Their silence on these "Slow Growth” issues fully demonstrates their political hypocrisy and the true nature of why they hold office. 

It is imperative that we bring respect, integrity and balance to the city council it is no longer a place where bully boy tactics, cheap provocateur baiting and a betrayal of the public interest should be tolerated.      

ed. The following letter succinctly delineates  the major problems with the expansion of the Mall.

10/17/06

Planning Commission
City of Thousand Oaks
C/O John Prescott
Community Development Department

October 16, 2006

Dear Planning Commissioners,

Please consider these thoughts on the Oaks mass Renovation/Expansion project.  This comment is similar to but updated from the statement I placed responding to the EIR. 

Briefly, the project is too big.  Renovation is a wonderful idea.  A slight expansion might be acceptable, but as planned it is too much.  The detrimental impact on air quality which cannot be mitigated, even if the environmentally favorable alternative of building only Phase I is chosen, makes clear that the size is excessive.  I urge all responsible for oversight of this project to reduce its size and to bring its impact within limits considered acceptable by standards of Thousand Oaks (not Los Angeles County!) for traffic, and Ventura County for air pollution.  I urge City Planners, the Planning Commission and City Council to insure Macerich modifies this project so that it will not degrade the quality of life for residents, as the current proposal seems certain to do.  Finally, I urge Macerich to recognize the extraordinary opportunity to incorporate leading edge architectural innovations which are not just pretty, but enable and encourage Oaks Mall patrons to shop in a more pleasant, healthy, thrifty and reasonable manner. 

The fundamental problem is the effect of the project on automobile traffic.  Increased automobile trips generate a lot more air pollution at levels which are not mitigable.  The quality of air in our area has been below acceptable standards for a long time.  In recent years it has tended towards less unacceptable.  The increased traffic generated in response to this project would reverse this tendency towards improvement.  That is not acceptable.  Even though payment into a mitigation fund for three years can be said to mitigate the pollution, at least in legal terms, that would be for only three years.  I wish the Oaks Mall successful and vigorous business for much longer than three years, but I want their business operated for this long span in a manner that is not destructive to the Conejo Valley. 

Many of the members of the Macerich organization who are responsible for this project are fellow residents of the Conejo Valley, and I believe they share my concern for the effects of the renovation on the community.  The essence of the issue then, as I see it, is how can Macerich plan and execute a successful renovation that will not be harmful to the community?  By successful I mean rewarding financially and possibly in other ways for Macerich, and providing a sense of enhancement to the lives of residents of our community.  By not harmful I primarily mean not degrading the quality of the air we all must breath and transportation we all must use.  However, recognizing that others might take issue with other aspects of the project, I would leave this open to include issues brought by others. 

The fundamental issue is creation of too many automobile trips.  One big step in remedying this is to allow only Phase I.  However, emission of NOX would still exceed acceptable standards, so further steps must be taken.  One obvious step would be reduction in the size for the project.  I urge careful consideration of requiring this modification.  It seems obvious that our air resources may simply be inadequate to support the proposed expansion.  Just as a project might be limited by lack of available water, or buildings limited by the structural properties of wood and concrete, the ability of our air to become cleansed may be insufficient in our environment.  We all enjoy the extended periods of sunshine with little rain.  However, rain is the primary natural mechanism which removes pollution from the air.  It is important to recognize and work within the limits imposed by our glorious environment. 

Reducing the traffic-generating aspect of the project would have the obvious additional benefit of reducing the impact of the additional traffic on local transportation.  However, the issue of traffic generation and mitigation bears much more scrutiny.  On page 4.2-12 under Mitigation Measures, you mention “… transportation alternatives that minimize air emissions.  These include : … Sidewalks and bike lanes/paths that provide safe and easy pedestrian and bicycle access to the entire site …”  This is a wonderful thought that I believe deserves much stronger emphasis.  Supporting Macerich’s good intentions, it is important for City Planners to create the environment in which proposals such as these can become fully effective.  Two aspects must be considered.  First, mitigation measures for traffic must not negate or even make impossible the pedestrian and bicycle mitigation measures for proposed pollution.  Second, overall City planning outside the scope of this project should coordinate the efforts of Macerich and other property owners so that their efforts to reduce automobile traffic and pollution lead to synergy rather than negation. 

