: dawn kuznkowski <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2023 6:26 PM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: Borchard Parcel
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To the City Clerk,

I have been a property owner in Thousand Oaks for over 42 years and have seen more than my fair of changes in our city,
both good and bad.

I am extremely concerned about the 36 acre Borchard property in Newbury Park. I have seen this area full of water over the decades, I've seen duck and geese and I've witnessed the "natural wetlands" locals speak of. I have also witnessed the bulldozers constantly scraping this property to nothing over and over to attempt to make it appear barren, but it keeps popping back to life. So the keep scraping all plant life off the property on holidays and holiday weekends which is also telling.

I do not trust the intentions of the people pushing this project forward.

The community of Newbury Park does not want zoning changed on this property and they are tired of the shenanigans to try and push this project onto their neighborhood. We know Jeff Gorrell "rented" office space from the Borchard property owner in question, who also contributed to his campaign. Paying back political favors should not be the reason we accept adaptions to the general plan.

The traffic on the top of the grade is usually backed up going north on the 101 and coming south it usually jams up near the Wendy and Borchard exits on any given day. The traffic is already out of control. I think it's You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 23 2
careless and poor planning to add more traffic and such a dense build on that Borchard land.

There is a reason it was zoned the way it was, please respect that and do not change it.

The property owner was fully aware of the zoning when he purchased the land. Please listen to your constituents and not one individual who wants to profit at the expense of all of us.

I would like to know how you vote on this issue, please keep me informed

Thank you for your time,
Dawn Kuznkowski

24 1
From: Luckett, Kerry <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 1, 2023 6:18 AM
To: [email protected]; Bob Engler; Kevin McNamee; City Clerk's Office; Kelvin Parker; Krystin Rice; David Newman; Mikey Taylor
Subject: Dear City Council - Borchard Parcel and Zoning Importance: High
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council,
As a residen
t of Newbury Park and more speciﬁcally owning property directly connected to the Borchard Parcel (residence @ 610 Nicole Drive) I am encouraging a pause on any re-zoning opƟons for this parcel unƟl a complete development plan can be appropriately analyzed. Changing zoning now, then trying to analyze later makes no sense and would most likely be faced with further complicaƟons/challenges down the road.

The voices of Newbury Park residents should be heard recognizing the Borchard Parcel property owner knowlingly purchased this land with very limited opƟons to develop based on the nature of the property and surrounding community. AddiƟonally the exisƟng residents purchased properƟes knowing the zoning was for residenƟal single family homes, changing that now has a direct impact on all adjacent property owners.

I encourage you to please do the right thing and pause any re-zoning opƟons unƟl the property owner provides the full development plan and more importantly the proper assessments can be performed to conﬁrm or deny such development is appropriate for the area.

Concerned resident
Kerry LuckeƩ
610 Nicole Drive
Newbury Park, CA 91320
805 479 7966
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 25 > On Dec 1, 2023, at 8:25 AM, Jeﬀ Daymude <j eﬀ@jdaymude.com> wrote:
>
> [
You don't o�en get email from jeﬀ@jdaymude.com. Learn why this is important at htps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden�ﬁca�on ]
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza�on. Do not click links or open atachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. >
>
> T
o: The City Council
>
>
I am wri�ng to urge you to keep the Borchard Parcel zoning unchanged for the �me being. Too many ques�ons are unanswered at this �me, examples are emergency evacua�on, traﬃc, eﬀect on current home ownership and values just to name a few. I suggest we have a need for aﬀordable housing not more retail, look at all the unused commercial proper�es in NP since the pandemic has ended. The General plan changes was drawn up just prior and during the pandemic we are now 2 years past and are ﬁnding companies are s�ll not sure how they will employ workers. >
No need to include a zoning change now for this parcel in the General plan. > D
o what’s right for Newbury Park.
>
Thank you for taking the �me to read my correspondence in this mater. >
>
>
Jeﬀ Daymude
> 2444 Litle Creek Circle
>
Newbury Park
> 805
-559-1128
26 On Nov 28, 2023, at 4:58 PM, maria <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mr Taylor:

As a long time resident of Newbury Park I am worried with regard to the final decision for Borchard Property please consider the following:

My concern here is that while I do not disagree with the plan the city has for TO Blvd, The Oaks Mall and Janss Malls; however, changing the 36 acre Borchard Property from the current 160 single home designations to Mixed Use would absolutely not be conducive to the surrounding single family homes in the area. Not to mention the plan for the corner of Rancho Conejo (the property that was sold to the Developer by Amgen), and also on the Old Conejo High School property (corner of Newbury Road and E. Kelly Rd). These projects are not in the backyards of single family homes...I am sure you would not be happy with a 4 story building in your backyard (and since the GP was changed for set-back from existing single family communities from 200' to 100'....) Residents have long been a community that enjoyed limited traffic with the planned ingress and egress paths to be planned would mean possible 1000 cars or more passing through the community. The area is critical for flood hazard mitigation for the surrounding communities...if this area is not a 100 year flood zone then tell me why the surrounding communities have paid for flood insurance for years??? A plan has not been submitted by the owner (this is my understanding) but a plan is not enough...an environmental, traffic, flooding, noise and air impacts need to be done...and police and fire have a say in this decision also as they are already stretched thin with all the current and additional building plans for Thousand Oaks....

And do not forget we had a water restriction last summer...has the water supplier provided a 'Will Serve' letter that they will be able to supply water to the area? And even if the project may have solar will Edison provide the Permission to Operate (PTO) to turn on for usage? Remember that power is still needed in cases of no backup batteries...even if they do; batteries need to be changed 6-10 years and who will be responsible to dispose of the batteries? And where?
REMEMBER once the city approves the change for the land use you lose some control over approving project changes...And that means the TO residents would be the ones paying the price....

Rather than repeat this lengthy mail to your co-councils please share this email with them...

Regards
Maria Shaw
'you may not change the world for all dogs, but you can change the world for one dog - please adopt and alter your pets'
27 1
From: Luckett, Kerry <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 1, 2023 6:18 AM
To: [email protected]; Bob Engler; Kevin McNamee; City Clerk's Office; Kelvin Parker; Krystin Rice; David Newman; Mikey Taylor
Subject: Dear City Council - Borchard Parcel and Zoning Importance: High
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council,
As a resident
of Newbury Park and more speciﬁcally owning property directly connected to the Borchard Parcel (residence @ 610 Nicole Drive) I am encouraging a pause on any re-zoning opƟons for this parcel unƟl a complete development plan can be appropriately analyzed. Changing zoning now, then trying to analyze later makes no sense and would most likely be faced with further complicaƟons/challenges down the road.

Concerned resident
Kerry LuckeƩ
610 Nicole Drive
Newbury Park, CA 91320
805 479 7966
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 28 1
From: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Newbury Parcel Vote
On Dec 1, 2023, at 12:06 AM, Lou Lichtl <lli
[email protected]> wrote:

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

I want to urg
e each of you to approve the planned development of the "Newbury Park Parcel." Our City is on the verge of stagnating and this project will revitalize our community.

I urge you to approve the proposed development of this land.

Thank you for your service.

Lou Lichtl
25 year member of the NP community
Retired Public School Administrator
VCCCD Trustee Area 2
29 > On Nov 30, 2023, at 6:56 PM, Sally Hibbitts <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [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. >
>
> Dear City Council
>
> We are firmly on the side of those concerned residents who believe that the time has come to quite firmly say NO to the property owner of the Borchard proposed development. It is such a totally inappropriate use for that property.
>
> As Planning Commissioner Link indicated….The Borchard property is inappropriate for this kind of development based upon possible flooding, high water table and planned overdevelopment. We believe it will place the city in too much jeopardy in the future when flooding occurs plus is completely incompatible with the neighborhood that is so close by. Also as Planning Commissioner Farris indicated, we believe it does violate the Measure E restraints on excess commercial property and therefore the public should be voting on this development. We can just imagine the amount of litigation that is going to come about because the people were not allowed to have a Measure E required vote on this development.
>
> The Moradian family knew fully well what they were getting into when the father bought the property many years ago. They are just trying to make up for a poor business decision while further risking the people of Thousand Oaks.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Sally and Ken Hibbitts
> Westlake Hills
> 805-750-3119
>
>
30 > On Nov 30, 2023, at 8:15 PM, Carol Kabey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [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. >
>
> David- Just writing regarding the Borchard Parcel area. > The majority of Newbury Park residents are against any big building developments on that parcel. As you know Deer Ridge residents didn’t even want stop signs to be placed in the neighborhood; feeling it would degrade the area and take away from its beauty. Now we are being faced with the possibility of a huge development to be built. It is sad to see corporate and political greed take over small town community values. Our founding fathers understood about setting boundaries to protect our beautiful area, we are counting on the current council to abide by their values. A large scale development on that property will significantly impact all who live in Newbury Park. We are not against growth and homes being built on the parcel. But we need to be smart in the planning. > David- I ask that you vote NO on Tuesday.
> Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Carol Kabey
> 3130 DeerValley Avenue
> Newbury Park, Ca 91320
>
> Sent from my iPhone
31 1
From: Megan Sandoval <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 1, 2023 10:49 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Mikey Taylor; Bob Engler; Kevin McNamee; David Newman; City Clerk's Office; Kelvin Parker; Krystin Rice
Subject: tuesday
[Some people who received this message don't oŌen get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟﬁcaƟon ] 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 City council members, City clerk, planning director and our interim Planning Manger, I am wriƟng to all of you to ask you to please take into consideraƟon the residents of Newbury Park and their concerns. I have lived here since 1994 and like a lot of you, have witnessed many changes.

The upcoming vote on the General Plan is intended to be a plan for the enƟre city, even us residents of the Casa Conejo tract. My main concern is the Borchard Parcel. If I am understanding things correctly, the General Plan can be approved WITHOUT the Borchard Parcel as it is not listed a a potenƟal site on the Housing Element. I do understand that the owner can apply for a land use change in the future aŌer a plan is presented. The applicaƟon would be analyzed at that Ɵme.

I am hoping you will do this. I am not saying that the property owner doesn’t have rights to build, but Mr. Moridian purchased this land from the AdvenƟst Church many years ago at a discounted price due to the building restricƟons aƩached to the property.

I feel like as a Casa Conejo resident, I have no say, or am not being heard. I have valued our City Council all the years I have live here. I am not sure WHY we are feeling like we are pushed aside. We are certainly being vocal about our concerns. As property owners, we too should be given the same consideraƟon.

