On Tuesday, May 6, the Thousand Oaks City Council will decide whether 326 acres of undeveloped land should be annexed into the city limits. When the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal back in February, the annexation was tied to plans for a multimillion-dollar equestrian center in a standard all-or-nothing package.

However, it appears that the new equestrian center has run into problems. Estimated at close to $4 million to build, the City has chosen not to fund the center's construction during the most recent budget cycle, meaning any new center wouldn't be completed for more than two years. The actual plans for the center have issues ranging from significant grading to poor trail access to inadequate biofiltration units. Plus, no one can make the case why this new multi-million dollar center is needed when many equestrians are satisfied with the current, more rustic, and more economical Two Winds Ranch.

The new center's problems could serve as an anchor that would sink the annexation. This may be the reason why the equestrian center's plans have now been pulled from the upcoming City Council hearing. The Council will only review the land use items dealing with the annexation, making the previous all-or-nothing proposal much less all-or-nothing.

The City has not made a compelling case for why this land must be annexed. The new equestrian center will not become a reality, due to lack of funding, and there are no publicly announced plans for why 140 acres must be zoned something other than open space. The land will be annexed and then just sit there, waiting for a future Council to determine its fate.

Luckily, there's a simple alternative that can meet the public's desires. Support Two Winds Ranch as our community's equestrian center by offering them a long-term lease for its operations. Additionally, ask the County to zone the property as Open Space, which would allow for Two Winds' operation through a conditional use permit. This permit can then be crafted to address some of the nuisance concerns expressed by residents, such as runoff, landscaping, and odors created by cattle.

This provides equestrians with a center that they can have confidence will actually be around, while preserving all of the remaining land as natural open space, insuring its passive recreational use and keeping it as part of the ring of open space that surrounds our city.

It provides Dos Vientos residents with security in knowing that this land will not become developed in the future. It gives other Newbury Park residents faith that no further traffic and noise impacts will result.

It doesn't cost $1 million or more to implement as the new proposed center does. It doesn't require a "quid pro quo" of approving three tract mansions in exchange for $2.5 million.

By taking a simple, more straightforward approach, the greater public interest would be served, which includes those of Dos Vientos and Newbury Park residents, equestrians, and those concerned about runaway spending on public projects.

With all this, I am concerned that, rather than taking a simple approach, this will only become an opportunity to construct another last minute "deal" - one that will sound irresistible on its face and pull effectively at our heartstrings, but will once again fall shallow in its details.

We need to stop looking to acquire more cash and start looking at how to stop wasting it. Taking a simple approach to preserving the quality of life we have is a start.

Even a rocket scientist can make mistakes sometimes and the results can be devastating. We’ve heard from quite a few people already, and the issue of a new equestrian center has been bantered around like a tennis ball.

Sounds pretty simple the way Joe Gibson and Barbara Kloster put it. Our community should have a public equestrian center where country and horse lovers can enjoy all the disciplines of horse-related activities.

What horseman would not want to support a public horse center? One very important equation of this issue has been left out. We already have an equestrian center that has been operating in our community for over 30 years with very reasonable success. Two Winds, directed by Bully and Sally Caddin, has endured over three decades, having to

relocate because of development more than once.When politics and overdevelopment take over a city, it tends to lose its heart and compassion for its people, as Bully has now become expendable for some money-making plan that probably only the developers and their cronies in politics are setting us up for. This new center would be the demise of Two Winds.

I get very suspicious when the developer supporters like the now minority council, planning commissioners, and the parks and recreation department urge horsemen to get out and support a new center. I for one will not be led and treated like I’m one of a herd of sheep not knowing all the options and the hidden agendas.

Why up till now is nobody regarding Bully’s opinion about this new center, which will probably cost us taxpayers millions eventually? He would be the most qualified expert on a proposition like this. He is providing this wonderful service to the community and paying taxes too. He operates at minimal cost to the users, and most everyone I know is very happy with what he has done, especially the way he extends himself to disadvantaged kids. He is getting more and more satisfied customers coming from Dos Vientos, too. I think the majority of the homeowners there like his facility.

The new site is not as safe or user-friendly as the present location; the usable land is at a minimum. Why do we want to pay the developer that encourages this deal millions to grade land when we have the perfect site now that could be improved and enhanced if only the city would extend Two Winds a reasonable lease. Month to month, as it is now, is no incentive for an operator to sink money into improving a place that he may lose tomorrow.

