Safeguarding the General Plan: The History of Voter Protections in Thousand Oaks
“Last election, I didn’t see the issues addressed, and I hope to see candidates out there who are interested in preserving the beauty of our city. I honestly think this initiative is the best thing I can do in this city, to save open space for future generations to enjoy.”
- Linda Parks on her open space protection measure, the Parks Initiative [1]
“In my view, our citizens deserve additional assurance that their City will remain a special place; and I believe that there is no better way to provide this assurance than to place the keys to the City’s future in the hands of the citizens who are most affected by the decisions the City will make.”
- Andy Fox on the Council-sponsored Measure E [2]
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Over the past few years, the City of Thousand Oaks has undertaken a comprehensive review of its General Plan to accommodate growth and redevelopment for the next several decades. The Thousand Oaks General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC), of which I am a member, has provided inputs to planning bodies and staff to guide the city’s decision making.
In my review of the City’s approach to this General Plan update, I have become convinced that the proposed changes to the land use element — the map which designates the locations and densities of residential, commercial, open space, and other land uses — should and must be approved by the voters of Thousand Oaks.
When such a General Plan update was first considered, outgoing Mayor Andy Fox recommended this very approach in his last State of the City Address in 2018:
“A comprehensive General Plan update that engages the entire community, culminating — I would recommend — in a citywide vote is essential to creating a vision for our next 50 years.” [3]
In meetings that followed, councilmembers voiced support for such voter approval. Councilmember Claudia Bill-de la Peña said, “…it’s conceivable that with the recommendations that will be forthcoming over the next few months and the extensive community outreach that will be done that we could have a vote of the people on the General Plan update… just so that everybody approves of what we’re doing, correct?”[4]
City Attorney Tracy Noonan agreed that “it’s always an option for the City Council to do that”[5] and Councilmember Ed Jones concurred, “May I just agree with what Councilwoman Bill-de la Peña just said.” [6]
And Bill-de la Peña, in this year’s State of the City Address closing out her tenure as Mayor, reiterated her support for such a vote:
“[T]hat’s why I joined former Mayor Andy Fox’s recommendation at his State of the City Address in 2018 that the new General Plan be put on the ballot box next November so that the residents can vote on it.” [7]
Gaining community consensus for such widespread changes is certainly good public policy. However, when residents had concerns about past city decision making, Thousand Oaks voters took it upon themselves to make it the law.
Twenty-five years ago, the people of Thousand Oaks established protections for the development of our city. Several ordinances were approved with the intention that voters are involved in important public decisions, those pertaining to certain types of critical changes to the city’s master development plan.
Established in 1970,[8] the General Plan has been heralded as the blueprint for guiding how a rural community grew to a city of over 100,000 residents within a quarter-century. However, the path to the city’s growth was not without turmoil; over that time, three of five Council votes were all that was needed to bow to intense development pressures and change the course of the plan.
Given these influences, Thousand Oaks residents wanted to protect parks and open space, sign off on any increases in residential and commercial development, and prevent city sprawl of which they did not approve. This meant the public becoming more directly involved in decision making; if the Council wanted to amend the General Plan in certain specific ways, the changes wouldn’t take effect unless the voters approved. This also meant that the Council had the burden of demonstrating that a specific General Plan amendment could be enacted without including the voters.
For simple changes to one or two properties, this burden is easily met. However, the changes proposed for the comprehensive update will affect nearly every parcel of land in the city with changing designations, residential densities, and mixed uses. In fact, in the “Preferred Alternative” presented for Council review in mid-2021, even some protected parks and open space lands were redesignated to other uses.[9] To date, the burden has not been sufficiently met to exclude voters that were promised “should have the power to vote yes or no when significant changes to the General Plan are proposed.”[10]
To guide our future well, it’s important that we know our past; it’s critical to understand why these protections are in place and the history behind them.
What follows are the policy twists and political turns of how, 25 years ago, those protections were created and resultantly launched the political careers of two of the longest-tenured public servants in the city’s history: Linda Parks, elected twice to the Thousand Oaks City Council and five times to the Ventura County Board of Supervisors, and Andy Fox, elected six times to the Thousand Oaks City Council.
==================================
In early 1996, local developers sought to build a sprawling, for-profit, active sports complex on public land owned by the Conejo Recreation and Park District and the Conejo Valley Unified School District. The 80-acre site, Conejo Creek Park South, served as the location for the annual Conejo Valley Days festival and was used year-round by youth soccer teams, dog walkers, and equestrians.