I appreciate you taking the Ɵme to read this and look forward to Tuesdays meeƟng.

Megan Perry Sandoval
542 KiƩy Street
Newbury Park, Ca 91320
32 1
From: Megan Sandoval <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 1, 2023 10:49 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Mikey Taylor; Bob Engler; Kevin McNamee; David Newman; City Clerk's Office; Kelvin Parker; Krystin Rice
Subject: tuesday
[Some people who received this message don't oŌen get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟﬁcaƟon ] 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.

I appreciate you taking the Ɵme to read this and look forward to Tuesdays meeƟng.

Megan Perry Sandoval
542 KiƩy Street
Newbury Park, Ca 91320
33 > On Dec 1, 2023, at 12:37 PM, melodi Calderwood <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [Y
ou don't oŌen get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟﬁcaƟon ]
>
> 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 Sir
,
>
> Please c
onsider keeping the zoning as is and not adding as many new parcels and businesses as the developer is requesƟng. It would be so sad losing the ease of living in Newbury Park, if you make those changes.
>
> With hope,
>
> Melodi Calderwood
> V
entu Park unincorporated area
>
>
> Se
nt from my iPhone
34 > On Dec 1, 2023, at 10:49 AM, Meg an Sandoval <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [Som
e people who received this message don't oŌen get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟﬁcaƟon ] >
> 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 City
council members, City clerk, planning director and our interim Planning Manger, >
>
I am wriƟng to all of you to ask you to please take into consideraƟon the residents of Newbury Park and their concerns. I have lived here since 1994 and like a lot of you, have witnessed many changes. >
> The upcoming vote on the General Plan is intended to be a plan for the enƟre city, even us residents of the Casa Conejo tract. My main concern is the Borchard Parcel. If I am understanding things correctly, the General Plan can be approved WITHOUT the Borchard Parcel as it is not listed a a potenƟal site on the Housing Element. I do understand that the owner can apply for a land use change in the future aŌer a plan is presented. The applicaƟon would be analyzed at that Ɵme. >
> I am hoping you will do this. I am not saying that the property owner doesn’t have rights to build, but Mr. Moridian purchased this land from the AdvenƟst Church many years ago at a discounted price due to the building restricƟons aƩached to the property.
>
> I feel like as a Casa Conejo resident, I have no say, or am not being heard. I have valued our City Council all the years I have live here. I am not sure WHY we are feeling like we are pushed aside. We are certainly being vocal about our concerns. As property owners, we too should be given the same consideraƟon.
>
> I appreciate you taking the Ɵme to read this and look forward to Tuesdays meeƟng. >
> Megan Perry Sandoval
>
> 542 KiƩy Street
> Ne
wbury Park, Ca 91320
35 From: Lou Lichtl <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 1, 2023 3:17 PM
To: David Newman <[email protected]>
Cc: KaƟe Morris <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Newbury Parcel Vote
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.

Upon my further review and clariﬁcaƟon, it appears that while there is no speciﬁc project that will come before the Council, this is a zoning issue that may lead to a future project that may or may not include mixed use housing. Is that accurate?
As a resident of NP for the last 25 years I sƟll consider myself as being new to the community while having enough history to weigh in. What I have seen over the last 15 years is considerable growth in neighboring communiƟes, namely Camarillo and Oxnard, while our community has been somewhat stagnant. This has contributed to a decrease in the CVUSD enrollment as well as the potenƟal loss of revenue to our wonderful community. I understand the concerns of added traﬃc to the NP area at the 101 Freeway and Borchard Road, but I have to believe that these concerns can, as they should, be addressed through the planning process. I remember the outcry when Dos Vientos was in the process of being built, especially with the issue of traﬃc and the percent grade on Borchard but those issues have not created any adverse impacts; this too will be worked out.

Please know that I value what you oﬀer and bring to the greater Conejo Valley in general, and urge you to vote in favor of this item and in doing so pave the way for potenƟal housing and growth in our community.

Sincerely,
Lou Lichtl, Resident of NP for 25 years
36 3221 Hutchison Avenue, Suite D, Los Angeles, CA 90034 ◆ Phone (310) 838-2400 ◆ FAX (310) 838-2424 December 1, 2023
Via Electronic Mail
Honorable Mayor McNamee and City Councilmembers
Thousand Oaks City Council
2100 E. Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
RE: City Council Item 10.A, General Plan 2045
Case Nos. 2019-70760-GPA, 2022-70558-EIR, 2018-70723-HSG We appreciate this opportunity to provide a public comment o n behalf of GJS, LLC (“GJS”), owner of the commercial property at 550 N. Moorpark Road ( APN 6690021010, southeast corner of Moorpark and Wilbur Roads in the Moorpark Road/Janss Marketplace sub -area) in the City of Thousand Oaks (“City”) since 2005. Currently occupied by a bank, the existing building on GJS’ property recently sat vacant for a five-year period. This long vacancy period reflects a citywide trend where commercial properties at prime locations (such as the Moorpark Road/Janss Marketplace sub-area) remain vacant or underutilized. These vacancies are due to evolving economic conditions and rigid zoning regulations that have made it very challenging to attract new tenants (including lack of mixed-use zoning options and high vehicular parking requirements).

GJS strongly supports the General Plan’s vision for the Moorpark Road/Janss Marketplace sub-area, including the Mixed-Use land use designation proposed for their property and Goal LU-16 (and associated Policies 16.1 through 16.5) , which envisions a mixed -use, walkable future for Moorpark Road, between Thousand Oaks Boulevar d and Wilbur Road . This Moorpark Road segment is the optimal location for mixed -use development because it is a designated Transit Route (Draft EIR Figure 4.11-3) adjacent to multi-family neighborhoods and within walking distance of offices and major retail destinations, including Janss Marketplace, The Oaks, and Village at Moorpark. The Mixed-Use designation would help achieve General Plan and associated Climate & Environmental Action Plan goals to provide more housing opportunities in a manner that complements the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhood, and to reduce climate change impacts and improve quality of life by contributing to a more walkable neighborhood where residents can live, work, shop, and play.

Thank you for the hard work your City Council has put into this effort, alongside City staff and the Planning Commission. We appreciate the consideration you are giving to feedback from diverse constituents, including the commercial property owners who play a critical role in contributing to the Thousand Oaks economy and revitalizing the City’s commercial corridors. If you have any questions, please contact me at [email protected] or (310) 838-2400 x110.

Sincerely,
Shane Stuart Swerdlow, Vice President
Craig Lawson & Co., LLC
Craig Lawson & Co., LLC
Land Use Consultants
37 From
: Rodney Love <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 1, 2023 7:15 PM
To: City Clerk's Office <[email protected]>
Subject: �� versus �� CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I am a Newbury Park Resident (80 Northam Av), concerned about changing the zoning of the ‘Borchard Parcel’ which would allow for all the negative consequences of terrible traffic increase, restricted access roads, and especially Hi-Rise Hi-Density buildings next to and overlooking the single family homes there.

And not even needed for our Housing Element !
The most popular and beneficial use of that land would be to leave it alone, to let it flourish as a self-sustaining Natural Habitat.

From NextDoor:
“The ‘dirt lot’ that is the Borchard Parcel planned development - is only that because the owner/potential developer keeps it tilled, not letting much grow, because he sees that keeping it as a dirt lot benefits him, by people thinking that ‘oh it’s only a dirt lot’….!!
Naturally, left alone, because it’s so moist with its high water table close to the surface, it would become an abundant flourishing beautiful wildlife habitat, that could be a wonderful natural verdant area for the benefit and enjoyment of everyone… Self-sustaining, with little expenditure or maintenance required.” ��
My qu
estion is whether the City has any means of ‘persuasion’ or ‘influence’ over the owner to steer him towards some sort of non-development or alternate-use agreement, or some compromise for the sake of a lot of goodwill and benefit to the whole community….

If t
his is not possible, then please help to keep the current zoning for this parcel, and not change it to ‘mixed use’.
�� versus �� Anyway, see you Dec 5th. Best to you -Rodney Love.
cvasp.org
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 38 1
From: Mic Farris <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 1, 2023 8:04 PM
To: City Clerk's Office
Cc: David Newman; Bob Engler; Kevin McNamee; Al Adam; Mikey Taylor Subject: Change to GP overlooked in Council packet materials CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

City Council and City Clerk:

On page 2,566 of Attachment 1 (PC Staff Report Attachments and Supplementals), with the heading of "(7) Revision in language regarding Civic Arts Plaza history", a recommended change to language about the history of the Civic Arts Plaza was made, since the existing language is historically inaccurate.

During the Planning Commission hearing of November 13, Staff agreed that this language should be amended accordingly (please see minute 42:54 of the Planning Commission hearing - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwlJaoa8sA4). However, this correction is not included in the updated Addenda and Errata (Exhibit D) as recommended. Please include this language change as part of any General Plan update approval.

Also, please check #43 in the Addenda and Errata (Exhibit D) - the "Janet and Ray Sherr Forum" should read as the "Janet and Ray Scherr Forum"
Thanks,
Mic Farris
39 1
From: Lou Pupich <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 1, 2023 9:39 PM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: A plea
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.

Tuesday will be a very decisive day in the future of Newbury Park with regard to the vo te on the General Plan. I
can go on and be flowery and detailed about what is at stake, but the letters to the editor in the current issue of The Acorn. pretty much reflect my feelings on the issue of the Borchard property. I deeply encouraged you to keep in mind the feeling of your constituents and vote to maintain a sense of quality of life that brought me here, 22 years ago, from Chicago. I understand the need for progress, but the proposed change to the Borchard property is not the answer.

Lou Pupich
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 40 1
From: Glenna Hayes <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 2, 2023 9:18 AM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: Changes to the General Plan
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.

Many of us (your constituen
ts) are concerned about proposed alterations to the General Plan. As a homeowner in Thousand Oaks, I want to preserve the best attributes of this community! Any plans should be very well-thought-out because they can't be reversed. You don't get open space and natural resources back, once they're gone. When housing values drop, they rarely rebound. Where the population increases, the infrastructure must increase (like it or not).

Overgrowth, pollution, traffic and higher noise levels replace what was a refuge.

So, before you vote, please consider the changes that will naturally result. They will certainly alter the character of your community.

Thank you,
Glenna Hayes
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 41 From: Chuck Cohen <ccoh
[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 2, 2023 12:41:56 PM
To: Andrew Powers <[email protected]>
Cc: Iain Holt <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan reminder re SDA North Campus
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.