Listen up, horse lovers: a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. The city admits there is no money to build this new facility. There may be hard times ahead due to economics of today. I have a feeling the majority would and do support Two Winds where it stands and want to keep the rest of the surrounding area open space.Now that is a simple, economical, and compassionate plan. All of you others that have enjoyed Two Winds, stand up and be counted. Support Bully and let your voices be heard. He is one of our own with a proven record.

Marilee Ullmann

Thousand Oaks

Bring Down the Behemoth - Letter in the Acorn March 6, 2003

A behemoth of astonishing size and power is loose in our fair city and it appears there is no one who can offer us citizens and homeowners any protection. Certainly not the planning commission, who, it appears in the final analysis, is helpless.

Mr. Pluth, representing Parks and Recreation, finally admitted, after heroic efforts to avoid a direct answer, and only when left no wiggle room by Commissioner Custodio, that they were appearing before the Thousand Oaks Planning Commission for project approval only as a courtesy! That if for some unimaginable reason, the planning commission did not agree with the conclusions reached in their Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND—environmental study conclusions), they could still move forward with the project as it now stands by obtaining a four-fifths "yes" vote from the Parks and Recreation board. Now isn’t that special.

Not that there appeared to be any danger of not obtaining the planning commission’s approval. With the exception of one commissioner asking the hard questions, the commission bent over backwards to help put a positive spin on reports presented on behalf of the Parks and Recreation Department. The whole tone of the meeting and presentations was that if you were opposed to this project as is, you must be opposed to AYSO, happy

children, mom, apple pie and the flag!

Personally, and speaking for many of my neighbors, nothing could be further from the truth. My daughter played soccer for many years, and I assume my granddaughters will play as well when the time comes.I do not object to developing the park site. My concerns, from the initial unveiling of the Master Plan to now, are Conejo Oaks neighborhood traffic issues, both vehicular and foot, and light and noise pollution.

I have voiced these concerns at every public hearing, as have many of my Conejo Oaks neighbors. To date, no one has listened. Insult was added to injury at the planning commission meeting. Homeowner concerns about these issues were rebutted with an environmental report generated by the same agency asking for project approval. Yes, Parks and Recreation generated their own environmental study.

The company presenting a report and answering questions on recommended specifications for lighting the park site is the same company paid to do the design and specifications and the same company who will be one of the bidders for the lighting job.

The city traffic study that is part of the MND document only addresses traffic issues at Paige and Janss Road. Conejo Oaks neighborhood traffic issues are not addressed at all and were not requested. A Parks and Recreation paid expert addressed noise pollution and essentially said, "I don’t understand the concern. Any additional noise will not be heard above the noise generated by the 23 Freeway anyway."

And there you have it. If there’s anyone listening out there, "HELP!"

Zora Kirby

Thousand Oaks

Believes Two Winds Can Stay - Letter to Acorn February 27, 2003

Regarding the Broom Ranch/equestrian facility controversy, the best solution is to do nothing. Maintaining the status quo would benefit the most amount of people. Keep the existing Two Winds equestrian facility in operation. Give the current operator a 6 year lease, thereby giving horse riders some permanence and taking the issue away from whoever gets elected in two years on the city council.

I further take strong exception to the assumptions and comments made on the subject by my former classmate, Andy Fox, to the Acorn. If the property were annexed, the City Council has the power anytime they chose to re-zone the property. Fact: The original zoning on Dos Vientos was 1 unit per 250 acres. The council annexed Dos Vientos then re-zoned the site to 1 unit per acre.

Two Winds cannot remain open due to code compliance? Not true. The city council can and often does grant waivers to code compliance.The cost to board horses at the new proposed facility will be higher and exclude more equestrians than the present Two Winds facility. The truth being that the new facility will cost 2.5 million dollars and will be put out to operator bid. The new operator can then charge whatever they want.

Frankly speaking, after the firing of the three planning commissioners, I do not trust the pro-development council members and their allies to keep their word and promises regarding their intended use of the Broom Brothers Ranch property. Doing nothing, maintaining the status quo, insures that the property is protected, can be used by the public for horse riding plus hiking, and will not be destroyed by bulldozers.

Michael A. "Mike" Dunn

Newbury Park

Thousand Oaks, Farris Calls Truce - The reinstated planner agrees to drop his appeal of a suit over approval of three estate homes. March 8, 2003 LA Times By Gregory W. Griggs, Times Staff Writer

Taking his anti-development fight from the courthouse to City Hall, Thousand Oaks Planning Commissioner Michael Farris has decided to drop his appeal in a lawsuit against the city.