The proposed $35-million Sport X proposal would include soccer fields, volleyball, and basketball courts, a track and field stadium, a roller hockey rink, an indoor Olympic-sized swimming pool, two gymnasiums, and a cafeteria.[11] [12] For Sport X to become a reality, both the park and school districts would have to lease or sell the property, and the city’s Planning Commission and City Council would have to grant final approvals. [13]
During a town hall meeting at California Lutheran University, Michael Hagopian, a longtime activist and member of the city’s Committee of 100 that provided input into the city’s original General Plan, warned the Council not to support Sport X.[14] “You’re going to have one hell of a fight on your hands to transfer that to private gain,” Hagopian said, cheered on by supporters from the standing-room-only crowd. [15]
Dave Anderson, longtime resident and owner of a local auto parts business, served as one of the leaders of a group to thwart the Sport X proposal. “There is a perception among all of us here in Thousand Oaks that you pay a high price to live and do business here, and that is because we get a lot of land — public open space — for our money,” Anderson said. “[Sport X] kind of breaks the covenant with our residents, and everywhere I go, people are against this. We simply will not accept public land — particularly that crown jewel of land — from being turned into a source of private profit.” [16]
After the town hall, the Council took little action, requesting that an ad hoc Council committee be formed to include public input on the matter. Councilmember Elois Zeanah, first elected in 1990 and who had built a reputation as a fierce residents’ advocate, expressed concern with the ad hoc committee and wanted the Council to take a straw vote, stating their position on Sport X more quickly. City Attorney Mark Sellers informed the Council that they might not have much authority, since the park and school districts, each independent government entities, could supersede city zoning and other agencies.[17] The public came to the next meeting demanding action regarding Sport X, expressing contempt for the idea of an ad hoc committee to discuss the issue further and stating that the proposed property was never intended to be used for anything other than parks or open space.[18]
Mayor Andy Fox, entering only his second year on the Council, floated a policy that a four-fifths Council vote be required for sale or transfer of public open space land and that the four-fifths vote would only be to place that item on the ballot for two-thirds voter approval. [19] But when the issue came back to the Council, City Attorney Sellers started his analysis on the “practical and legal impacts” of such a proposal by stating that “such an ordinance is not needed.” [20] Sellers wrote that the “unique proposal may be an over reaction [sic] and unnecessary, since it is driven by fears of a contemplated project that all evidence indicates will not proceed.” He recited various reasons why the project was now “inviable,” that there are already “many safeguards” preventing such situations from occurring, that it would be time consuming and costly to hold an election, and that requiring two-thirds vote of the public would be “undemocratic.”[21]
In observing this public dithering, Planning Commissioner Linda Parks, who had been advocating for a more assertive stance in protecting the 2,900-acre Ahmanson Ranch to the east of Thousand Oaks from development, viewed this as an opportunity to use the law and stand up for the public’s concerns.
While the land being proposed for the private sports complex was publicly held and could certainly be sold, the city’s General Plan designated the land as a park — more specifically, it was designated in the General Plan category “Parks, Golf Course, and Open Space.” If there were a sale of the land to the private group, any application would require a change to the General Plan to allow for such a development, over which the City did have control.
Parks proposed to protect the park and open space lands within the city by requiring that any General Plan change taking lands from the “Parks, Golf Course, and Open Space” designation could not occur unless the voters approved. This way, even with a narrow majority on the Council, important community decisions of this sort would only occur with the public’s consent.
Much as backers of 1980’s Measure A leveraged a court-tested initiative approach to limit growth with Thousand Oaks, Parks took a similar tack in drafting her “Parks Initiative.” In the city of Ventura, a 1995 initiative required any general plan changes to agricultural lands receive voter approval before becoming effective. The initiative, named Save Our Agricultural Resources, or SOAR, was authored by former Ventura Mayor Richard Francis; SOAR itself was based on a similar voter-protection initiative in Napa County that was upheld by the California Supreme Court.[22]
Parks launched her initiative in March 1996 in the wake of the Sport X controversy, and immediately, members of the Council tried to stymie her effort. Mayor Fox proposed a separate, Council-sponsored measure, saying, “There’s really no point in having members of the community go out and do something that the council has already said it wanted to do. We want to put more control in the hands of the public.” [23]
Parks urged the Council to agree to place her initiative on the ballot unaltered instead,[24] highlighting the Council majority’s well-worn tactic. “When someone does not like a certain initiative, they will put a competing initiative on the ballot,” Parks said. “I would like to see them put my initiative on the ballot. They don’t like the idea of authority being eroded on this issue. They want to prevent my initiative from being passed.”[25]