Drew,
This is a reminder
that Fore Properties, under contract with SDA Conference to purchase the some 300 acres of the North Campus for apartment housing, with a strong affordable unit component, would prefer the upcoming General Plan to designate the said property Residential rather than necessitate a General Plan Amendment after the update becomes effective. Among the benefits of a such a designation at this time is to take credit for replacement of currently, but not feasible for housing, residentially zoned parcels in the City. More germane, it is our opinion that the subject property is ideally located and suited for residential use and RHNA satisfaction. Just briefly, it is miles away from single family housing north of the US 101, it has a regional shopping center within walking distance, it will be connected by a multi-million dollar new road, at developer’s expense, joining Wendy Drive North to Rancho Conejo, thus enabling home to employment without trips on Hillcrest Drive or the Ventura Freeway, plus.

I refer to the above request as a reminder rather than a formal request, recognizing the status of the City’s Housing Element (though still not certified) and General Plan land use map.

Please circulate this email to the members of the City Council.

Respectfully,
Chuck Cohen
42 From: Chuck Cohen <[email protected]>
Date: December 2, 2023 at 1:38:14 PM PST
To: Andrew Powers <[email protected]>
Cc: Iain Holt <[email protected]>, Albert Cohen <[email protected]>, Thomas Cohen <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan update
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.

Drew and Iain
,
There ought to be further consideration of designating the Cohan Albertson’s Shopping Center on Reino Road at Maurice Drive to Town Center and Mixed-Use. Albert Cohen and our shop missed the recognition of said Center plus the vacant parcel as meeting the Town Center criteria of at least 10 acres, which it does. There is no current expectation of modifying said Center, but it makes perfect sense to underly it as Mixed Use in the event of further deterioration of retail generally and the possibility of one of the two majors—Albertson’s an d CVS—vacating in the future; distant future at worst case, we hope. Bed, Bath and Beyond is an apt example of the unexpected.

I am uncertain whether the proposed version of the General Plan explains the calculation of acreage when determining density. I believe that it calls for gross rather than net acreage, but just in case I am forwarding two recent letters from HCD to the cities of Agoura Hills and Watsonville, which cover the matter, and add flavor to the State’s vigor in adding housing wherever possible. That goes to the point that the Cohan vacant parcel is of sufficient size and location to maximize its unit count rather than limiting it based on neighborhood input. A new housing application is expected to be forthcoming upon the General Plan becoming effective. Obviously, Mr. Cohan would prefer that the changes take place now concurrent with Tuesday’s hearing. Actually, he has a point in that the sooner housing can be built, the better for his investment purposes, but also for the community and RHNA compliance.

I will be at the podium for a short presentation on Tuesday in support of the current General Plan, but available to answer questions about the Cohan property.

Please distribute this email to all council members in advance of the hearing.

Chuck Cohen
43 1
From: Hurdle Family <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 3, 2023 8:55 AM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: Borchard Property
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Sir/Ma'am,
I am writing to you today to express my concern regarding the Borchard property. As property owners in Newbury Park, we would like to have our voices heard.

We strongly encourage leaving the Borchard property as currently zoned. We have grave concerns about the potential change that would affect the fabric of Newbury Park and the emergency evacuation routes which seem to be taxed to the limit. In addition, we would like to express that we do not wish to take away the rights of the property owner, but we certainly don’t want those rights expanded beyond what was purchased originally. I strongly believe in the rights of the homeowners in our area.

Thank you for your consideration,
Andrew and Kriss Hurdle, Newbury Park
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 44 1
From: Work Office <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 3, 2023 10:08 AM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: Fwd: Borchard Parcel Zoning
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.

Good Morning City Clerk,
My family and I have lived on the str
eet right next to "Earth's" which is perpendicular to Michael Drive since 1989. We live 5 houses away from the "Borchard Parcel" that was purchased 40 years ago and zoned for single-family homes. We have been very fortunate to live in this area and really appreciate and are grateful for the less dense feeling of the single family home zoning. Since the development of "Dos Vientos" the traffic is almost unbearable especially when school is in session and anything other than just single family zoning would just make things worse.

We do not want to take away the rights of the property owner, but we don’t want those rights to be expanded beyond what was purchased over 40 years ago. The homeowners in the area have property rights too. Concern over how changing the 36 acres from Residential to Mixed Use, which could allow either residential or commercial uses, will affect the character of Newbury Park including traffic and emergency evacuation routes which are already overwhelmed.

Please do not ignore the will of the thousands of residents who are directly affected by this.

Single family home zoning should remain as single family home zoning.

Kindly,
Michael and Carla Falcone
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 45 September 15th, 2023
City of Thousand Oaks
2110 E. Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, California 91362
RE: Recommendation to Improve Thousand Oaks General Plan Draft Dear Councilmembers,
We, the eight undersigned community leaders and organizations, support the City of Thousand Oaks General Plan 2045 along with the following recommendations. The General Plan is of critical importance in addressing the imminent threat of the climate crisis and securing a sustainable and resilient future for Thousand Oaks.

The General Plan presents an opportunity for the City to respond to current and future environmental conditions, ensuring a safe, equitable, and resilient community. We urge the Council to enact these thirty (30) actionable steps proposed here to improve the plan’s effectiveness and impact.

Mobility
The mobility chapter presents an opportunity to shift the City of Thousand Oaks towards more diverse multi-modal transportation options. Diversifying our transportation and shifting away from a car-centric community garners a myriad of social, public health, and environmental benefits, as transportation accounts for by far the largest proportion of emissions in the city. Particulates and ozone from car exhaust leads to asthma and other poor health outcomes, particularly in those census tracts identified in the Public Health and Equity chapter, which scored above the 75th percentile threshold for diesel particulate matter and traffic impacts. We encourage the 46 City to include the following actions in the mobility chapter for improved environmental and health outcomes for the residents of Thousand Oaks:

1. Bus service improvements:
a. Include Sunday bus service
b. Expand service to include later hours (past 8:00 pm) c. Increase and improve crosswalks for convenience and safety when accessing bus stops
Maximizing ridership will help reduce the negative impacts from traffic, while increasing transportation accessibility for community members.

2. Bike lanes and pedestrian infrastructure:
a. Plan for, and implement class IV (protected) bike lanes around densely populated areas and schools, especially connecting Moorpark Road, Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Hillcrest Drive, and Erbes Road
b. Implement sidewalk improvements, high-visibility crosswalks, crossing improvements, and corridor improvement
Investing in protected bicycle lanes has significant potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, lower transport costs, prevent road fatalities for all road users, and improve quality of life.

3. Bicycle infrastructure:
a. Goal 3.5 should be expanded to include all new housing developments, not just mixed use
b. Implementation action M-A.5. should specifically include bicycle storage at apartment complexes
c. Implementation action M-A.5. should be expanded to include EV Bike chargers When bicycling infrastructure is readily available community members will see bicycling as a viable alternative to automotive transportation.

4. Set timeline for finalizing Thousand Oaks Boulevard lane diet study Road diets enhance safety, increase mobility and access for all road users, and help to create a "complete streets" environment to accommodate a variety of transportation modes.

5. Parking:
a. Require property managers to unbundle parking, this is where parking is sold or rented separately.
b. Develop a dividend-account parking program for city employees. c. Re-imagine parking in the Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific plan, including paid on-street parking, and opening up parking to the public at the civic center. 47 d. Remove section 9-4.2402 of the municipal code (parking minimums) and put the onus on the developer to decide parking.

When parking is unbundled from a lease agreement, people pay only for parking they need and avoid the hidden costs of free parking. A dividend-account parking system will reward employees that do not use their allotted parking space to reduce single- passenger trips. Decreasing the amount of individual parking lots can have significant impacts on stormwater systems, energy demands, carbon emissions, community health, and a city's finances.

Parks and Open Space
Parks are not only a valuable asset for play and socialization, they also can provide climate-smart green spaces that help our community adapt to climate impacts by providing shade, reducing temperatures and flooding impacts, and can help to sequester carbon. Cooperating on projects with Conejo Recreation and Park District would benefit our community and help future-proof our city.

1. Energy
a. Generate energy for park facilities onsite with solar power b. Install EV chargers at parks
c. Install microgrids to create areas of community resilience

2. Stormwater Retention
a. Encourage the use of permeable paving materials in hardscape areas; swale designs in landscape or grassy areas; and the discharge of roof drainage into pervious, greenbelt, and seepage pit areas to slow runoff, maximize infiltration, and reduce downstream impacts from development.

3. Cooling Centers
a. Include heat-relieving amenities like misters and ample overhead shade

4. California Native Landscaping
a. Incorporate California native plants into all parks projects b. Expand the city’s tree canopy in heat-stressed neighborhoods Trust for Public Land assessed parks in 100 of the most populous cities in the US, and found that 85% of them are adapting their parks to address climate change with things like EV chargers, and bioswales. Park acres, it turns out, are very good at buffering the effects of climate change. Green space has the power to lower air temperature and absorb flood water, and can be designed in such a way as to significantly enhance those climate benefits.

Conservation
48 Conservation of our natural environment can help address many societal problems such as the climate crisis and water and food scarcity. The goals and actions in this chapter can help the City of Thousand Oaks address the dual problems of climate adaptation for humans and many other species as well as climate mitigation as our native habitats act as climate refugia, reduce temperatures, store carbon, and filter and store groundwater.

1. Wetlands and Riparian Habitat
a. Add a goal in C-9 to ensure the groundwater utilization project at Los Robles Golf Course does not affect oaks and other groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs). The City should 1) confirm the presence of GDE’s in the basin, and 2) incorporate mitigation of undesirable impacts to these GDE’s, including oak stands, in the further refinement of minimum thresholds, and thereby inform the sustainable yield of the basin with all beneficial users in mind.

To manage a groundwater basin sustainably, minimum thresholds are developed: this is the numerical line in the sand not to be crossed, going beyond this measure at basin wells results in not sustainably withdrawing water and there will be undesirable results on beneficial users of basin water. Beneficial users are people and environmental users– groundwater dependent ecosystems. Oaks, like the many majestic valley oaks in Thousand Oaks can use groundwater at around depths of 80 feet, but the minimum thresholds set for several wells in the Conejo valley basin are much lower than this rooting depth

2. Wildlife Connectivity
a. Add a goal in C-7 for a wildlife connectivity analysis within the City of Thousand Oaks to explore wildlife-vehicle collision hotspots and improvements to connectivity across the city with interventions like modified culverts Urban wildlife is transiting through the City of Thousand Oaks and utilizing the regional Santa Monica-Sierra Madre linkage. This movement should be evaluated and accounted for as improved wildlife connectivity reduces frequency, collision costs and improves driver safety. Improved connectivity also helps species adjust to the impacts of climate change by allowing for range shifts.

