Agenda Related Items - Meeting of December 5, 2023
Supplemental Packet Date: November 30, 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 Information:
Any agenda related public doc uments 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 15
PAGES ARE RELATED TO
ITEM 10A
On Nov 13, 2023, at 2:49 PM, J B <[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.
Dear Council Member,
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
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 1 2
From: Jessica Weihe <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023 8:49 PM
To: Mikey Taylor <[email protected]>; David Newman <[email protected]>; Bob Engler <[email protected]>; Kevin McNamee <[email protected]>; Al Adam <[email protected]>; City Clerk's Office <[email protected]>
Subject: Support for 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.
Good Evening Councilmembers,
As a Newbury Park resident, I am writing to you ahead of the Dec. 5 city council meeting in which you’ll discuss and vote on the adoption of the General Plan. I imagine you are, or already have been, receiving a slew of emails from residents expressing opposition to the low density, mixed-use zoning of the Borchard Property. I want to be sure you are hearing from Newbury Park residents who support the rezoning of the property and the General Plan as a whole, because we exist! I've heard there's only "6%" of us, but I assure you, there are more.
I understand the pressure councilmembers are under as it relates to this vote. Especially as it now comes before you all without a formal recommendation from the Planning Commission, courtesy of the irresponsible NO votes from commissioners Justin Link and Mic Farris. But their votes were politically motivated. Yours do not have to be. You didn’t run to win a popularity contest. You ran (if in good faith) to make decisions that support our city’s sustainability and economic growth and vitality. The vote you make on Dec. 5 will speak loudly about motivations and intentions.
I have lived in Newbury Park my entire life outside of a period of time post college, before returning to raise my own family here. Like many, I call Conejo Valley home for the same reasons many of my fellow neighbors and friends do: quality public schools, safe neighborhoods, open space and a family-friendly community. Situated between Los Angeles and Santa Barbara, we’re close to the city, the mountains and the beach, but also just far enough away from the hustle and bustle of busier cities to feel like we have that “small town” feel. It’s special.
As an adult raising two young children, the challenges our city faces as it relates to our housing and affordability crisis are not lost on me. While my husband and I just squeaked by, getting into Newbury Park with a “starter home” at $650k … our home’s value now well over a million dollars. Sure, property values have increased (yay us) … but I can’t help but wonder how my children would ever be able to afford to live here post college, as young adults, if they wished. As it stands, there’s not a place for them here. And that’s not where the issue ends of course. Our workforce — our teachers, nurses and beyond, cannot afford to live in the city in which they work. Our maturing population has little in the way of options to downsize to, leaving them in large, empty houses well into their older years with nowhere else to go. And, we know our larger employers and prospective employers are also paying close attention to their ability to recruit and retain a workforce that can find housing in the city in which they work. We've heard directly from our biotech sector that this remains an issue.
The Borchard Property, as council already knows, is our largest remaining undeveloped parcel of land in our city. It is THEE opportunity site. Downzoning the property back to residential is reckless on so many levels.
3 I recall the city naming Affordable Housing at its number 1 priority this year. Downzoning this property ELIMINATES all possibility and potential for affordable housing units on this property (if we’re lucky enough to escape state intervention). We don’t solve an affordability crisis with 100 $2 million dollar new construction homes.
But that’s if we’re lucky enough to fly under the radar. The stakes are even higher when we consider what a NO vote on the General Plan means. Almost guaranteed loss of local control. State intervention.
Development with no parameters thanks to the Builder’s Remedy law. Without a certified housing element, it’s open hunting season for developers with an eye on our city, and just like website compliance sharks, developers are watching city lawsuits fail against the state. And they’re eyeing vulnerable cities. A no vote now may make one adjacent residential neighborhood feel like they’ve achieved victory … but in the long run, far worse options are around the corner if our councilmembers do not support the General Plan — a plan which has had hundreds and hundreds of hours poured into it from your hardworking, experienced, expert city staff.
I know you’re all well aware that the City and County have embarked on storm drainage improvement MOUs in the floodplain zone of which Borchard Property sits on, and it’s likely that after a LOMR is submitted upon project completion, it will no longer be designated an AE flood zone, so we can skip over feigned outrage from folks about floodplain development.
The fact is, the land use vote happened in 2021. That was the time to litigate zoning, and after a robust city council meeting, the land use map was approved, triggering years of work to get to this very point.
Three current council members: Bob, Al and Kevin, were the three YES votes on this land use map, as I recall.
I am respectfully asking that our council members remain accountable to the decisions you made and the actions you put in motion, and that you continue to make choices that are in the best interest of our entire city — and not succumb to politically motivat ed pressures. That means this vote should be unanimous 5-0 in favor of the General Plan. I have empathy for those who wish the 1970 General Plan could be the forever plan, but we’re in 2023 and our city must make choices to support our future and the generations after us. We are counting on you, councilmembers, to make the hard but necessary decisions to move us forward.
Thank you for helping protect our local control by voting yes on the General Plan on Dec. 5.
I kindly request that this email be included within the written correspondences related to the General Plan vote agenda item.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Jess Weihe
Newbury Park Resident
4 From: Rodney Love <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2023 6:07 PM
To: Bob Engler <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Proposed Mixed-Use Zoning change of the ‘Borchard Property’ in the revised 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.
P.S. To be clearer, l understand acquiring the property for public benefit is very unlikely, but was more wondering if the City had other 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….
