Voice of the Community

Aspects of the Centex project, Item 6 C on the July 11 agenda, disturb me. I find it truly unsettling that this beautiful piece of property will be flattened and the natural beauty of its trees, stream beds and hills replaced with landscape. I recognize that at some point and in some way something will be built. I urge you to ensure that whatever construction is eventually permitted improves our community, rather than degrading the quality to which we have become accustomed.

The law confers some rights on the owner of the property, but these are not unlimited. It is important to recognize that this owner is not a member of the community requesting to improve his property for his own enjoyment and the potential benefit of the community. Instead, this owner is a business from out of the area, out of state even. The sole interest of this Texas-based owner is maximizing its profit, which will maximize the transfer of financial resources from our residents to Texas. The goal of Centex to transfer money from Thousand Oaks to Texas is fair and legitimate. The community’s goal of preserving the quality of our life is similarly fair and legitimate. Unfortunately these legitimate goals may conflict. Resolving that conflict is the function of the Planning Commission.

Total lack of provision for pedestrian and bicycle traffic is major flaw in the proposed project. Rather than an architecture which discourages, the overall design should be required to emphasize these transportation modes. Proximity makes this a potentially excellent residence for Amgen employees. Many Amgen employees are enthusiasts who would prefer riding a bicycle to work. Similarly, renovation of the nearby Oaks Mall will emphasize bicycle and pedestrian transportation. California and Ventura County have major programs encouraging bicycle transportation. I believe you will find the City of Thousand Oaks encourages bicycle transportation. The benefits of substituting bicycles for automobiles are well known: improved health from exercise, improved health from reduced pollution generation, no gasoline expense (more and more significant!!), reduced dependence on foreign oil production (important for national security as well as balance of payments), and so on. For these many benefits to accrue, the architecture of our city should facilitate pedestrian and bicycle transportation. That requires thoughtful planning, which this project lacks and I urge you to require.

Insufficient provision for affordable housing is another major flaw. In an earlier project proposed for this location 40% of the units were to be moderate or affordable. In the current proposal has much reduced requirements, which I believe are insufficient. Since this is a Newbury Road Redevelopment area project and moderated and affordable housing is a critical need, the project should be required to have as much moderated and affordable housing as possible. Please inquire of staff and inform the public of the extent to which affordable housing is required by this being a redevelopment area. In addition to providing more housing for the less well to do, building affordable will reduce the amount of higher end housing. Having more residents in higher income brackets increases the requirement for people with lower paying service jobs: police, firemen, teachers, nurses and so on as we have all heard. The other less glamourous workers who bag groceries, change tires, wait tables, ring cash registers, and so on should not be forgotten either. High end housing is not available to these under served members of our community. Worse, adding residents in high end housing increases the need for these service workers, increasing the severity of the imbalance between need and availability for moderate priced housing.

City staff recommends a small requirement for low income housing, and suggests payment of a fee in leu of building the housing. This is a bad idea. It would allow building more market rate housing which is bad for the reasons given above. As bad is that the fee would be used to subsidize very low income public housing. Building low income housing is good in itself. The problem is these proposed policies are leading to a housing demographic of very high end unaffordable and very low end subsidized affordable housing, with little in between. When considered together, the direction the proposed policy is driving our community becomes clear, and I believe clearly unacceptable. We need to plan the physical structure of our community to encourage stability of a middle class. We need to not plan a community comprised only of the very well to do and those who have little.

Bear in mind that in our free market enterprise system there is no assurance that any business venture will result in profit. Thousand Oaks’ tight restrictions on development might be said to reduce business profit, at the same time produce the favorable living environment which induces people to live and do profitable business here. If Centex objects that constraints which maintain our quality of life reduce its profit excessively, they are free to do business elsewhere. Businesses which do maintain and enhance our city’s living conditions will profit to everyone’s benefit.

As you adjudicate conflicts between the interests of our community and this corporate property owner from Texas, please bear in mind that our community, including yourselves, will live with the result of your decision from now on. Centex will derive whatever profit it can, then move on to obtain more profit from some other piece of land somewhere else in the world.

Conejo Recreation and Parks Department’s request to add lights to the dog park.