“Traffic mitigation measures” which have been employed by the City have had major negative effects on bicycle transportation.  As a personal example, in the past my wife rode her bicycle from our home in central Thousand Oaks to work at Amgen.  More recently the installation of automobile turn lanes at intersections on Hillcrest have disrupted the bicycle lanes, transforming a safe and sensible bicycle commute into a dangerous venture into traffic.  She tells me many of her co-workers at Amgen would prefer to commute by bicycle, but do not due to similar concerns.  Planning which allows bicycle commuting would enhance the value of nearby housing for present and future Amgen employees, and permanently lessen the need for automobile transportation.  In contrast, the proposed addition of turn lanes at intersections along Hillcrest and other affected streets will wreak additional havoc on the remaining bicycle commuters.  If turn lanes must be added they must, but never at the expense of bicycle lanes.  Self-contradictions in the proposed mitigation are ludicrous.  The traffic mitigation component eliminates bicycle transportation, yet the air pollution mitigation component claims to enhance bicycle and pedestrian transportation.  The anticipated air pollution, which staff finds not mitigable by any means, results from the excessive increase in automobile transportation enabled by the traffic mitigation.  Traffic mitigation measures should be structured so as to enhance and encourage, not disrupt, bicycle and pedestrian transportation.  Mitigation of any detrimental aspect of the project, eg traffic congestion, should not be allowed to increase the detriment from other aspects, eg air pollution. 

 As a small example of how pedestrian and bicycle access could be encouraged, could you require Macerich provide home delivery of purchased goods?  My thought is that delivery might be restricted those who walk or bicycle to the mall, perhaps by limiting the area to which deliveries are made, or some other mechanism.  If online malls can deliver to your home, and in some cases for free, why not the Oaks?  Imagine - ride your bike to the Oaks Mall and leave it in the bike racks (there will be bike racks by the door, right?), browse and make your purchases, then have a sandwich and glass off iced tea in the shade in one of the many patio restaurants.  Then ride home and shortly your packages arrive.  What a healthy, inexpensive, non-polluting model for the shopping mall experience of the future. 

The potential for synergy in encouraging bicycle and pedestrian transportation seems particularly plentiful.  One possibility is enhance access from the facilities of Conejo Recreation and Parks Department and the National Park Service which are located at the top of the hill just across Hillcrest from the Oaks Mall.  CRPD General Manager Jim Friedl seems quite favorable toward this idea.  Facile pedestrian and bicycle access to CRPD and NPS facilities would certainly be a boon to the pedestrian-friendly renovated Oaks Mall.  On a different project (homes to be built on Warwick at Mayflower), I requested and developer Centex agreed to provide pedestrian and bicycle access from Conejo Community Park to the streets just behind the CRPD and NPS facilities (St. Charles Place and McCloud).  Linking these can provide automobile-free access to the Oaks Mall for Thousand Oaks residents who live in the vicinity of Conejo Community Park.  The same developer recently received permission to build at Ventu Park and Ramona, near Amgen and just down either Lynn Road, or Ventu Park then Hillcrest, from the Oaks Mall.  Unfortunately this project does not provide easy bicycle access to Amgen or the Oaks Mall, illustrating a planning failure when viable bicycle routes are not given priority.  Another example of poor housing planning with respect to transportation and air quality is Rancho Conejo, just across Ventu Park Road from Amgen.  Many Amgen employees live there, and a number have remarked to my wife that they would prefer to walk or bicycle to their close-by work.  Unfortunately due to the inappropriate street layout and bicycle path placement, they drive to work, increasing their cost, pollution production and traffic, and removing the health benefits of exercise. 

For Rancho Conejo and the Centex development at Ventu Park and Ramona we can say hindsight is 20-20, we have to live with what we have.  For the Oaks Mall Renovation, for the Centex development at Warwick and Mayflower and Ventu Park and Ramona, and for bicycle transportation all over our city, the future is now.  We need to do our best to insure what we allow to be built will be viewed as insightful, forward-looking and enhancing our city when considered by residents ten or twenty years from now.  What value will be given to architecture and urban planning that encourage walking and bicycles in preference to automobiles as the health benefits of exercise in daily life and breathing clean air become more established, and gasoline prices reach - who knows, $20 per gallon?