The commissioner agreed this week to abandon his appeal in exchange for the city dropping its pursuit of nearly $6,000 for providing copies of documents tied to the lawsuit. A final settlement is still being worked out, according to the city's legal staff.

Farris' original suit had accused the city of violating its own open-space protection statutes when it gave permission last year for construction of three estate homes on an 8.7-acre site in Newbury Park once proposed for a private equestrian center.But a Superior Court judge ruled in October that the city adhered to state environmental regulations, did not violate state zoning laws and was not required to seek voter approval to allow development of the property near the upscale Dos Vientos neighborhood.

"We were happy that we prevailed in the litigation," said Deputy City Manager Jim Friedl. "We believe the city's position was the right one all along."

Farris said he wants to prohibit building on the land and to dedicate it as permanent open space. "The fight is about preserving land next to the Santa Monica Mountains Recreation Area as open space," he said.Farris was running for City Council when the judge ruled against him. Though unsuccessful in his council bid, two of his slow-growth running mates -- Claudia Bill-de la Pena and Bob Wilson Sr. -- were elected to the council and shifted its political majority to slow-growth adherents from one that critics complained was too accommodating to development interests.

Since then, the new majority has returned Farris to the Planning Commission from which he was removed last year by the previous council. Another slow-growth advocate, Laura Lee Custodio, also was appointed to the commission.

"The election in November made a big difference in the way things get handled in Thousand Oaks and our lawsuit became less important," said lawyer Richard Francis, who represents Farris. Bill-de la Pena took the first steps to unravel the city's approval of the luxury homes in December when she received council approval, on a 3-2 vote, to reopen negotiations with Operating Engineers Pension Trust, which owns the 8.7-acre parcel.

In exchange for permission to build, the landowner agreed to give the city $2.5 million to help pay for an equestrian center on nearby public open space at Rancho Potrero.

Judge Asks for More Map Data - LA Times article - At issue is whether Thousand Oaks properly OKd building of three estate homes. By Gregory W. Griggs, LA Times Staff Writer October 16, 2002

The lawyer behind many of Ventura County's open space protection laws was asked Tuesday to submit additional documents to a judge considering whether Thousand Oaks properly authorized construction of three estate homes on a site once planned for an equestrian center.

Richard Francis, representing City Council candidate Michael Farris in his lawsuit against the city, was asked by Superior Court Judge Kent Kellegrew to provide him with more information on land-use maps at the heart of the dispute.

Farris' lawsuit maintains city maps in use six years ago clearly show the 8.7-acre site in question was designated as existing parks, golf courses and open spaces. A 1996 open space preservation ordinance requires voters' approval before such land uses can be changed.The suit argues that once the Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources-like ordinance was adopted by the council that year, it obligated the city to adhere to the land uses outlined in its General Plan and corresponding maps, whether those maps were correctly marked or not.

Thousand Oaks' attorneys argue city maps had been erroneously color-coded for years and should have designated the Newbury Park property south of Potrero Road only as proposed parks and recreation. "The judge is going to have to make a tough decision," Francis said after the hearing Tuesday. "Whether a map with an error that was relied upon by the voters should govern and require a public vote ... or whether the error was enough to invalidate this dispute."City Atty. Mark Sellers told the judge that when the city's first comprehensive General Plan was adopted in 1970, the site was designated as low-density residential, which would have allowed as many as 32 homes on the property.

The land use was changed in 1988 to proposed parks and recreation as part of the overall plan for Dos Vientos, according to the city.After several hours of discussing the validity of city maps, Mark C. Allen, a lawyer for the property owner, told the judge that his client's 1990 development agreement with the city came years before SOAR and guaranteed its right to develop the land.

Keep Resident's Interest in Mind, Talks Could Kill Equestrian Center - Star Editorial: January 11, 2003

As the old saying goes, "talk is cheap." But not always, which is why the Thousand Oaks City Council would be wise to tread lightly so negotiations to purchase a nine-acre, controversial parcel of farmland don't end up costing millions.

On a split council vote, Councilwoman Claudia Bill-de la Pena has been given the go-ahead to initiate talks to have the city buy back the nine-acre parcel off Potrero Road, which was part of a complex land-swap deal last year that, among other things, saved the Western Plateau from development. The 191 acres of pristine open space in northwestern Thousand Oaks is coveted by residents and environmentalists alike.

New Councilwoman Bill-de la Pena was on the Planning Commission last year when it voted to delay a decision on the Western Plateau deal. As a result of that vote, the City Council majority, which favored the plan, ousted two planning commissioners and censured then-Councilwoman Linda Parks.