3. Air Quality
a. Under 10.2, actions encouraging less use of gasoline or diesel can be amplified by mandating hydrogen dispensers and electric vehicle charging stations at petrol stations. Also require EV charging infrastructure in new developments, commercial and municipal parking. b. Incentivize landowners to make land available for charging. Cities can provide tax incentives and other revenues to landowners who enable EV charging on their sites.

Primary sources of air pollution in Thousand Oaks are from vehicles, affecting several disadvantaged communities (tracts 69, 70, 71). Every municipality has a responsibility to protect its citizens from air pollution and help meet its basin’s air quality standards. 49 Additionally, we now all have a duty to protect the planet from climate polluting gasses.

Reducing emissions by incentivizing EV usage can help reduce the impacts of emissions on the most pollution burdened citizens, and help the City reach its climate goals.

Safety
The actions presented in this chapter help protect the community from natural and human-induced hazards and build resilience to projected climate change risks. Disaster resilience and preparedness are increasingly prioritized locally and regionally out of necessity due to our changing climate. The City of Thousand Oaks has opportunities with its 2045 General Plan to introduce actions that serve to bolster community safety while also contributing to climate mitigation and regional ecological resilience.

1. Flood Hazards
a. We are excited to see in goal 4.1 that the City is dedicated to not increasing flood inundation potential offsite
b. Goal 4.7 creates concern as it calls for removing parcels from the 100 year floodplain at a time when regions are experiencing unprecedented pulse events and urban flooding. When considering this action, include the most up to date climate change modeling and not just flood insurance rate maps. c. Encourage the use of permeable paving materials in hardscape areas; swale designs in landscape or grassy areas; and the discharge of roof drainage into pervious, greenbelt, and seepage pit areas to slow runoff, maximize infiltration, and reduce downstream impacts from development.
d. Conduct a study on the implementation of a storm water runoff impact fee program in order to incentivize the construction of pervious infrastructure.

A gap exists between data entered into a FEMA risk map or a FIRM (insurance rate map) and current climate conditions. A one in 100-year deluge is now more likely to be a one in 20 year event. FEMA maps do not reflect the mapping of urban flooding, caused by short duration intense rainfall–an event that is happening with more frequency as a result of climate change. Every square foot of impervious surface generates 3 feet of runoff each year, in a system with 45 inches a year. Decreasing impervious infrastructure can reduce flood events and improve water quality–a high priority for this city as most of the census tracts in the city, including the three identified disadvantaged communities (Tracts 69, 70, and 71), scored above the 75th percentile threshold for impaired water bodies.

2. Wildfires
a. We are pleased to see in goal 5.5 that the city will take a science-based approach to fuels management
b. Goal 5.11 should include best management practices for fire management/ reduction that take into account the most up to date science and ecological practices for Southern California wildfires. For example, focus on home 50 hardening, invasive removal, ember barriers and ignition reduction in Southern California where fires are wind driven not fuels driven.

One great source of information for the most up to date science on Southern California wildfires can be found through the California Wildfire and Forest Resilience Task Force, a collaborative effort created by the Newsom Administration to align activities of federal, state, local, public, private, and tribal organizations to support programs and projects tailored to the risks of each region. The Southern California Regional Profile describes that human-caused ignitions, drought stress, and invasion by flammable non-native grasses have increased the severity and risk of fires in shrublands and chaparral in Southern California, and that these habitats used to burn only once every 30-130 years pre-settlement.

3. Climate Change Mitigation
a. While we are encouraged by this section, we would like to see the City take bolder action with goal 7.4 and require electrification in all new developments.

Buildings are the second largest source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the City of Thousand Oaks, and compared to transportation, a relatively accessible source of GHG’s to address. GHG’s destabilize our climate contributing to unsafe local conditions such as increased risk of wildlife and flooding, in addition, natural gas in homes is unsafe for communities in earthquake prone areas as gas pipelines can shift during seismic events causing leaks or fires. Even without the risk of earthquakes, gas pipelines are unsafe; every four days, on average, a gas pipeline incident kills or hospitalizes someone and/or causes a fire and/or explosion. Natural gas in homes is also unsafe for indoor air quality, especially for small children as burning gas inside our homes produces toxic indoor air pollution, including: nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitric oxide, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and ultrafine particulates.

4. Climate Resilience
a. Incorporate into the Heat Response goal 6.7 the identification and implementation of emergency cooling centers, such as libraries, senior centers, parks and recreation sites, with ample public transportation, to shelter groups of people during extreme heat periods.

Emergency cooling centers are becoming a best practice for helping reduce deaths, particularly of vulnerable community members such as the elderly, to the increased heat impacts caused by climate change. These cooling centers should be properly advertised, located throughout the city, and have transportation options available to and from them.

We are grateful for the City’s commitment with the 2045 General Plan to ensure the protection of green open space, a multi-modal transportation system and complete streets plan, equitable park access, nature-based solutions to flooding and science informed management of 51 wildlands. We believe with the above recommendations, the General Plan will be even more effective at protecting the City’s resources, accommodating for the impacts of climate change, and ensuring the health and safety of the City's residents. By embracing the proposed recommendations, Thousand Oaks can establish itself as a forward-thinking model for cities in California and beyond, showcasing its dedication to a sustainable and climate-resilient future.

Sincerely,
Kat Selm
Cofounder
Conejo Climate Coalition
Kathleen Wheeler
Cofounder
Ventura Climate Coalition
Faith Grant
Chapter Co-Lead
Citizens’ Climate Lobby Ventura County
Haley Ehlers
Executive Director
CFROG
Clint Fultz
Team Leader
Chalice Climate Action Team
Anna Rosa
Network Manager
CCCJN
Piper Jackson
Team Lead
Ventura County YIMBY
Farah Stack
Climate Policy Associate
Community Environmental Council
52 1
From: fernando nocedal <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 3, 2023 5:07 PM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: The Borchard Property
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk:

December 3rd, 2023
to: T.O. City Council Members and Planning Commission
Subject: Borchard Property: one last message!

1. I am one of the many volunteers that gathered signatures in Newbury Park to oppose the change of land use of the Borchard property. As you know 92% of the people that opened their doors and listened to our statement agreed to sign.

2. I hope that the City Council members are kind enough to LISTEN to what their constituents ha
ve to say: 92% of N.P. oppose this change.

3. We do not oppose the development of single family homes, which is what the property was zoned for originally. A few hundred more residents would be welcome. We oppose the change to MIXED use because the number of additional residents in a mixed use case could be several THOUSAND !!.

4. There is no PLAN for the development of this mixed use community. How can you approve a change if there is NO PLAN?

5. A change of the area to mixed use will cause a loss of property value estimated of at least 10% ( $80K on average for each house ) to HUNDREDS of homes in the Casa Conejo area. In exchange for what? The massive equity increase to the property of ONE individual. How does the benefit of ONE individual have priority over the loss to HUNDREDS of residents?

6. The Borchard property is basically LANDLOCKED. There is no traffic ARTERY to the property as it stands now. THIS IS A MA
JOR ISSUE.

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 53 2

7. If for some reason this property ends up being upgraded to mixed use, the ONLY way the area could be functional is if the city opens one traffic ARTERY. Where? It would have to be a derivative of the existing 101 -Borchard exit ramp; some kind of frontage road. Otherwise, thousands of cars would need to find their way through very few narrow existing residential streets in Casa Conejo to the detriment of the residents. Has this been taken into account?

8. Please do not change the land use now. Only after a real, well designed, well thought- out and well-analyzed plan is presented and approved could this change occur. Please do not put the cart in front of the horse!
Respectfully,
Fernando Nocedal, Ph.D.

CASA CONEJO resident of 4 years.

Tel: 408 340 3615
54 1
From: Kathy Wagner <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 3, 2023 11:40 PM
To: Kevin McNamee; Bob Engler; Al Adam; David Newman; Mikey Taylor Cc: Kelvin Parker; Krystin Rice; City Clerk's Office
Subject: General Plan and the Borchard Property
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello Mayor McNamee, Co
uncil Members Adam, Engler, Newman, and Taylor:

My name is Kathy Wagner and I currently live in Newbury Park and have lived in Conejo Valley for most of my life. I moved here as little girl and at that time the only way to travel between Newbury Park and Thousand Oaks was to use the freeway.

The purpose of this email is to provide comment on the vote regarding the General Plan and concerns with the Borchard property. With so many issues impacting the area I live in and travel throughout the day, please do not rush the Borchard property and consider removing it from the General Plan vote.

After reading the Acorn articles and letters to the editor here are my concerns:
 Hate to sacrifice Newbury Park for the city plan and feel that Newbury Park residents who drive these neighborhoods at various times of day and in various conditions are not being heard. So please remove the Borchard property and approve the rest of the plan.
 My understanding the owner of the property can present a plan for the property in the future. I live close to Micheal and Borchard and due to traffic, adjust my driving routes, often going around and avoid the intersection. Approving the Borchard property in the General Plan does not allow for the analysis for this area and what else is needed for Newbury Park with any change.  Take time to make ensure Measure E is not violated. Measure E passed for a reason. I've seen how neighborhood plans and developments start one way and years later end up wonky. Several little fixes over the years have made several of these. As more development was done and traffic increased with few routes in and out of Newbury Park, I have in my neighborhood speed bumps and a street that never went through.

I am hopeful that the Borchard property will be removed from the General Plan vote, allowing the General Plan to move forward without sacrificing Newbury Park. Pausing on the Borchard property will allow time needed for this area.

Thank you,
Kathy Wagner
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 55 2
Get Outlook for iOS
56 On Dec 2, 2023, at 3:33 PM, Laurie Wolfrey Garcia <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [Some people who received this message don't oŌen get email from > [email protected]. Learn why this is important at > hƩ ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟ ﬁcaƟon ]
>
> 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. >
>
> Hello
>
I am
a former city of Thousand Oaks employee (6 years) in the Planning and Community Development Department and I bought a home in Newbury Park six years ago! >
> I moved here due to the small town feel of this community ! >
> I do not agree with the large commercial Buildings and hotel along > Newbury Road ! This will cause too much congesƟon And too much extensive Infrastructure which our small town cannot handle! Especially with the Borchard Parcel ! This is a hazard for our community !
>
> You are in a ﬁduciary posiƟon to do what is best for our community and not special or personal interests !
>
> I appreciate a response
>
> Thank you
> Laurie Garcia
> Northam Avenue resident in Newbury Park
>
>
57 From: Michelle Koetke <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 10:21 AM
To: Bob Engler <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan Update Borchard parcel
I want to address a topic that many have made difficult when it is in fact a clear case of public policy and safety. Others will say that the council’s vote is bought and paid for. I am not yet this cynical. I believe the council, will, just as the planning commission has, exclude the flawed Borchard project and find it wanting.

