Supplemental Information Packet - THOUSAND OAKS PLANNING COMMISSION

THOUSAND OAKS
                     PLANNING COMMISSION

                                   Supplemental
                                    Information
                                       Packet

                            Agenda Related Items
                          Meeting of March 29, 2021

                                         Supplemental Information:

Any agenda related public documents received and distributed to a majority of the Planning Commission after
the Agenda Packet is printed are included in Supplemental Packets. Supplemental Packets are produced as
needed, typically they are distributed on the Thursday or Friday preceding the Planning Commission meeting
and/or on Monday before the meeting. Supplemental Packets produced on Thursday or Friday are available
for public inspection in the Community Development Department, 2100 E. Thousand Oaks Boulevard, during
normal business hours (main location pursuant to the Brown Act, G.C. 54957.5(2). All Supplemental Packets
are available for public review at the Planning Commission meeting in the Andrew P. Fox City Council Cham-
bers, 2100 E. Thousand Oaks Boulevard.

                                   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 Community Development Department at (805) 449-2500.
Assisted listening devices are available at this meeting. Ask Community Development staff if you desire to
use this device. Upon request, the agenda and documents in this agenda packet, can be made available in
appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting
or time when services are needed will assist City staff in assuring reasonable arrangements can be made to
provide accessibility to the meeting or service.

To:        Planning Commission
From:      Kari Finley, Interim Deputy Community Development Director for
           Kelvin Parker, Community Development Director
Date:      March 29, 2021
Subject:   Correspondence received for item 08B GPA 2019-70760

Attached is correspondence from the public subsequent to the printing of the Agenda Packet.

From:              Lori Goor
To:                Joan Edwards

Subject:           RE: Planning Commission Meeting of 3/29/2021
Date:              Friday, March 26, 2021 9:28:00 AM

Hi Ms. Edwards,

Your comments below will be included in a supplemental packet to the Planning Commissioners for
the meeting of 3/29/2021. Any further comments may be sent to
communitydevelopment@toaks.org.

Thank You,

Lori Goor

Recording Secretary

From: Joan Edwards
Date: March 25, 2021 at 11:24:39 PM PDT
To: Cyndi Rodriguez
Subject: Planning Commission

        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 make copies of my comments for next Tuesday’s planning C. Meeting, and give a
        copy to each of the members.

        To: Thousand Oaks Planning Commission
        Re: General Plan
        Fr: Joan Edwards

My name is Karen Wilburn & I have lived in Newbury Park for 21 years.
Results of the survey were posted on March 24th. This survey was designed so that it could only
be taken once per computer. It appears to me as if someone managed to circumvent this &
create what I can only term as “BALLOT BOX STUFFING” The survey permitted free form
comments for each 4 areas of change. Rancho Conejo had an unusually high # of comments
(1137) when compared to the other 3 areas. In fact, it almost equaled the total of the other 3
areas of change & most of them deal with supporting development of the 36 acre Newbury Park
lot at the end of Alice, often called the "wetlands."
At least 850, or more than 75% of these comments, sound canned & use similar words or
phrases. I reviewed the entire 79 pages of comments in response to question #9. I also did a
word/phrase search of the whole document & found the following:
   • The phrase “Borchard Opportunity” appears 114 times in the results & only in response
     to question 9. A further breakdown is “Borchard Opportunity Project”- 44 times,
     “Borchard Opportunity Property”-38 times & “Borchard Opportunity Site”-32 times for a
     total of 114. Yet, this phrase isn’t anywhere in the briefing book. Last month the owner
     of this property left a letter in the mailboxes of my neighborhood. This letter used the
     term “Borchard Village Opportunity Site.” Is this a coincidence?
   • The words “police” & “police force” appeared 104 times, of which 100 were in response
     to question 9.
   • “Firefighters & firemen” appear 101 times. All of these were in response to # 9.
   • “Workforce” appears 68 times. 65 of these were in response to #9.
   • “Students” appears 141 times. 127 of these were in response to question 9.
   • “Teachers” appears 97 times - all in response to #9.
   • The phrase “I live in Newbury Park” appears 188 times. 187 of these were in response to
     #9.
   • The phrase “I live in Thousand Oaks” appears 173 times – and every one is in response to
     #9.
   • The phrase “I am a resident” appears 171 times and every one is in response to #9.
   • The phrase “40 acre opportunity” appears 155 times. Again, every one is in response to
     #9.

Trust me - very few people who live in Newbury Park want to see that lot developed beyond its
current zoning. I also find it interesting that there are no comments in any of the other “areas
of change” that specifically mention housing for fireman, police, teachers, students or
government workers. It’s very clear to me that a campaign has been waged to make it appear
as if there is significant support in the community for development of this lot, which is just not
true. This survey was intended as a vehicle for public feedback on the new general plan, not a
voice for a private interest group to “STACK THE DECK” for their own personal gain. Since the

survey answers were anonymous & only asked for a zip code, I also wonder how many of these
survey responses came from people outside of our community in support of special interests on
this lot. Frankly, this perceived manipulation of the results raises questions about the credibility
of the survey "results" for the entire Rancho Conejo area. Maybe the next survey should require
some type of registration to make sure the survey is being answered by only local business
owners & community members. I respectfully ask the planning commission & City Council to
consider these issues when making their recommendations.

Thank you
Karen Wilburn
2837 Denise St
Newbury Park