September 9, 2004

City Planners,

The Thousand Oaks Citizens Action Network requests you deny Conejo Recreation and Parks Department’s request to add lights to the dog
park.

Addition of lights to the dog park will affect many neighbors. There appears to be substantial opposition among dog park neighbors to this
deviation from the original plan. Some relevant facts are

1. The original plan, to which neighbors of the dog park generously agreed, specified that the park would close at dark.

2. The neighbors of the dog park have in that past opposed street lights and sidewalks in their neighborhood, for many of the same
reasons they oppose lights in the dog park. They have long wanted their neighborhood quiet and dark at night.

3. Access to the dog park is by way of a small street through the neighborhood.

4. Although established for the use by local residents, there is reason to believe that many current users of the park are not from
Thousand Oaks.

5. Further developing the dog park by addition of the proposed lights has the potential to draw even more users from greater distances.

6. Section 9-4.2803(c)(3) of the Thousand Oaks Municipal Code specifies requirements for permits that are granted by the City:

        (c) Permits authorized or required by this chapter shall be granted only upon findings by the decision-making board or officer that the
                permit as conditioned and approved:
        (3) Will preserve the integrity and character of the zone in which the use will be located and the utility and value of property in the zone
                and in adjacent zones;

It seems clear that the proposal being considered would produce a significant change in the character of this neighborhood. Thousand
Oaks Municipal Code thus requires denial of CRPD’s request to install lights.   Administrative fiat should not be used to grant permission
and bypass the requirements of the Municipal Code.

Other options are available to CRPD. Lights could be located at a new dog park in Newbury Park, sited such that nighttime lights and
additional traffic would not disrupt a neighborhood. Some ask whether any installation of these controversial lights is the optimal use of
the estimated $120,000 cost, considering how tight money is for recreational purposes.

Finally, recognize that the difference of opinion you consider here today is not between those who like and those who dislike dogs. Many
opponents of the lights are themselves dog owners. Rather, those who wish to continue to enjoy the calm and quiet for which they bought
their homes differ with those who would establish an apparently regional recreational facility, with consequent increase in traffic,
noise and lights. Orderly development requires this proposal be evaluated by the Planning Commission.

Tom Ritch
President, Thousand Oaks Citizens Action Network.

In an unprecedented act of desperation, the Developer Troika trampled 44 residents on their way to satisfy the wishes of three or four developer spokespersons at Last Wednesdays Kangaroo Court. This blatant display of imperial chutzpa is only transcended by the developers' contempt for honest citizen input and the questioning of the total destruction of our community.

This same Troika is supporting Randy Hoffman for County Supervisor with his developer backing, misleading advertising and no record of public service.

Elect Linda Parks County Supervisor, a person who has proven through her actions that she really is concerned with our environment, our community and our quality of life.

Yesterday I sat in the public section of the of the TO budget task force to listen to Park & Rec. Manager Tex Ward's presentation. What triggered my curiosity was an article from the STAR on a proposed assessment fee to boost up the Park & Rec. failing budget.

The Budget Task committee advises the City Council on a variety of future spending. The Park & Rec. is an independent entity with taxing power and therefore can do what ever they darn please. So what was the need to lobby the city?

Said Tex Ward: "... it would be nice if the council would endorse the project..." and unsaid, but understood: "But it doesn't matter anyway".

The facts: Homeowners within the Park & Rec. area of responsibility (TO and some unincorporated neighborhoods) will shortly receive a ballot. It will have to be returned to a private firm hired to conduct the vote. Parcel owners will have 45 days to return the ballot. 50 % plus one of the returned ballots will decide if you agreed to be assessed a "modest" $25 per year (and forever) in addition to all other fees and taxes already in place.

The reason given to the Park & Rec. budget short fall is -- to be brief -- a decision from Sacramento to displace $1M expectedly assigned to Park & Rec. to other purposes.

Like anyone I am for parks, open spaces, soccer, little leagues, recreations amenities, etc. Like any reasonable person I know that nothing is free, however we must object to the flippant manners this Park & Rec. treats this citizenry.

I do not expect much discussion from TO council members. As of today, the Park & Rec. owes the city some half million dollars that may even be forgiven: Who can politically contest apple pie, cute babies and firemen?