The reason you serve the city as a council member is that many are counting on you to listen to the people, use your logic and knowledge of the city, and proceed with care.

What you are not here to do is rush headlong into an ill-conceived project that will condemn residents to unsafe conditions for decades to come.

We want affordable housing. We need affordable housing. We do not want or need hazardous conditions on our residential streets.

These are not mutually exclusive goals. We can move forward in a rational fashion.

Any resident can readily see the issues: bottleneck traffic that threatens our emergency evacuation plan, pedestrian safety hazards as commercial traffic enters/blocks streets, and precedent setting decisions that will doom us to development that exceeds our infrastructure’s capacity and exceeds the provisions of measure E. Newbury Park has rejected this proposal.

You can approve the general plan AND omit the Borchard parcel as a threat to our health, safety, and environment. We do not need mixed use on the Borchard property.

It is not nor has it ever been zoned as such.

Your decision to omit will stand either as a moment of courage or as a caving to the pressure of monied interests who want to sell us on a personal pipe dream that will be, when built, a nightmare.

I urge you to stand strong and enforce the city and county’s policies.

Michelle Koetke
909 Cayo Grande Ct.

Newbury Park, CA 91320
58 December 5, 2023
Mayor Kevin McNamee
Thousand Oaks City Council
2100 Thousand Oaks Blvd
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
Re: General Plan 2045
Dear Mayor McNamee and Councilmembers,
For nearly 30 years, Caruso has been an integral member of the Thousand Oaks community since opening the Village at Moorpark, The Promenade at Westlake and The Lakes at Thousand Oaks. We take great pride in the role our properties play in the community, serving as beloved destinations and gathering places for local neighbors, friends and families.

We care deeply about the future of Thousand Oaks and greatly appreciate the vibrant long-term vision for the city which the General Plan provides. It is evident how much preparation and robust outreach went into the General Plan. We think it will be an extremely beneficial tool that will help the city flourish and thrive over the next 20 years.

We are very grateful for the tremendous effort by city staff, the advisory committee, local residents and our elected city leaders for their diligent efforts in preparing this important plan and we look forward to its adoption.

Sincerely,
Corinne Verdery
Chief Executive Officer
Caruso
59 From: Rachel Wright <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 9:12 AM
To: Bob Engler <[email protected]>
Subject: Public comment on 10A- General Plan 2045
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Councilman Engler,
My name is Rachel Wright I grew up in Newbury Park for the first 18 years of my life, and love this city for its safety and beauty among other things. I have gone on to get a Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Management, which was largely influenced by growing up in an area surrounded by beautiful natural landscapes. However, I would like to express my frustration and concern for the land use change at the Borchard Wetland.

This open space is crucial for collection of runoff water from storms, maintaining water quality, and habitat for migratory birds and other California native species.

While Thousand Oaks is a growing city, it is important to make sure there is scientific proof that this project will not cause more harm than good. Initial studies/ scientific studies should be done in the wet season to determine the true impacts of the wetland area. Without this, there is no way of truly understanding the benefits this area is currently providing us; if the land use changes and the land is developed, we will not know the impacts of not having this open space until it is too late.

I believe that the land use should not change at the Borchard Wetland site. Proper studies have to be done in the wet season to determine the services this land provides for us, such as flood control, water quality control, habitat for species, and aesthetic impacts from the State Highway. If the land use is changed, there is potential for flooding, which can damage new construction as well as residents of current homes and even possible flooding overflow on the 101.

I would love to see my local officials listen to what residents have to say about not changing the land use for the Borchard Wetland and go through with proper scientific studies before making such decisions.

Thank you for your time,
Rachel Wright
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 60 1
From: Randy M <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 10:58 AM
To: [email protected]; Mikey Taylor; Bob Engler; Kevin McNamee; David Newman; City Clerk's Office; Kelvin Parker; Krystin Rice; Al Adam
Cc: Jennifer Meru
Subject: Borchard Parcel _ Let's Leave It Alone _ Randy Meru [Some people who received this message don't oŌen get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟﬁcaƟon ]
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.

Good Day,
I’m a born naƟve of Newbury Park and have lived here all 38 years of my life, excluding Ɵme away at college and a church mission. My wife and I are now raising our family, 4 kids with one on the way and we love it here, my family loves it here. Our biggest concern raising our family here is how crowded and over built we seem to be geƫng. More and more development plans seem to be popping up. I’m worried we are heading toward the “Valley” mentality. That’s not what Newbury Park / Thousand Oaks is all about, nor what your predecessors planned and zoned our beauƟful area to be.

For what its worth, I oppose changing the zoning of the Borchard Parcel, and oppose developments that will bring more traﬃc, more congesƟon, and a “Valley” like impact to our long standing, quite neighborhoods. Please take this into consideraƟon when making votes that will impact our city, the people, and families of Newbury Park.

Sincerely,
Randy Meru
805-279-2638
61 From: John Muldoon <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 6:37 AM
To: Bob Engler <[email protected]>
Subject: T.O. City Council Votes to Transform Conejo Valley into San Fernando Valley 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.

Bob,
I hope yo
u agree with me an outcome as described in my subject would not be a good thing. But approval of the general plan with high density commercial and residential development for the "Borchard Property" would do exactly that.

Much of our populace fled the San Fernando Valley due to the its conversion from suburban to urban life. My next door neighbor is an executive with Skyworks and he said he'd leave Newbury Park if a high density plan was approved for the Borchard property which we live two blocks from. This is exactly why he moved his wife and three kids here from Newbury Park.

We need your strength and leadership to prevent the urbanization of our beautiful Conejo Valley. The Planning and Development committee knew it would be a huge mistake to approve high density housing and commercial development for that lot. They used common sense and prudently wouldn't allow a boondoggle as proposed to go forward. Likewise it's imperative the city council follow their lead.

Thank you. I'll be at the CC meeting on Tuesday with many of my neighbors and we'll be counting on you!
John Muldoon
Cameo Tract
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 62 From: steve woodward <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 10:32 AM
To: David Newman <[email protected]>
Cc: Katie Morris <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: I support the General plan as-is
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.

David,
In light of Jes
s' expose on the Borchard property and in light of the position state law will put us in relative to "Builder's Remedy" in January of 2024 I don't think there is much of a logical choice on this matter.

For the Council to let us fall into a situation of Builder's Remedy and end up with some monstrosity's in Thousand Oaks would be a breach of your ethical responsibility to the Thousand Oaks "Ethos" of trying our best to maintain low-profile buildings, and construction that fits well into our city.

To ignore Jess' expose and favor non-development of the Borchard property would also be an ethical breach to the facts. There is not a single leg to stand on for defending the Borchard property in light of the facts, which we all now know.

In fact, if we fall victim to Builder's Remedy, it would be most likely that the Borchard Property would be developed in an irresponsible fashion by the highest bidder for that property. Now wouldn't THAT be a legacy for you???
The only possible reason I can think for you to vote against the General Plan would be to favor yourself for re-election by favoring the open-space voters. By the way, I AM an open-space voter, however, I am also an ethical voter and I pay SHARP attention to truth and ethics.

I hope you will vote YES on the General Plan. I believe your personal legacy depends upon it.

Sincerely Yours,
-Steve Woodward
818-288-0803 if you wish to discuss personally.

On Nov 29, 2023, at 5:35 PM, Steve Woodward <[email protected]> wrote:

I support the General plan as-is and I request that you vote in favor of adopting it. -Steve Woodward
1888 Colgate dr
Thousand Oaks
63 www.VCTA.org P.O. Box 3878, Ventura, CA 93006
December 4, 2023,
RE: Agenda Item A – General Plan 2045
Dear Members of the Thousand Oaks City Council,
The Ventura County Taxpayers Association strongly supports and endorses the Thousand Oaks General Plan 2045 (TO2045). The TO2045 represents a comprehensive and visionary effort that has been in progress since Fall 2019, encompassing extensive community engagement and meticulous planning by city officials, staff, and stakeholders. This long-range plan is a testament to the dedication of all involved and sets the stage for the future social, economic, and physical development and redevelopment of Thousand Oaks.

The Ventura County Taxpayers Association recognizes the significance of TO2045 in fostering growth and economic development for the City of Thousand Oaks. We appreciate the meticulous consideration given to community visioning, land use alternatives analysis, and policy planning throughout the planning process. This plan not only preserves and enhances the quality of life for residents but also lays the foundation for long-term fiscal sustainability and prosperity.

An updated General Plan, such as the TO2045, brings numerous benefits to the community, providing clear direction for housing decisions, establishing transparent and objective standards for development and redevelopment, and ensuring a transparent decision-making process. We particularly commend the city's commitment to environmental health and sustainability, aligning with the broader goals of creating a prosperous and sustainable city.

Notably, the TO2045 addresses critical topics mandated by State law, including Land Use and Community Design, Circulation and Mobility, Housing, Safety, Health and Environmental Justice, Conservation and Open Space, Noise, Public Facilities and Services, Economic Development, and Arts and Culture. This comprehensive 64 www.VCTA.org P.O. Box 3878, Ventura, CA 93006
coverage reflects a commitment to holistic city planning to serve the community well over the next 25 years.

As Governor Newsom’s office stated, "The general plan is more than the legal underpinning for land use decisions; it is a vision about how a community will grow, reflecting community priorities and values while shaping the future." The TO2045, with its forward-thinking approach, is a beacon for Thousand Oaks, aligning with community values and providing a clear vision for growth.

Having not updated its general plan in 50 years, Thousand Oaks has an invaluable opportunity to codify changes, supported by the community and valued stakeholders necessary to keep the city’s goals for the next quarter-century. Including land-use designation changes throughout the city showcases Thousand Oaks’ proactive approach to sustainable growth.

The Ventura County Taxpayers Association enthusiastically supports the TO2045, recognizing its potential to increase tax dollars flowing into much-needed infrastructure and resources for the community. This General Plan update is pivotal step toward building a thriving and resilient Thousand Oaks for future generations.

