Agenda Related Items - Meeting of July 8, 2025
Supplemental Packet Date: July 8, 2025
THOUSAND OAKS CITY COUNCIL
Supplemental
Information
Packet
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):
In compliance with the ADA, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting or other services in conjunction with this meeting, please contact the City Clerk Department at (805) 449-2151. Assisted listening devices are available at this meeting. Ask City Clerk st aff if you desire to use this device. Upon request, the agenda and documents in this agenda packet, can be made ava ilable in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability. Notification at least 48 hour s prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist City staff in assuring reasonable arrangement s can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service.
2:30 p.m.
Supplemental Information:
Any agenda related public documents received and distribut ed to a majority of the City Council after the Agenda Packet is printed are included in Supplemental Packets. Supplemental Packets are produced as needed, typically a minimum of two—one available on the Thursday preceding the City Council meeting and the second on Tuesday at the meeting. The Supplement al Packet is available for public inspection on the City’s website at toaks.org/agendas or by contacting the City Clerk Dept at (805) 449-2151 during normal busi- ness hours [main location pursuant to the Brown Act, G.C. 54957.5(2)].
FIN: 201-10\jkb\H:\COMMON\Webfiles for Linking\Agenda Supplement\9P 9Q - FINAL 070825 5Star NewWest Lease Agreement Supplemental.docx
T
o: Andrew P. Powers, City Manager
From: Jaime Boscarino, Finance Director
D
ate: July 8, 2025
Subject: Agenda Item Nos. 9P and 9Q – Lease Agreements with Cabrillo Music Theatre, Inc., DBA 5-Star Theatricals, and New West Symphony Association
9P.
In the Lease Agreement (Attachment #1) with Cabrillo Music Theatre, Inc., DBA 5 -Star Theatricals , of the above- captioned agenda item, Item C of the Recitals Section on Page 1, erroneously states that “On June 24, 2025, the Thousand Oaks City Council approved 5- STAR to continue as the Resident symphony at the Bank of America Performing Arts Center located at the Civic Arts Plaza for a term running from July 1, 2025 until June 30, 2028.”.
The sentence should actually read that “City Council approved 5- Star to continue as the Resident theatre production company” and the actual approval date for this item should be shown as July 8, 2025.
9Q. In the Lease Agreement (Attachment #1) with New West Symphony Association of the above-captioned agenda item, Item C of the Recitals Section on
Council approved New West Symphony to continue as the Resident symphony at the Bank of America Performing Arts Center located at the Civic Arts Plaza for a term running from July 1, 2025 until June 30, 2028.”.
T
he actual approval date for this item should be shown as July 8, 2025. 1 Name (Optional) Community of Residenc ePlease choose the AgendPlease mark one of the oComment Newbury Park 12B - Crossing Guard Pr oI am in favor of this item Don’t get rid of crossing gaurds for sycamore canyon. Streets are busy and cars don’t stop.
Westlake Village 12B - Crossing Guard Pr oI am opposed to this itemIf you take the crossing guard away from Westlake Hills Elementary a child will be hit by a car. With CVUSD budget cuts and entitled parents you are asking for a child to be hit by a car. Is this the community you want? Jamie Matthews Thousand Oaks 12B - Crossing Guard Pr oI am opposed to this itemI have been by multiple schools in the district and some are safer than others to get across the street. I know there was a survey for how many used the crosswalk but what matters most? That crossing guards are only available for elementary schools with enough people walking? Or that however many students are walking to school, can walk to school safely? I think before cutting any crossing guards, traffic patterns and how busy the street is being crossed should be of more concern than how many use it. Keeping a crossing guard for one kid’s safety (perhaps without access to a car) to cross a crazy intersection is more important to me than how many kids use a crosswalk. Some schools have only one entrance for car drop offs right off a street and it gets crazy and dangerous. Regardless of how many students use that crosswalk, there should be a crossing guard. Other neighborhoods are easier for students to walk safely- either with a sidewalk around a cul de sac or green belts.
Victoria Grether Thousand Oaks 12B - Crossing Guard Pr
oI am opposed to this itemEliminating the crossing guard at Westlake Hills is a huge mistake and is guaranteed to result in a child getting injured (or worse). That intersection is incredibly confusing and chaotic.
It will also take freedom away from the children who currently walk to school. I suspect their parents won’t allow them to walk anymore, which is a huge part of childhood independence that builds confidence. Please reconsider this decision.