 Earlier I mentioned possible benefits for Macerich.  Where better than Thousand Oaks to innovate the mall of the future which shifts emphasis from the automobile to other forms of transportation, including pedestrian and bicycle but also various public conveyances such as busses.  Think of the publicity such a creation would rightly accrue!  With the support of the City, think of how financially successful it could be!  Think of the reception from residents if the project were revised so it was predicted not to ruin the air we breathe! 

 With pedestrian and bicycle-friendly support from Macerich and builders, Thousand Oaks can reach build out with state of the art urban design which encourages environmentally friendly, healthy, and frugal habits among it residents! 

 As the City reviews bicycle safety following the tragic death of Glen Garvin, review and enhancement of overall planning for bicycle use is very appropriate.  

Tom Ritch

Council Out of Touch

The majority on the Thousand Oaks City Council is out of sync with the voters, and nothing proved that more clearly than the last election.

Four of the five council members endorsed Joe Gibson for supervisor and attached their names to his negative mailers. Not surprisingly, despite the endorsements, Linda Parks won overwhelmingly.

How could a council majority be so off the mark? I can only guess it's because they have plans for this city that a slow-growth supervisor would not endorse. They all "talk the talk" about being slow growth, but at the end of the day, who is buying it? Not the majority of voters who heartily rejected their candidate.

The best thing that can happen is for voters to purge the city of this council majority. It is painfully obvious that Andy Fox and his cronies have an agenda that runs contrary to what the majority of citizens want, and the last election proves that true.

— Jocelyn DeVault, Newbury Park                          (From the Conejo Valley Edition of the Star, June 28, 2006)

From the Thousand Oaks Acorn  July 27, 2006

Grand jury scolds council over insults, disrespect
By Sophia Fischer sfischer@theacorn.com                                                                                  June 29, 2006

Report cites lack of transparency

Although there was no evidence of Brown Act violations by the Thousand Oaks City Council in the firing of former City Manager Phil Gatch, according to a recent report issued by the Ventura County grand jury, the council was reprimanded for the way it conducts business.

The Brown Act is the state's open meeting law that protects the public's right to access and participate in government meetings.

"The City Council's history of adversarial relationships, lack of cooperation, internal strife and acrimony, insulting citizenry, and extreme and disrespectful rhetoric has been well-documented for over a decade," according to the report. "The city government of Thousand Oaks often gives the appearance that it fails to operate transparently and professionally. There is a perception that many decisions are decided in advance of City Council meetings and that the meetings are essentially a public formality."

The report cites three specific examples: the forced resignation of Gatch; the recruitment process for a new city manager; and the decision not to hold an election to replace former Councilmember Ed Masry, even though three years remained on his term. Instead, the council majority of Andy Fox, Dennis Gillette and Jacqui Irwin appointed former planning commission chair Tom Glancy. The three council members also promoted former assistant city manager Scott Mitnick to replace Gatch.

"A public perception of underhandedness, poor judgment, and lack of professionalism exists with respect to the resignation of City Manager Gatch that resulted in a rush to judgment when other options were readily available," the report states. "The City Council could have easily reviewed the city manager's performance in closed session and given him the opportunity to resign or be fired."

The jury further advises the council to revise its code of ethics to conduct business in a more positive, clear and inclusive way. In addition, personnel performance and reviews must be handled in strict adherence to municipal code.

"The City Council should conduct city business in such a way as to inspire confidence, respect, and trust from constituents," the report states.

The investigation into possible Brown Act violations was requested by the council in April 2005, shortly after Gatch's resignation, which a number of residents felt had been coerced by Councilmember Fox, according to the report. Councilmember Claudia Bill-de la Pea wanted the inquiry to go a step further to include possible violations of city code, but such an investigation must be conducted by an outside counsel. Council members Fox, Dennis Gillette and Jacqui Irwin voted against Bill-de la Pea's motion.

In the course of the investigation, the grand jury interviewed council members, city staff and residents and reviewed taped meetings, news articles and documents.

The grand jury, made up of local volunteers, investigates various departments and special districts of county and city government, reviews fiscal and management audits and prepares reports on related matters. The jury works with the Superior Court and the district attorney's office.

The city council must respond to the report.

2005-2006 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report

09 Thousand Oaks City Council

STAY TUNED THERE IS MORE TO COME...