Thank you for being so committed to the future of Thousand Oaks, and we urge the City Council to endorse and adopt this Thousand Oaks General Plan 2045 wholeheartedly.

Sincerely,
Don Brodt
Chair of the Board
Ventura county Taxpayers Association
Ryan Grau
Executive Director
Ventura County Taxpayers Association
65 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers,
The most important vote of your tenure is set to take place December 5th. Several issues were raised at the November 13th Planning Commission meeting that I feel warrant further review before the city moves forward.

Commissioners Link and Farris raised the question of recommending to Council that the Borchard Property retain it’s current land use. Asst City Attorney Hehir cautioned against that saying the Borchard Property has been part of the analysis from the beginning and that analysis was based on the endorsed land use map and was part of the Housing Element, so a change could have a “rippling effect” to the Housing Element.

Yesterday I spoke with Shawn Danino of the Dept. of Housing and Community Development (HCD) He confirmed the revised Housing Element will be found to be in compliance once the City has completed necessary rezones of the identified RHNA sites. That of course cannot occur until the GP is ratified.

My concern is that Mr. Hehir’s opinion that leaving the current land use could jeopardize the entire Housing Element forced the Commission to take an all or nothing approach. So I asked Mr. Danino how a change on the “draft endorsed land use map” would affect the Housing Element. He explained HCD does a review of the city’s GP as part of the Hosuing Element review process, but only to assure the GP is compatable with the Housing Element. I specifically asked the question, if a parcel such as Borchard was slated for a land use change in the draft GP, but in the end was removed, would it have an effect on the Housing Element. The answer was no. It would only have effect if that property was identified as a RHNA site in the element, which it was not. Based on this I believe Mr. Hehir’s conclusion took an overly conservative approach which was incorrect.

Measure E
While the opinion expressed at the November 13th meeting leaned towards the most conservative approach, the City has taken a very bold stand with respect to Measure E, assuring us that the total number of residential units is not increasing. We’re moving 17,700 units into the areas of change on the GP and that is going to be allowed by rezoning those areas already built below current zoning. I’m not going to argue that point in depth. However I find it interesting that an October 24, 2017 Baseline Residential Analysis looked at 85 tracts representing 928 acres that were built below the allowed density. Based on this they determined conservatively there were 5,400 units available for reallocation through GP updates and became our Measure E bank. I used this same table to calculate the maximum density allowed vs. current units at that time and came up with 6,700 potential units, yet we are putting 17,700 units into those small areas of change. I’m not sure it’s ever been made clear how we are accomplishing this, but I trust the Consultant and City Staff have done an indepth analysis which is legally defensible.

Measure E also requires that any increase of commercial acreage in the 1996 baseline be put before the voters. I have spent hours combing through documents trying to find the actual 1996 baseline for commercial acreage, to no avail. However I did find two later documents. In 2011 a staff report on the TO Blvd Specific Plan indicated the cummulative reduction of commercial areas was 10.06 acres less than the baseline. 66 In 2017 Kosmont Companies produced a report which indicated the city only had 4.06 acres of additional commercial areas available.

That is the same report that named Borchard as an opportunity site and began this whole idea of it being a great site for development. The current zoning on this parcel is approx 35 acres residential and 1-2 acres commercial.

However if you read the report more closely it identified it as a site for residential and commercial based on the current zoning, with a comment that it would be excempt from Measure E, meaning they were looking at this as an opportunity site using the current zoning. Kosmont never looked at this property as an opportunity site to build mixed use but that’s how it got interpreted and we were off to the races.

During the November 13th meeting Commissioner Farris tried to get clarity on this issue, declaring that if the commercial acreage was increasing over the 1996 baseline, then a Measure E vote is triggered. He also expressed concern that he didn’t think an analysis of this was completed. The response by staff was the commercial acreage is actually less now than the baseline because Mixed Use allows for 100% residential and therefore should no longer be counted in the commercial acreage. True it could be 100% residential, but Mixed Use also allows for 100% commercial use and we can’t tell the developer what type of building to put there.

Theoretically the entire parcel could be occupied as hotels and a shopping mall. Therefore we have to look at this in terms of Mixed Use has an effect on both the residential units baseline and the commercial acreage baseline and needs to be analysed using both methods.

While I couldn’t find the original 1996 commercial acreage baseline the documents I mentioned earlier showed we had 10.06 available in 2011 and 4.06 in 2017. Clearly rezoning an R-1 36 acre parcel into Mixed Use pushes us over the Measure E acreage limit and triggers a vote of the people. 67 If the city wants to move forward we have to ask, does the city have a legally defensible position? How will a court interpret this and does the city want to risk exposing ourselves to lengthy litigation? What if it’s determined a vote was needed. We’re talking about years of work down the drain because of a single parcel.

I propose this as a solution. If more time is needed to study this potential bombshell, then the vote should be pushed back. If the city agrees with my assertions, than at the December vote leave the Borchard parcel zoning as is.
• This clearly alligns with the wishes of Newbury Park who represent 1/3 of the citizens of Thousand Oaks which was demonstrated by the petition presented to City Council in May of this year. • It removes the potential for litigation over if Measure E was violated because Mixed Use acreage was not counted in Commercial acreage.
• If Borchard is taken off the table, the Consultant and Staff can reallocate the 1,100 units for this site to other areas of the city that were being used to provide all these Mixed Use units. Think of it as kind of a reverse Measure E allocation.

I also encourage you to not base any decision on what the property owner might do if this is changed at the last minute. It was a “draft endorsed land use map” and throughout this entire process it’s been said time and time again it was not a done deal. If he takes legal action, I have no doubt any court would sustain a demurrer from the City that Mr. Moradian was not entitled to a land use change just because a map was endorsed as a preliminary step in drafting a new GP. In the past he has sued the County, City and Caltrans claiming inverse condemnation and both were dismissed.

Please be clear I am also not faulting Staff here. They have been under tremendous pressure from multiple sources, not the least of which is the owner of this property. They have also been following guidance from an outside consultant who may not have considered this issue.

I believe we can move forward with a great GP for the entire community with this one change.

Respectfully submitted,

Karen Wilburn
2837 Denise St.

Newbury Park, Ca 91320
[email protected]

Cc: Tracy Noonan- City Attorney
Kelvin Parker- Planning Director
Krystin Rice- Interim Planning Manager

68 November 29, 2023
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers,
I would like to add some additional thoughts regarding my letter of November 22nd. In that letter I questioned Staff’s conclusion that changing the Borchard Parcel from it’s current land use to Mixed Use would not trigger a Measure E vote, because Mixed Use should not be considered as commercial acreage since it would allow 100% residential. In it I pointed out Mixed Use would also allow 100% commercial as well, and since no specific plan for the property has been submitted the change would allow the owner to develop the entire parcel for commercial use, thus increasing the city’s total commercial acreage by 36 acres, which would be over the 1996 baseline. (Based on the 2017 Kosmont report the city had 4.06 acres available for a change to commercial) At issue here seems to be is Mixed Use to be treated as residential units or commerical acreage when determining if a Measure E vote is required.

I went back through many documents including legal opinions provided by the City Attorney in 2005, as well as the TO Blvd SP documents. Since Mixed Use is a new designation we have to look at the spirit of Measure E.

That point is clearly outlined in the 2005 legal opinion. Prior to 2011 TO Blvd had land use designations of commerical, industrial and residential. The TO Blvd SP changed all those existing land uses to a single designation of Commerical/residential which was described below. 69 Staff then went to great lengths to explain how Measure E could affect this, concluding that since the new land use would allow either residential or commercial, they needed to specifically identify sub-areas of the Blvd which needed to be treated differently in order to avoid a conflict with Measure E. This was accomplished by restricting commercial use of those areas as part of the TO Blvd SP.

Commercial/residential and Mixed Use are they same thing, just different names. Why is Staff doing an about face now to support that a land use change at Borchard would not affect Measure E? This is not a legally defensible position in light of the lengths they went through during the TO Blvd SP change.

I understand we must get the GP approved so we can move forward with the zoning changes needed to have our Housing Element finalized. However we are building this on a house of cards by ignoring or subverting Measure E.

I once again ask that the Borchard Parcel land use remain as is to avoid a Measure E conflict and possible litigation. The 1,100 units for this parcel can be reallocated through out the city.

I also disagree with the assertion that this would invalidate the EIR. When asked for public input on what we wanted addressed in the EIR, many asked specific questions about Borchard. The response was the EIR was not project specific and that has been repeated many times. A reallocation of those units leaves us with the same build out. If anything it can be argued that it will lessen the environmental impact since it’s being reallocated through out the community. This is a weak argument that should not be an excuse to say our hands our tied and we are too far down the process.

I again reiterate that we’ve been told over and over this was a process that needed public input. Now it appears as if the city is taking the position that the May 2021 endorsed land use map sealed the outcome and no amount of additional public input was going to change anything.

While the initial surveys seemed to support the change at Borchard, it was demonstrated these surveys only reflected a small fraction of city residents and the survey results themselves were questionable. As time has evolved and more people are aware of the nature of this change, it’s clear this one parcel change is not supported by the majority of the residents.
70 I once again ask the City amend it’s position and allow Council to remove Borchard from the update at the December 5th vote. We should not be making a change of this magnitude on parcel of this size without knowing what is going to be developed.

Respectfully submitted,
Karen Wilburn
2837 Denise St.

Newbury Park, Ca 91320
[email protected]
Cc: Tracy Noonan- City Attorney
Kelvin Parker- Planning Director
Krystin Rice- Interim Planning Manager
71 "D
EDICATED TO THE BEAUTIFICATION AND REVITALIZATION OF THE BOULEVARD" Sent Via Email To: [email protected] and [email protected] De
cember 4, 2023
Honorable Councilmembers
City of Thousand Oaks
2100 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd.

Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
RE: Our Support In Your Adoption Of The Proposed General Plan Update.

Dear Honorable Councilmembers:

As you may know Thousand Oaks Boulevard Association (“TOBA”) is made up of the owners of the more than 200 parcels of commercially zoned properties along Thousand Oaks Boulevard (the “Boulevard”) in the City of Thousand Oaks. This letter serves as TOBA’s official position on the approval of and our support for your adoption of the proposed General Plan Update.