In the Western Plateau deal, which included several land-use changes in the Dos Vientos Ranch subdivision in southwestern Thousand Oaks, the developer, Operating Engineers Pension Trust, was given the OK to build three estate homes on the nine acres of Potrero Road. In exchange, the city would get a $2.5 million contribution from the developer to build a long-awaited public equestrian center at a different location.

This change led to questions as to whether a public vote was required under the city's open-space regulations and to fears that the three homes would serve as a beachhead for more development on Potrero Road. A court battle ended with a judge ruling the three homes could be built without a vote.

It's a delicate issue that some, apparently, are not willing to let go of. Not only is there the matter of the new negotiations undoing the actions of a previous council, there is a slight risk the talks could endanger the entire Western Plateau deal.Additionally, if talks are successful, the likely scenario would be the city buying back the nine acres and forfeiting $2.5 million for the equestrian center.

That is not to say the talks should not happen. There may be a way to acquire the parcel and the developer's contribution -- one doesn't know until one asks. But, it appears the renewed efforts to preserve this less-than-pristine nine-acre parcel are fraught with politics and cronyism, which do not serve the public's interest.

Council Hopes to Buy Controversial Nine Acres - By Jessica Smith, December 19, 2002

On a split vote, the Thousand Oaks City Council decided Tuesday to begin negotiations to purchase nine acres that have been surrounded by controversy for most of the year.

Council members Ed Masry and Bob Wilson backed Councilwoman Claudia Bill-de la Pena's plan to acquire the parcel, which was part of a complex land-swap deal approved earlier this year to preserve 191 acres known as the Western Plateau. Mayor Andy Fox and Councilman Dennis Gillette voted against the initiative, citing an existing agreement that gives developers the right to build three homes on the Potrero Road site in exchange for a $2.5 million contribution to the city for a public equestrian center. "I'm very concerned we are going to start undoing previous agreements made by previous city councils, and that's exactly what this does," said Fox, one of the chief negotiators in the Western Plateau deal.

Bill-de la Pena, meanwhile, said there is no reason to worry that the city will lose money for the long-awaited public equestrian center. "I will do everything in my power to see that equestrians aren't left holding the bag," she said, adding that she hoped to acquire the land and still meet the needs of equestrians.

Mark Allen, an attorney who represents Operating Engineers Pension Trust, the developer that owns the Potrero parcel, declined to comment.

Earlier this year, questions about the land-use designation for the site sparked a chain of events that culminated in the council's decision to censure former Councilwoman Linda Parks and oust two members of the Thousand Oaks Planning Commission who delayed public hearings on the Western Plateau plan.

Michael Farris, one of the fired commissioners, lost a legal battle to preserve the Potrero Road property. He argued that city maps clearly showed the land could not be used for residential development, but a judge ruled that the map incorrectly identified the property as open space.

Commission Stalls Land Annexation - By John Phane Acorn Editor February 20, 2003

Refusing to vote on land use designations, the annexation of land south of Lynn Road in Newbury Park and conceptual plans for a proposed equestrian center, the three new members of the Thousand Oaks Planning

Commission have thrown a stumbling block in front of a decade-long effort to bring a public equestrian center to the city. The proposals, up for review and suggestion by the commission, will now go to a public hearing in front of City Council.

About 10 years ago the city put up $1 million and the Conejo Recreation and Park District $1.9 million to purchase land in Newbury Park near the Dos Vientos neighborhood. Since a good portion of the land is outside city sphere of influence, the 326-acre parcel has been held in trust by the Mountains Recreation and Conservancy Authority to save the city and park district from having to pay thousands annually in property tax. The city and district have been moving to annex the land so that they can take title to the property; once the land is under city influence, property tax would no longer apply.

In recent years, the Conejo Open Space Conservation Agency hosted a series of public meetings and explored multiple sites as to the requirements and location of the proposed equestrian center, with the old Olympia Farms location—a former horse farm on the 326 acres—being named as the best location for the center.

Commissioner Michael Farris led the charge to halt the project until concerns that basic utilities being supplied to the equestrian center, causing the center to have "growth-inducing" effects on the area could be addressed. He said he was disturbed that adjoining parcels might be able to tap those utilities and be developed. He also said, without ever actually enumerating exactly what the alleged deficiencies might be despite repeated requests by the assistant city attorney assigned to assist the commission to do so, that he said he believes the environmental document associated with the project is inadequate.