Again, not likely l’m sure, but maybe worth asking in the name of ‘no stone left unturned’ or ‘grasping at straws’ ! �� �� ���
����� � � � � � � ���������� � � � � � � �������� � � � � � � ��� versus ��� �� � �������� �� � � ������ �� Anyway, see you Dec 5th. Best to you -Rodney Love.
On Nov 16, 2023, at 4:56 AM, Rodney Love <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear City Council Members,
I am a concerned Newbury Park Resident (80 Northam Av).
My question - Do you see any possible way, even at this late stage, to implement a suggestion, raised at the Planning Commission meeting last Mon.6th, for these 36 acres be somehow acquired or directed by the City, to flourish as a self-sustaining Natural Habitat… instead of the zone-change which allows for potentially very negative hi-density development there? This would be the most popular and beneficial use of that area!!
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.”
��� �� � �������� �� � � ������ ��
If this is not possible, then please vote to keep the current zoning for this parcel, and not change it to ‘mixed use’, with 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. cvasp.org
Thankyou -Rodney Love.
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 5 From: Lynne Haavaldsen <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2023 4:33 PM
To: Bob Engler <[email protected]>
Subject: No housing on 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 Mr. Engler,
A simple google search provides information about housing next to freeways: Living within 1000 feet of a freeway causes much higher rates of asthma, heart attacks, strokes, lung and other cancers, pre-term births, childhood obesity, autism, and dementia. Please do the responsible thing and not approve affordable housing at the Borchard property. The Urban Institute provides lots of research on who ends up living in these spaces including people of color and many poor families. We talk about DEI but when it comes time for addressing housing it is thrown out the window. We must find better alternatives for healthy living. Newbury Park has lots of open space which makes it a very desirable place to live. There are lots of closing restaurants and stores which could easily be turned into housing.
Think long term
Lynne Haavaldsen
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 6 From: Evelyn Schultz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2023 3:45 PM
To: Kevin McNamee <[email protected]>; Al Adam <[email protected]>; Bob Engler <[email protected]>; David Newman <[email protected]>; Mikey Taylor <[email protected]>; City Manager's Office <[email protected]>
Cc: McDougall Timothy <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: 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.
Hello Mayor and City Council Members,
Please see the attached letter from President Tim McDougall with regards to the City of Thousand Oaks General Plan.
Regards,
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
7 November 27, 2023
The Conejo Simi Moorpark Association of REALTORS strongly supports the City of Thousand Oaks General Plan Update 2045.
Many of our members attended the community outreach programs during which this plan was developed, and we have reviewed this final update. We believe it is an appropriate plan for the future and makes the City of Thousand Oaks stronger in all the ways stated, especially with the inclusion of more housing.
The update addresses many of those critical needs in the housing sector, including adding more variety of entry level, workforce, and retirement opportunities.
The enhancement of the downtown area along with those areas identified as redevelopment opportunities will make our community stronger and more inclusive.
Developers are not bound by geography, and the City has to compete with other cities to attract developers. A major benefit is that this plan will make the city more competitive in attracting developers, the people who will build the homes we need.
Some of our members will speak at the City Council meeting set for December 5th to adopt this new general plan update. We urge all council members to vote yes on the general plan update.
Regards,
Tim McDougall
Tim McDougall
President
Conejo Simi Moorpark Association of REALTORS
TM:yt
8 From: Sandy Sigal <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2023 12:37 PM
To: City Clerk's Office <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter in Support of the upcoming City Council Vote for the General Plan Amendment
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.
Please find the aƩached leƩer in support of the General Plan Amendment.
Sandy
Sanford D. Sigal
Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer
NewMark Merrill Companies, Inc.
818-710-6100
www.newmarkmerrill.com
**Please note our new address effective Monday, July 25th** 24025 Park Sorrento, Suite 300
Calabasas, CA 91302
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 9 10
From: Lora Novak <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2023 6:56 AM
To: City Clerk's Office <[email protected]>
Subject: Support for 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.
Dear Mr. Adam,
As a retired CVUSD teacher, I know how expensive it is to live in Thousand Oaks. The city desperately needs to prioritize affordable and workforce housing. I support the draft General Plan as it has been presented. I know that the city staff has put years of work into the development of this plan and that the housing element within must be certified by the state or we risk local control over our remaining undeveloped land. I support the General Plan and hope council members will as well.
Thank you,
Lora Novak
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 11 On Nov 29, 2023, at 5:09 PM, Lori & Kevin Walton <[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.
Dear City Council Members,
I am in favor of adopting the General Plan as is.
I have been a homeowner in Thousand Oaks since 1997.
Thank you for all you do for our city.
Regards,
Lori Walton
226 Sandberg Street
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
(805) 493-0876 (land line)
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
12 On Nov 29, 2023, at 5:35 PM, Steve Woodward <[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 support the General plan as-is and I request that you vote in favor of adopting it.
-Steve Woodward
1888 Colgate dr
Thousand Oaks
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 13 On Nov 30, 2023, at 9:23 AM, Laura Healy <[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.
Hello,
I'm writing in support of maintaining the general plan for Thousand Oaks. I'm a long time resident and I live adjacent to open space. I would hate to see zoning restrictions bypassed by developers because a group in Newbury Park doesn't want a lot next to 101 Freeway developed. Let's not turn Thousand Oaks into the valley!
I fully support adoption of the General Plan!
Many thanks,
Laura Healy
596 Canyon Vista Dr, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
14 15