June Kamiya Calabasas 12B - Crossing Guard Pr
oNeutral/Does Not Apply Please do not cut the budget for crossing guards. My daughter recently graduated from Westlake Hills Elementary School.
The crossing guards were instrumental in keeping the kids safe. They diligently do their job to protect the students AND they all did it with a big smile.This is such an important job, please know this! Sarita Ramirez Newbury Park 12B - Crossing Guard Pr
oI am opposed to this itemI’m shocked and alarmed at hearing that several crossing guard positions are being eliminated. Our children’s safety should be one f the community’s top priorities. My home school is Banyan and one of the reasons I opted out was the danger of crossing Lynn at Knollwood. It doesn’t take much imagination to see what a risk this is. While there is a flashing crosswalk, the curve approaching the intersection, heading toward Reino, is so close to the crosswalk it doesn’t give drivers much time to see. And the speed limit is constantly exceeded. It’s such a dangerous intersection. I recently saw an accident there while the cross guard was on duty even. This is a mistake to make this crossing even less safe for our neighborhood children.
There really should be a light here.
TO COUNCIL: 07/08/2025
MEETING DATE: 07/08/2025
2 Written Comment:
Lee Ann Holland, Newbury Park – 12B – Crossing Guard Program – Opposed
I first spoke before the City Council two years ago about the new Crossing Guard Policy and Standards and the predictable outcome of implementing this policy. It’s been a slow roll over the past two years, yet here we are with 11 of the current 24 crossing guard locations on the chopping block, which would impact 10 of the 20 CVUSD schools that have crossing guards. Over the past two years, the public has been told that this is not a budgetary issue, because the cost is a relatively small part of the overall city budget.
Rather, it’s an attempt to take emotion and politics out of the equation by establishing “minimum standards” that remove arbitrary evaluations. However, the flaw in this approach is that it does take the “human” element out of the picture. There is little flexibility to the standards, and I believe some of the requirements don’t take into account the lives of working parents. While I appreciate that several council members have been involved in school Walk and Roll events and have engaged in efforts to increase walking to school, as far as I know, there has been little direct engagement by city staff with the affected school communities. No attempts to find out any underlying causes of low pedestrian counts. No Town Halls or Round Tables. No discussions with school leaders or school site parent organizations, like PTAs. Beyond the static outreach of the city’s Walk to School website, I know of only one time that city staff engaged directly with CVUSD parents at a District Advisory Council meeting. Not a single parent had anything positive to say about the policy, and many raised huge concerns about child safety. Moreover, there has been no analysis of why some sites meet the counts in the AM, but not PM, and vice versa. Working parents may have the ability to drop their kids off at school in the morning on their way to work, but they might not not able to pick them up mid-afternoon, and then kids walk home. Or, kids may walk to school in the morning and attend after-school programs so they are not at home alone, which would be impact the afternoon pedestrian count times. Another issue with the policy is that it takes discretionary decision-making out of the hands of our elected officials. I recognize that this was part of the intention of the policy, but I think that is a huge mistake and undermines the tenets of representative democracy. Not many members of the public follow the TTAC agendas, and the times when the discussions about Crossing Guards are held at city meetings are either near the end of school or in the middle of summer. This timing makes it difficult to have true civic engagement with parents. Another reason I’ve heard to justify the policy is that it is difficult to staff the positions, and city staff sometimes have to fill in for vacancies. It seems that staff’s new recommendation of contracting with an outside provider would remove the burden from city staff and might allow for additional flexibility in filling the positions. As I see it, this policy is a misguided attempt to solve a staffing issue rather than a budgetary one.
Moreover, I don’t believe it reflects our values as a community with a highly desirable “small town” vibe. Nor does it conform with the city’s goals of equity, having a responsive and transparent government or maintaining public safety. Tonight, I ask that you table the recommended cuts and request a discussion of the efficacy, evolution and nature of this policy at a future City Council meeting. I hope that you will consider engaging directly with CVUSD parents this fall, particularly at the schools that will be impacted. Back-to-School nights in late September/early October would provide great 3 opportunities to hear from a broad range of parents during each event’s main assembly.
Please consider a course correction before eliminating any Crossing Guard locations.
The proposed cuts will undercut the community’s trust and jeopardize our children’s safety.
4