However, according to John Prescott, planning director, there are no growth-inducing properties associated with the project. There would be underground power, water and television cable run to the equestrian center; however, because of the limited needs of the project, Prescott said there would be no natural gas line, instead a propane tank would be installed and sewage would be handled through an onsite septic tank.

Additionally, Prescott said that the current land designation on the parcel allows for the possibly of about 300 units being constructed. Under new designations of Open Space and Public Land, there is no room for any dwelling being constructed on the property, Prescott said. He said it is his belief, and his opinion was echoed by Jim Bruno, commission chair, that if the land would be rezoned, it would have far greater protection from development than it currently enjoys.

Additionally, much of the land would come under the Parks Initiative, which says it can’t be developed without a popular vote of city residents, and it would come under the City Urban Restriction Boundary, or CURB, and again a popular vote would have to approve the land for development. Because of all the restrictions proposed to be placed on the property, Prescott said that it is virtually impossible for the property to be residentially or commercially developed if it were to be rezoned.

However, in his comments, Farris seemed concerned that because of the Public Land designation, that other active recreational uses, such as soccer fields, might be approved, and that would go against desires of neighbors, who he said would like to see the property kept completely undeveloped.

It was also suggested that the Two Winds equestrian center be allowed to continue operation, and that would negate the need for a new center. However, according to Mayor Andy Fox, while many residents would like to see Two Winds remain open, it’s not likely that’s possible.

Fox, in statements supported by Jim Friedl, assistant city manager, said that the present Two Winds location doesn’t begin to fill basic infrastructure and code requirements.

"It was never meant to be a permanent site," Fox said. He said that an environmental impact report was never prepared on the present Two Winds site since it was meant to be a temporary location, and that because it is on city-owned property, even if the site went through all the hoops, that the city would then have to put it out to bid to see who or what agency would be the most suited to operate the facility.

"So, the present operator might lose the site anyway," Fox said.

Both Fox and Friedl said that the site would face stiff opposition by area homeowners if it where to be considered as a permanent location and would probably never be approved for such use.

An additional problem with the slow down is that the city is currently promised $2.5 million in cash and in-kind toward the $3.3 million estimated cost of construction on the project by one of the Dos Vientos developers in trade for being allowed to construct three estates on what is known as Site I. If the city can’t move forward on the center, that money may be lost.

Farris recently sued and lost a court battle with the city in an attempt to keep Site I from being developed.

The mayor doesn’t want to lose those dollars. "We’d be going backwards if we lose the money from Site I," Fox said. It has been alleged that annexing the land for the center and the development of Site I are little more than back doors for developers to develop more of the land in that area.

"It would be impossible," Fox said. "I don’t see any value in that land, (Site I), except to a handful of Dos Vientos residents who would have their view compromised. Operating Engineers is going to build something on that land, and so the right policy choice is to make the deal, get the money, and build the center in a location that won’t impact anyone."

It has been alleged that the center could be constructed using a portion of more than $4 million in developer funds the city is holding. In fact, the City Council is hosting a town hall meeting in the Newbury Park High School cafeteria beginning at 6 p.m. on Tuesday, Feb. 25 to discuss the use of those monies.

It has also been alleged that the developer fees could be used to purchase Site I for an undisclosed price.

Fox said he believes the town hall meetings will serve a purpose as residents need to understand that the Operating Engineers money comes with the trade off of Site I, and that is the right choice for the city, he said.

As to using the $4 million Dos Vientos developer’s fees to purchase the land, he said there are a lot of places where that money is more needed. He said that he has been in communication with the Conejo Valley Unified School District, and all three high school need upgrades to their football fields.

"It wouldn’t just benefit the football teams," Fox said. "It would benefit the track and band programs, as well as dance and cheer. A lot of residents would benefit if we can do something like refurbishing the school fields, and that’s only one idea. There’s a lot more. The main thing is that the money doesn’t get wasted on purchasing Site I."

While there have been allegations that the city would still be able to move ahead with the construction of a public equestrian center at the Olympia Farms location, with the center having been identified as a primary goal of the city for more than a decade, Fox said, the dollars needed to construct that center are "Absolutely tied to Site I."

Additionally, Fox said that he has received a couple of telephone calls from residents that abut the Site I location saying that they really didn’t want an equestrian center to be constructed at that location—the approved option that Operating Engineers has for the site. The developer could build that project tomorrow without any further city approval, Fox said. He said that he inquired from them about whether they could live with the center being traded for two or three houses to be built on the site.