This proposed General Plan Update has undergone an extensive public review and input process, by far more than any other City land use plan. As the General Plan has not been comprehensively updated since its original adoption in 1970, a lot has changed that justifies an update. The demands for and uses of retail and office space (lap tops and remote working arrangements or routines) has drastically changed and the mixed use concept has evolved and become a logical alterative to big box retail and large office projects. With mixed use projects there can be a meaningful connection or interaction with nearby commercial uses or a more environmentally beneficial “walk to shop or eat” option. In general, TOBA is supportive of the City’s efforts to increase the potential for more housing along the 101 Freeway corridor as that runs through the City, and feels this update will help meet the community’s needs and the state housing mandates, both currently and for the foreseeable future.

For almost 20 years, TOBA has been advocating for more mixed-use housing projects along the Boulevard. TOBA strongly believes the key to bringing needed new customers to the Boulevard’s many shops, restaurants and businesses is allowing more mixed-use development. 72 TOBA Letter To Honorable Councilmembers
City of Thousand Oaks
December 4, 2023

Page 2 ends

In addition, allowing mixed-use development would encourage owners to upgrade and redevelop their older properties. Our Boulevard Specific Plan was adopted by the City as the first planning document in the City that authorized mixed-use projects.

In closing, TOBA is very supportive of the City’s effort to update the General Plan by the drafted and proposed General Plan 2045.

Respectfully submitted,

THOUSAND OAKS BOULEVARD ASSOCIATION
Mark G. Sellers
Secretary
MGS:dp
cc: TOBA and BID Boards
73 1
From: Grant Sullivan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 12:10 PM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: GENERAL PLAN = NO Amendment > DEC2023
[You don't oŌen get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟﬁcaƟon ]
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.

Please take NO ACTION in amending the General Plan - any changes should only be considered aŌer the Fully INFORMED Public VOTES.
74 From: Sam Manfredi <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 12:52 PM
To: City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; Kevin McNamee <[email protected]>; Al Adam <[email protected]>; Bob Engler <[email protected]>; Mikey Taylor <[email protected]> Subject: Passage Of General Plan Hearing Tuesday December 4, 2023 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 All Of You: I am in favor of the Proposed General Plan. I thank City Staff and all of you for the extensive work and effort that has gone into this Plan. The Plan will move our City forward by allowing the growth that every City needs in order to flourish.
____________________________
ManfrediLevine
Sam C. Manfredi
Partner
3262 East Thousand Oaks Blvd., Suite 200
Westlake Village, CA 91362
(805) 379-1919 Voice
(805) 379-3819 Fax
[email protected]
www.manfredilevine.com
This transmission and the attachments, if any, are intended for the use of the person to whom it is addressed only. It may contain privileged, confidential or other information that is protected against disclosure by state and federal law. This transmission is for the sole purpose of communicating with the person to whom it is addressed. If the recipient of this transmission is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this and the attached documents is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone and email, by replying to this message, and delete this email and any attachments from your system.

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
75 1
From: Jacob Maddox <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 1:59 PM
To: [email protected]; Mikey Taylor; Bob Engler; Kevin McNamee; David Newman; City Clerk's Office; Kelvin Parker; Krystin Rice; Al Adam
Subject: Borchard Parcel- Please leave it alone!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi All,
My wife and I
are born native of Newbury Park. We have lived our 35 and 34 years in Newbury park, save a few years to attend university and graduate school. We have a beautiful family with 5 children and have done everything we could to stay in the area because we want our children to have the same safe and wonderful childhood that we experienced.

I am writing because that childhood experience that we want for our kids is disappearing. The area is becoming more crowded and over built. Living anywhere in the area is expensive, but we understand that we are paying for a particular lifestyle. We did not struggle to stay in the Newbury Park because we wanted things to look like every other community.

Our beautiful community was not intended to look like the "Valley". When my grandparents moved to Newbury Park from the "Valley" (Woodland Hills) they did so because of the beautiful landscape, and the uncrowded and clean community where people take pride in owning homes in neighborhoods where their kids and grandkids could grow up.

Newbury Park is not about increasing development and the people who live here do not want that either.

I am opposed to changing the zoning of the Borchard Parcel, and oppose developments that will bring more traffic, more congestion, and a “Valley” like impact to our long standing, quiet neighborhoods. Please take this into consideration when making votes that will impact our city, the people, and families of Newbury Park.

Thank you,
Jake Maddox
805-630-3846
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 76 Ryan VanOmmeren
766 Rosario Dr.

Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
December 4, 2023
Honorable Councilmembers
City of Thousand Oaks
2100 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd.

Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
Subj: Letter of Support for Adoption of the Proposed General Plan Update Dear Honorable Councilmembers:

As long-time resident of the City of Thousand Oaks, and as an individual who has been directly involved in administering and updating the Master Plan of California Lutheran University, I strongly recommend that the proposed General Plan Update be approved by City Council.

I see this update as a critical piece of achieving multiple long-term goals that will help both the City and California Lutheran University. Most notably, I believe that the inclusion of much needed additional housing, as well as the creation of mixed use properties will both increase housing affordability while also creating vibrancy.

Sincerely,
Ryan VanOmmeren
77 Name City Item # In favor/Opposed Comment
Gordon Clint and Barbara
Leighton
Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am in favor of this item We love our beautiful city and appreciate the work of the many people who participated in the development of the
General Plan and the Housing Element. The city staff and consultant have completed a lengthy process that afforded many opportunities for public engagement.

Although the Plan may not be perfect and please everyone, we believe it will both preserve our single- family
neighborhoods and provide opportunities for critically
needed affordable housing to be built.

Now it is time for the City Council to approve it.

Thomas White Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item Sirs:

Please do not approve the GP as-written.

I am opposed to changing the zoning of the 36-acre Borchard parcel to allow mixed use/ increased housing density. My reasons are as follows:

My first reason is that it will violate the goal of not impacting the existing single-family residences in Newbury Park. Construction of high density dwellings will have significant negative long-term impacts to the nearby single family parcel homeowners.

A. The years-long construction process will result in significant heavy vehicle traffic on the residential streets.

B. The new residents, and all the Amazon (or UPS, etc.) delivery trucks, will also result in significantly high vehicle traffic on the residential streets that to go from major streets (Wendy & Borchard) to the new high density dwelling buildings.

My second reason is that the Borchard parcel should be treated as a special, unique zoning issue, and not be lumped together with other multi-use parcels. Therefore, it should be removed from inclusion in the GP , and from this approval vote. The GP can be amended or changed to accomplish this. The Borchard parcel zoning can then be addressed at a later time, with a full and complete evaluation of all proposed changes and resulting impacts. Thank you.

Name City Item # In favor/Opposed Comment
Allana Stepp Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item I am opposed to the proposed General Plan 2045 and supporting documents. They appear to include the
Borchard property, 36 acres / “Borchard wetlands“. Including that parcel/area is not necessary to support the Housing Element. Also, when Measure E was approved, the Borchard Parcel was approved only for residential use zoning. The proposed changes in the General Plan will make the 36 acres mixed use zoning, which could allow residential and
commercial uses. Allowing that possibility could overwhelm the already overburdened infrastructure. Existing water, electricity, emergency services, etc., were not planned to support the needs that are now present. Please remove the Borchard Property, 36 acres/ “Borchard Wetlands” from the proposed General Plan 2045. Any changes to that parcel’s zoning, which was established approximately 40 years ago, should be addressed via normal procedures, including input from citizens and property owners, who would be affected by the proposed changes. Changes made should not be via
“back-door loophole“. Please exercise wise foresight in this matter. Thank you.

Rachel Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item I believe that the land use should not change at the Borchard Wetland site. While Thousand Oaks is a growing city, it is important to make sure there is scientific proof that this project will not cause more harm than good. Initial studies/ scientific studies should be done in the wet season to
determine the true impacts of the wetland area. Without this, there is no way of truly understanding the benefits this area is currently providing us; if the land use changes and the land is developed, we will not know the impacts of not having this open space until it is too late.

Karen Wilburn Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item Take Borchard off the change.

Name City Item # In favor/opposed Comment
Tamara L. Napier Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item The people of Newbury Park, including myself, have spoken out numerous times regarding their discontent with the
upzoning of the Borchard Lot. The Borchard Property should be removed from the update. Please listen to the people you represent or you may not be representing them after the next election. I would be in support of the General Plan if the Borchard Lot is removed. In my opinion, the best option for this property is for the city to buy it and make it into a park that all residents can enjoy.

Erin Yamane Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item Borchard Property should be removed from the update Heather Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item I approve the general plan Only if Borchard property is removed
John Cottriel Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item Given one of the goals of the new General Plan was to "not affect existing single-family neighborhoods", I adamantly request that the Borchard Parcel remain as currently zoned! If zoned otherwise I have serious concerns about how that change would affect the character of Newbury Park including traffic, parking and emergency evacuation routes which are already overtaxed.

Linda Casey N/A 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item I request the Borchard parcel be removed from this plan.

Christy Keagy Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item I live on Alice Drive and will GREATLY be impacted by this plan. We have lived here and raised children on the street and have been living with fast drivers from just what we have now driving to access Wendy Dr. You will cause our housing value to plummet with this plan and our lives to be unsafe.

Do not allow this development so somebody can get rich.

Kenneth Hibbitts Westlake Village 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item I am opposed to the General Plan as it is presented with the Borchard Property development included. The Borchard area plan needs to be removed for further consideration. If that happens, then I’m in favor of the GPU.

Sally Hibbitts Westlake Village 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item I am in favor of the GPU only if the Borchard property development is removed from the current plan. Fortune
property needs to be considered separately as it is so
contentious, and it deserves a vote of the people, especially because of the overuse of the commercial space.

Name City Item # In favor/Opposed Comment
Dan Dingman Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item I could support the General Plan if the Borchard Property is removed from it. No change to the property's current land use/zoning should be made at this time. There are too many issues yet to be addressed to allow a change of use that cannot be changed back. The developments recently
approved by the city for that vicinity will already dramatically impact traffic and public safety.

Glenna Hayes Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item The Borchard Parcel should be removed from the Plan.

Victoria Orozco Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item The Borchard Property should be REMOVED from the update.

I would support the new General Plan if this was taken OFF the update. Its bad enough that you want to put another useless hotel in the Jannss Mall. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Karen Long Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item I would support the General Plan if the Borchard Property is removed. PLEASE preserve the character, beauty, and
integrity of Newbury Park by not allowing the overbuilding of the Borchard Property!
Ernie Orozco Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item I strongly oppose the revised General Plan pertaining to the Borchard Property. I find it perplexing that individuals who do not reside in Thousand Oaks are permitted to influence
decisions about our community. As elected Council Members, it is your responsibility to heed the concerns of your constituents.

