Proposed Hill Canyon Golf Course

As a proponent of the Hill Canyon Recreational Resources Authority’s proposal to make Hill Canyon available for the use by all of the citizens of Thousand Oaks, I am enclosing a picture of the southern end of the canyon. The picture is circa 1960.

The picture proves that the canyon today is not a pristine canyon in its natural state. It also proves that there are no deep prehistoric wetlands and neither were there any permanent wetlands. Maybe there were seasonal wetlands.

The picture also proves that all of the riparian habitat in the canyon today did not exist prior to the Hill Canyon Waste Water Treatment Plant discharges that began in the early 1960s.

The picture also disproves the statements that “you cannot create a wetland” and “man-made wetlands are notoriously unsuccessful.” All of the permanent wetland and riparian habitat in the canyon today was created by the city of Thousand Oaks.

The picture clearly shows vehicle paths on the canyon floor and agricultural uses to the southwest. The land is said to have been used for cattle ranching.

Prior to the waste water plant, the canyon floor was identified as an arroyo. Webster defines an arroyo as “a watercourse or gulch usually dry except after heavy rains and with nearly a flat floor.” The picture verifies this was an arroyo.

Hill Canyon, as it is today, was created by accident. Think what we could do on purpose.

LYLE WRAY

Committee for the Public Use

of Hill Canyon

Thousand Oaks

*

Recently we as citizens of Thousand Oaks have been exposed to quite a bit of discussion regarding the proposed Hill Canyon golf course. I would like to shed some light on the subject from an entirely different and hopefully realistic direction.

We have been told it will take approximately $10.6 million to just refurbish an existing golf course--Los Robles. I would like to have someone explain to the voters of Thousand Oaks how it would be possible to construct a brand new golf course--at Hill Canyon--for $60 million. For only six times the cost of improving an existing course it would have to include:

* Blasting through volcanic rock and hauling tons of debris away.

* Moving tons of soil.

* Replacing a riparian wetland.

* Building and equipping a brand new clubhouse.

* Building and equipping a brand new nature course.

* Equipping and staffing a brand new golf course.

I might even go along with the City Council if they would put in writing that they would pay out of their pockets if the cost of the proposed golf course ran over budget. I definitely know I don’t want to buy a golf course, and I don’t think the taxpayers of Thousand Oaks do either.

If we do need a golf course there are other places to put one.

Would someone please tell me what committee would put a recreation area such as a golf course next to a sewage treatment plant? This has to be the most misguided, thoughtless thing perpetrated on the citizens of Thousand Oaks since the beginning of time.

BILL GOURLEY

Thousand Oaks

*

I have lived in the Conejo Valley for 34 years. I first hiked Hill Canyon in 1965. That was five city halls ago, there was one traffic light in town, the first mayor of Thousand Oaks was still in office. I feel I have earned the right to ask these questions:

Do we need another golf course in the Conejo? There are two already, Los Robles and Westlake.

Is a golf course open space? It’s not; it’s a big, graded, fertilized, insecticided lawn.

Would a golf course fulfill the needs of our community? Golfers make up a small portion of the community; everyone else would be excluded. Hikers are not welcome on a golf course, therefore it is a public works project for the benefit of an elite group.

Would golfers return to a course that smells like a sewage treatment plant? I don’t think so. Try going out there on a hot afternoon and taking a deep breath.

Does anybody give a hoot about all the native plants and animals that would be displaced if this project goes through? I do.

Think about it.

RUSTY GELLER

Thousand Oaks