"All the most affected homeowners in the area said that they would be glad to trade for houses as long as their views weren’t impacted," Fox said. He said at that point he went back to the table and negotiated for the developers to be allowed to build three estate-sized homes, to not build an equestrian center at the Site I location, but for Operating Engineers to donate $2.5 million in dollars and in kind toward the construction of an equestrian center at the Olympia Farms location.

"The money is critical because it allows us to operate a facility that allows people a low-cost facility," Fox said.

Having no large mortgage hanging over the facility will allow the city and COSCA to operate the facility at lower prices than if it pays full price, allowing for a location of which more residents will be able to afford to take advantage, he said.

Supporting Two Winds is the real win-win no-brainer solution - Star article By Bob Holland February 26, 2003

I recently met Bully Caddin, who operates the Two Winds Ranch equestrian center along with his daughter, Sally. I am not an equestrian, but was very touched by his love of children, people, horses and the equestrian life.

He is rugged, tan, plain-spoken and straightforward, but beneath the rough cowboy exterior is a man with a big heart. He cares about kids and tells stories of how riding horses can help an introverted child come out of his or her shell or help a sick child to get stronger or provide a sense of responsibility or just give kids something good to do with their time. The Conejo is surely lucky to have him.

Bully has offered his services to this community for 30 years at various locations and in the current one, which is on Conejo Recreation and Park District land leased from the city of Thousand Oaks. He provides income to the city, pays his taxes, provides boarding and riding services to equestrians at reasonable prices, and at no cost to the taxpayers.

Unfortunately, since he is on a month-to-month lease, he is unable to borrow money to make needed improvements, such as increasing the number of stables, planting trees, improving retention basins and waste storage. However, the facility is cleaned on a daily basis, properly maintained, and is well-run, according to its patrons and neighbors.

It seems those who are campaigning for a permanent equestrian center because of the temporary nature of Two Winds Ranch are the ones who have created this situation for Bully -- namely Joe Gibson and his friends at CRPD, city attorney Mark Sellers and our city staff.

Meanwhile, Equestrian Trails Inc. President Jim Rochford and his friend, Jeff Alexander, are trying to put fear into the hearts of local equestrians -- threatening that Bully will drop dead of a heart attack or that neighbors will complain about the ranch and the city will terminate his lease -- so that they will join the campaign to eliminate the ranch in favor of a new center operated by the city.

Rochford said that he deeply respects Bully and that he would like to include him in this new center, but first there are three things that have to happen: Two Winds Ranch has to go, the city has to annex and rezone 326 acres for parkland, and Operating Engineers, one of the Dos Vientos developers, must be allowed to build several luxury homes, in exchange for $2.5 million worth of grading required to prepare the proposed new site. (It's interesting how developers benefit by this plan.)

Gibson recently wrote to The Star criticizing the city planning commissioners for throwing a wrench in the works by opposing the annexation -- calling them incompetent and opposed to change. He calls his plan a win-win, and a no-brainer, but we have heard this from Gibson before, and there is always a hidden agenda with links to developers and the old council majority.

The only folks who are going to "win-win" are CRPD, which may have other plans for the Two Winds Ranch such as a golf or sporting complex, the group that wants to run or control the new equestrian complex, and Operating Engineers, who will use this grading project to train new heavy equipment operators so that the $2.5 million worth of grading costs them nothing.

Equestrians will lose because there is not enough money to build the new center or even if the money is found, the center is likely to be another poorly run municipal boondoggle, which becomes a drain on the taxpayers and/or results in higher boarding and riding rates than Two Winds Ranch currently charges.

Considering the state of the economy, it would be wiser for the city and CRPD to give Bully a 10-year lease, so that he could improve Two Winds Ranch at its present location, as opposed to pursuing a risky plan designed to benefit local developers and politicians. Then, Conejo equestrians can stop worrying about having no place to board and ride. Local equestrians should support Two Winds Ranch.

That is a win-win and a no-brainer.-- Bob Holland lives in Newbury Park.

Commission votes against center, New members oppose equestrian facility - Article in the Star February 12, 2003 By Jessica Smith

The three newest members of the Thousand Oaks Planning Commission banded together Monday in opposition to plans for a public equestrian center south of the Dos Vientos subdivision.

Commissioners Laura Lee Custodio, Michael Farris and Janet Wall, who took their seats on the dais Monday, voted against the annexation of 156 acres south of Lynn Road, which would make it possible for the city to build a long-awaited permanent equestrian center.

According to Farris, environmental documents prepared to analyze the project failed to address the equestrian center's impacts on growth. "If you extend utilities out there, at a minimum you need to analyze the growth-inducing impacts of annexation," Farris said in a separate interview Tuesday.