While I acknowledge the need for housing in Thousand Oaks and Newbury Park, I believe that developing this picturesque property is not the solution. Newbury Park is already reaching its capacity, evident in the congestion on the Wendy Drive
overpass—an issue exacerbated by the excessive development that has been allowed.

The current state of Newbury Park is reminiscent of Los Angeles, characterized by heavy traffic and noise. I urge you to refrain from altering the Borchard property in the General Plan. Such a move will not address the larger problem and will only empower individuals who do not reside in our community to dictate our way of life. Please reconsider and remove the Borchard property from the General Plan.

Name City Item # In favor/Opposed Comment
Lorrie Dingman Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item I would be in favor of the approval of the general plan update IF the Borchard parcel is removed from the update. The
property is encumbered and has multiple issues, many that are unknown at this time. The Win-Win for this property is to bring a site specific plan that takes the time to be carefully thought out. Ramming this through with the rest of the GP update does not give this property the detail and specific consideration it deserves and would be irresponsible.

Tim R. Eichenberg Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item We consider it a privilege to live here. We do not envy the task of balancing the need to grow with preserving all the good things that make this area a desirable place to live.

Please don't change the plan to allow for any more density or degradation of places of historical significance. The existing plan was well thought out and considered and provided for a good balance. The present proposed modifications move us too far in the wrong way. Thank you.

Michael Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item I would support the General Plan if Borchard is removed.

Elizabeth Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item Borchard Property should be removed from the update.

Paul Phillips Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item The Borchard property should be temoved from the Plan revision. A property with so many adverse possibilities shpuld go through a regular rezoning
Paul Phillips Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item The Borchard property rezoning should be removed from the city's proposed general plan. A property with so many
adverse possibilities should be required to go through the city's regular rezoning process and be rezoned PUD.

Kerry Luckett Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item Borchard Property should be removed from the update until such time the development plan has been thoroughly
assessed including environmental impact, safety impact, community impact, etc....

Name City Item # In favor/Opposed Comment
Alecia Corralejo Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item Do not change the zoning for Borchard. IMHO, it’s ridiculous that it’s even being considered.

Borchard/Michael is ALREADY a dangerous intersection
(ANOTHER accident occurred there this weekend) and more traffic will make it even worse.

Also, have u been to the shopping center right there? IHOP just closed, and there r SIX vacancies. Stop the madness of turning our town into the San Fernando Valley. We don’t need or want every space to be filled with buildings. Turn the pathetic Oaks into mixed use, at least u won’t be adding more damage to our environment, and that HUGE building
can actually serve a purpose.

Bill Utermohlen Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item I can support the General Plan if the proposed rezoning of the Borchard parcel is removed from it. The rezoning to the proposed density is neither sensitive to the existing residents of the area or beneficial to Newbury Park in general. The only beneficiary is a non resident developer and his sycophant promoters, who demonstrably don't care about this
neighborhood in proposing this wildly inappropriate density and usage for the parcel. That the Planning Commision
passed on recommendation of the proposal is all the Council should see that the proposed development is NOT correct.

Cynthia Riddagh Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item Please stop building! We live in Newbury Park for a reason!! We want it small and quiet. If we wanted to live in a city we would move to LA. Do not do this to our town!
Sherry Adkins Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item Please remove the Borchard property from plan.

Name City Item # In favor/Opposed Comment
PAUL CARBONE Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item IN SPECIFIC REGARDS TO THE BORCHARD PARCEL MIXED USE DESIGNATION;#1; property is permanently land locked on the entire perimeter by residential properties and the 101
Highway. Only points of egress are single lane Wendy Dr. and a potential single lane residential pass through to Borchard Rd. Unless Caltrans is somehow going to come up with a miracle on/off ramp option, how can these very limited
access points reasonably accommodate a dramatic increase in daily traffic flow? #2; Yes a projected 83 million gallons of water storage in the event of a hundred year storm - a
culmination of decades of research by Ventura County
Engineers and NOT an inflated amount in some conspiracy to prevent development of the land. If the current void
removed, where would all that water divert to?VOTE NO ON THE PARCEL DESIGNATION CHANGE FOR THE TIME BEING.

LET WHOMEVER SUBMIT A REALISTIC PLAN AS TO HOW
THESE OBSTACLES ARE GOING TO BE ‘’REALISTICALLY’

OVERCOME, THEN CHANGE THE CURRENT ZONING
ACCORDINGLY. A potential comprise? Allow development of a third of the property tangent to the 101 Highway
(commercial zoning - the gift that keeps on giving). Thus allowing for practical traffic egress possibilities and the two thirds remaining ‘as is’ in the event of a catastrophic flood scenario. I’ve lived tangent to this property on Denise St. near the dead end at Alice Dr. for nearly 25 years, just around the corner from hundreds of Unincorporated Ventura County
homeowners.Please don’t make this a Ventura County and/or potential judicial issue by allowing an incompetent or worse decision going forward. Respectfully Submitted,Paul Carbone Randy Meru Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item My opposition is that the Borchard Parcel should be removed from this update.

Barbara Thousand Oaks 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item I am opposed to the changes made to the Borchard property.

If changes to the Borchard property were removed, I would approve of the general plan.

P. Erwin Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item Remove Borchard property from the General Plan.

Steve McCollum Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item If you Remove the Borchard Parcel I would support the GP Name City Item # In favor/Opposed Comment
Bob Bushnell Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item The Borchard Property should be removed from the update.

The surrounding neighborhoods will be adversely affected by the increase in housing congestion, traffic, pollution, crime, and diminished home values. Most importantly, for the
surrounding neighborhoods, there already is inadequate
egress routes to the freeway in the event of emergencies.

Adding 1100 homes and businesses would make that
extremely unsafe and untenable. I would support the
General Plan if Borchard is removed.

N/A Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item I am very opposed to this item Jeff deDomenico Thousand Oaks 10A - General Plan 2045 I am in favor of this item Borchard Village Development Fernando Nocedal Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item I would be in favor of this item if the Borchard Property land use change was removed from the Plan.

Cole Murphy Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item Borchard Property should be removed from the update. No change in the current land use designation should be granted at this time.

Melanie Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item We do not need more housing let alone take away needed nature for new housing. Build up or build somewhere else N/A Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item I feel that the Borchard Property should be removed from the update and would support the General Plan if Borchard is removed.

Kayla Vallett Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item I am opposed to 10A N/A N/A 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item This land is essential for wildlife N/A Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item I oppose 10A Alex Thousand Oaks 10A - General Plan 2045 I am in favor of this item Support Borchard property in update.

N/A Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item We need this to remain a runoff area

Name City Item # In favor/Opposed Comment
Diego Martinez Santa Rosa Valley 10A - General Plan 2045 I am in favor of this item Dear City Council,

I’m a 21-year-old Santa Rosa Valley resident and former employee in Thousand Oaks writing to urge the council to adopt the Thousand Oaks 2045 General Plan. Urgent action is needed to address the housing and climate crises we are facing. The general plan is a step in the right direction and it should be adopted immediately so we can continue with our efforts to address these crises. Thank you for your work on adding more housing, density, and active transportation to Thousand Oaks.

Regarding the Borchard property, rezoning it to mixed-use is common sense. All the houses around are already in a flood zone and this development is actually an opportunity to implement measures to mitigate the damage a flood could cause. Also, the traffic impacts will not be significant especially if you continue to make cycling and public
transportation safer and more attractive as a mode of
transport around Thousand Oaks. The fact that it will be mixed-use means that the majority of trips (grocery shopping, social events, or even job commutes) created will be
contained within the development. The fact is that we need more housing and open space, but we can't have both. So what is the most reasonable option? Dense housing.

Our traditional development pattern of single-family housing and Euclidean zoning is not sustainable, financially or environmentally. We must do better by building denser.

Please adopt the 2045 General Plan.

Sincerely,
Diego Martinez

Name City Item # In favor/Opposed Comment
Mary Wellington Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item Keep the Borchard parcel as a park. No buildings at all. Love to have another park in the area.

N/A Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item I do not agree with the ideas that this agenda has. It is not right to make these changes and I do not support it.

N/A N/A 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item This is an important area for runoff water and local species! James L. Smith Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item Remove the Borchard Property from the plan.

Roxanne Audenino Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item I would support the GP update if you were to remove the Borchard property and instead require a site-specific plan at a later date.

Mark Audenino Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item I would support the GP update if you were to remove the Borchard property and instead require a site-specific plan at a later date.

Bobby Langin Thousand Oaks 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item This is completely wrong. I’m sure you are only considering more funds in the bank and destroying our nice community in the process.

Lisa Hutson Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item Hello ~ I would support the GP Update if you remove the Borchard Property from the update and require a site-specific plan at a later date. THANK YOU for your serious
consideration on this matter.

Linda Conahey Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item I am sending this Comment Card to say I would support the GP Update IF you remove the Borchard Property from the
update. PLEASE require a site-specific plan for the Borchard Property at a later date.

KIM DIZON Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item I would support the GP update if they were to remove the Borchard property and instead require a site-specific plan at a later date.

Name City Item # In favor/opposed Comment
William Maple Newbury Park 10A - General Plan 2045 I am opposed to this item Please DO NOT APPROVE this proposed General Plan update as written. Doing so would reduce efforts to preserve items of cultural heritage value in the Conejo under the Conservation Element of this proposal. It is the responsibility of the City Council acting as our Cultural Heritage Board to proactively protect and preserve items deemed noteworthy in our
community.

The proposed plan guts this responsibility and places the mechanism for evaluation on and unelected entity—the project developer. The is tantamount to asking the wolf if the hen house fence has any value. The Thousand Oaks Cultural Heritage Board (TOCHB) has not fulfilled its duties for nearly twenty years. This may be an ignorance of responsibly, or active disregard for the addition duties the City Council appropriated when they designated themselves the TOCHB.

The last time the TOCHB nearly two decades ago (July 13, 2004) when they designated Timber School Local Historical Landmark.

The TOCHB was first established over 50 years ago through Ordinance No. 265-NS (February 22, 1972) with the purpose of:
“…to promote the economic and general welfare of the City of Thousand Oaks by preserving and protecting the items…having a special historical or aesthetic character or interest.” I propose the following to be considered before this proposed General Plan is approved.

1. A professional outside agency complete a historic survey of the Conejo Valley

2. The TOCHB once again publicly meet and proactively act

3. If the City Council cannot perform their TOCHB duties, they nominate citizens who can

4. If the City Council does not want a citizens CHB, they reinstate the services of the Ventura County Cultural Heritage Board without limited their role to only consultant if asked.

Thousand Oaks City CouncilDecember 5, 2023

Thousand Oaks City Council
December 5, 2023