The site, about one-third of a mile from Lynn Road and Rancho Dos Vientos Drive, is in a natural area known as Rancho Potrero.

Chairman Jim Bruno and Commissioner Tom Glancy supported the annexation.

Planning Director John Prescott said the annexation wouldn't lead to home construction. "We want to annex it and leave it alone," Prescott said, adding that the utilities that would be extended to the site would accommodate only the equestrian center. Water and electricity would be extended to the center, but it wouldn't have sewer or natural gas services.

Prescott said there are no plans to build elsewhere on the 156-acre site, which is part of a larger 326-acre parcel. About 170 acres of the parcel are already in the city's growth boundaries. The annexation is necessary, Prescott said, because a portion of the proposed equestrian center is outside the city's growth boundary.

The matter will be reviewed by the Thousand Oaks City Council at a future meeting.

Monday also marked Farris's return to the commission after a one-year absence. In February 2002, the City Council ousted commissioners Farris and Nora Aidukas, who were accused of conspiring with then-council member Linda Parks to delay public hearings on a plan to preserve 191 acres of open space known as the Western Plateau. The Ventura County District Attorney's Office found no reason to investigate allegations that the trio violated the state's open-meetings law. The council has since issued a formal apology to Farris, Aidukas and Parks.

In addition to the installation of the new commissioners, the commission said good-bye Monday to Jan Osterhaven and Randy Hoffman, who were appointed in March 2002.

Let's keep Two Winds - Letter in the Star February 27, 2003

I would like to add my support of the preservation of the Two Winds Ranch equestrian center on the location on which it currently resides.

The current facility is in need of several upgrades to make it more aesthetically pleasing to local residents and the population in general. Rather than spending millions on a new facility that will be inferior in size and very questionable in viability, it would seem more responsible to improve the current facility and perhaps even enlarge it into the area proposed for the new facility.

In addition, I believe Bully Caddin is more than capable of being retained as the vendor of that facility should it become the public equestrian center. The facility and Mr. Caddin himself appear to be widely supported, even by many of the Dos Vientos residents.

The Two Winds facility serves a great variety of equestrian needs for those with and without horses in our community (including programs that reach the inner city). It also provides affordable stables for our local equestrians who do not own horse property and cannot afford the alternative of an expensive stable. It currently has a direct trail route to national park land (the newly proposed park poses complications to even having a similar trail).

I feel it is completely within the realm of our city's recreation and park officials to retain this facility and build upgrades/landscape at a far smaller expenditure of funds while providing a wonderful, worthwhile service to our community.

-- Michelle Enge, Thousand Oaks

No horse sense - Letter in the Star February 20, 2003

First and foremost, I am an equestrian. I attended the recent Thousand Oaks Planning Commission meeting and was appalled at the ineptness of the new planning commissioners.

I was there to support the annexation of 326 acres to the city of Thousand Oaks to ensure public use and open space, and to support the conceptual plan and design of a public equestrian center.

This plan was torn apart, bisected, dissected, chewed up and spit out by our new planning commissioners, who, unfortunately, were totally misinformed and ill-prepared to approve or disapprove it. It was obvious they did not do their homework and review the packet they were given the week before.

One commissioner was only concerned that there was an endangered flower. There was not. Another commissioner just wanted to know if we lived in Newbury Park and boarded at Two Winds stable. And the last commissioner thought that running electrical and water lines just for the proposed equestrian center would, in turn, create the possibility of hundreds of new homes in the future.

It was stated many times and in many different ways by John Prescott that the electrical and water lines would only be sufficient enough to serve the equestrian center. The rezoning to public use and open space would only allow an equestrian center and future parks. The new commissioners chose not to listen. They asked questions of the speakers, Mark Towne and Mr. Prescott, but, unfortunately, the questions had nothing to do with what they were being asked to consider.

I am just a citizen of the Conejo Valley who is lucky enough to be able to keep my horses in my back yard. My heart goes out to those who have to board at private facilities. I live in Thousand Oaks but I am concerned for the residents of Newbury Park. The decisions that affect them affect us all.

I am not a rocket scientist, but I had no problem understanding the concept of the rezoning and planned design of the public equestrian center. It's really a shame the commissioners who are supposedly well-informed and are appointed representatives of the City Council failed to understand what they were supposed to vote on. I knew what it was. Why didn't they? Scary, isn't it?

-- Barbara Kloster, Thousand Oaks

Planning panel's decision wrong - Letter in Star, February 17, 2003

It would seem to me that the first thing that newly appointed planning commissioners would do is educate themselves on land-use planning before they start making decisions that make them look dumb and will eventually be reversed.

The Planning Commission's 3-2 recommendation to deny the annexation of 326 acres on the south side of Potrero Road in Newbury Park across from Dos Vientos shows that those who voted against the project simply don't understand land-use planning and that they do not listen to the community.

A portion of this land -- 170 acres -- is within the city of Thousand Oaks planning area boundary and is designated "reserve residential," which provides for a density of up to two houses per acre; this translates into about 300 new units. If the annexation were approved, the land use in the general plan would be changed from "reserve residential" to "existing parks, golf courses and open space," which has no underlying residential density and would eliminate the potential for 300 new houses to be built south of Potrero Road. To confirm this, the land, all 326 acres, would be zoned as open space or public lands. Again, if the annexation and land-use designations were changed, it would require a vote of the people to change them from open space and parks to anything else (per the parks initiative that was passed in 1996).What is really happening here is that a small group of individuals who say they are for slow growth really are for no growth or change at all. We label these people NOPEs -- Not On Planet Earth.

The city, the park district, the Mountains Restoration Conservation Agency, the Santa Monica Mountain Conservancy and the National Park Service have been working to protect these lands from future development and be good environmental stewards. Part of this planning is to replace the current Two Winds equestrian facility, which is operating under a temporary permit, with a new facility that does not contribute to the continued degradation of the surrounding areas, as does Two Winds.

This should have been a "no brainer." The residents of Thousand Oaks want open space, they want to support equestrian uses, and they don't want residential development south of Potrero Road. Are these new planning commissioners listening?

As chairman of the Ventura County Open Space District Advisory Board, I am able to state that this is exactly the type of project we, the Advisory Committee, support and continually hear that the public wants.

I am not sure what is "growth inducing" when you eliminate the potential for 300 homes, designate the land open space and parks, and build a small 27-acre equestrian center, which is the same size as the current Two Winds Ranch.

This is not "rocket science."-- Joe Gibson, Newbury Park

Wrong plan for city, equestrians - Star article by Michael Farris February 19, 2003

The Thousand Oaks Planning Commission recently reviewed a proposal to annex 326 acres of land and to build a multimillion-dollar equestrian center on 27 of these acres.

There has been a 10-year history with this annexation, and over the past decade, there have been two consistent themes. First, the public is in favor of providing equestrian services to the community. Second, the public wants to preserve the rest of this land as natural open space.

The question is: Does this proposal address these public sentiments? Unfortunately, the answer is no.

In 1993, when the land purchase was approved by the City Council, there was significant opposition. The public was not against equestrian services or purchasing the land to protect it from development. Residents were against using the bulk of the land for active recreational use (such as a then-proposed golf course) that brings development-related impacts to nearby neighborhoods.

Ten years later, that opposition still remains, as we found from the recent commission hearing. Although we did hear from equestrians who favored the new center, we also heard from other equestrians who questioned the need for this project.

They spoke against such a costly "institutional" center when the existing Two Winds Ranch provides an economical and more rustic setting for our community's equestrians. We also heard from Dos Vientos residents who spoke about the uniqueness of this area and their strong desires to see it preserved with Two Winds Ranch remaining in its present location.

With that testimony, we reviewed the plans and felt that the environmental review did not adequately address the annexation's growth-inducing impacts. In fact, an independent review of the project by Ventura County planning staff concluded that "this project should be found to be potentially significant with regard to potential growth inducement.

"Another item of concern is the center's projected costs. Even if approved, there will be no center in the near future, since, given recent state budget shortfalls, the city isn't planning to budget the $500,000 to $1.5 million needed for completion. And, of course, it could be even more -- remember the $1 million elevator, originally slated for $250,000?Given these significant concerns, the Planning Commission voted to protect these 326 acres as much as possible without recommending annexation. We recommended changing the land currently designated as "residential" to be lands protected by the Parks Initiative. However, we stopped short of endorsing a proposal that is "potentially significant" in its growth-inducing impacts and will cost millions of dollars to bring to fruition.

No one is against the concept of providing equestrian service to our community. However, we must question whether this particular plan is the right way to bring that concept to reality.

The council now has the opportunity to change course and address both compelling public desires in a new, more economical way.

With residents' interests in mind, our council can seek to creatively provide important equestrian services, while preserving all of the remaining land (this gateway to the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area) as natural open space, preserving its passive recreational use and protecting it as part of the ring of open space that surrounds our city.

-- Michael Farris is vice chairman of the Thousand Oaks Planning Commission.