Councilmember Zeanah was supportive of Parks’ initiative and wanted to see it placed before voters. “I think [placing Parks’ initiative on the ballot is] essential in this political environment,” Zeanah said. “With the disappearance of developable land, we are getting pressure to develop open space. Our open space can vanish with a 3–2 vote on the council right now, and that is wrong.”[26]
Councilmember Zeanah also called out her Council adversaries for posturing on this hot political topic. “It’s a political move, one-upmanship on the part of these council members,” Zeanah said. “It bothers me that the council would do an end-run against Linda Parks. This is the same thing that happened with the Planning Commission appointment,” referring to the decision earlier in the year to pass Parks over for chair of the Commission. “They are afraid that she is a viable council candidate, and they don’t want her to gain any more credibility.” [27]
Instead of agreeing to Parks’ citizen initiative, the Council, prompted by Fox and fellow Councilmember Mike Markey, voted to meet with “the Park District, County of Ventura, [and] COSCA, on this issue to put together an ordinance that everybody can sign off on with respect to the preservation of parks and open space and whatever action taken by City Council be codified with an election in November and a vote of the people.”[28]
As her signature gathering efforts picked up steam, Parks had defined the policy discussion,[29] and she highlighted the Council’s intention to place a rival ordinance on the ballot, misleading voters. “You get competitive initiatives and the public ends up with the wrong information,” Parks said. “They’ll have a weaker ballot measure. Theirs will have loopholes that developers will be able to get through.” [30]
City officials defended their positions and argued against Parks’ initiative. “The five of us may have some philosophical and political differences, but there’s no doubt in my mind about our commitment to open space,” Mayor Fox said; City Attorney Sellers called Parks’ initiative “expensive and not needed.” [31]
A backdrop to this fight over open space measures was the upcoming 1996 elections. With Councilmembers Mike Markey and Jamie Zukowski up for re-election in November, the political balance of power was at stake; if Parks replaced Markey and joined current Councilmembers Jaime Zukowski and Elois Zeanah, it would give the Council the first slow-growth majority in years. [32]
This prospect raised concerns of the business-friendly constituency in Thousand Oaks that the Council may not be as accommodating to their needs on applications. “Look at [Parks’] record,” said Steve Rubenstein, president of the Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce. “If a business wants to come into this city, she will vote against it nine times out of ten.” [33]
This didn’t concern Parks; she felt that her critics really disliked that she didn’t consider exceptions to the city’s General Plan, the long-term blueprint for development. “The council has been pretty consistent in approving development, whether it made sense in accordance to the General Plan or not,” Parks argued. “In fact, I can’t think of something they have not approved. It’s as if the council is telling us that what is good for us is not always what we want. They say there are economic advantages that outweigh the environmental issues, and we don’t understand…” [34]
“We have politicians paying lip service to open space, but they have given open space away for development,” she added. “Zoning for dollars has already damaged the natural beauty of Thousand Oaks.” Mayor Fox did not, however, take kindly to Parks’ criticism, describing the comments as “inflammatory and unfounded.” [35]
Mayor Fox and Councilmember Markey’s effort to place a rival initiative on the ballot with joint agreement from other agencies fell apart when the Conejo Recreation and Park District publicly soured on the idea. In a strongly worded letter to the Council from park board chairman Dennis Gillette, he stated that their proposal would harm the amicable relationship that the two agencies have enjoyed for decades in working to preserve open space.[36]
Touting the collaborative efforts between agencies thus far, Gillette said that a joint measure requiring voter approval before selling or transferring public open space would also prevent land swaps, which often result in the district having more open space than before. “Frankly, much of the discussion centered around the simple question… Why? The elected officials of this community… have succeeded in establishing the framework of a park and open space system second to none.” [37] Gillette did, however, take a swipe at Parks’ initiative when he cautioned the Council to think carefully before reacting to “perhaps flawed and short-sighted initiatives.”[38]
While this was a blow to his attempt to slow Parks’ political momentum, Mayor Fox pivoted to a different competing approach, announcing that he would soon propose a measure that would freeze all growth in the city at 138,000 residents, the number called for in the city’s General Plan. Under his proposal, if a developer wanted to build more residences and exceed that limit, the project would have to be approved by the voters.[39]
“Residents are concerned about Thousand Oaks becoming another San Fernando Valley, and the best way to prevent that is to restrict how many people can live here,” Fox said. “That seems to be the way to take care of this problem.”[40]
Each side railed against the other for their proposals. Councilmembers Zeanah and Zukowski stated that Fox’s proposal for a population cap would be declared illegal. “What he wants can’t be done,” Zukowski said. “It’s failed in court, and I don’t see why we would want to try it again.”[41]
By mid-May, Parks submitted over 11,000 signatures to qualify her initiative for the ballot.[42] Zeanah moved to have Parks’ initiative placed on the November 1996 ballot to forgo the expense of counting and validating signatures, but her motion failed 2–2, with Fox and Lazar opposed and Markey abstaining.[43]
Zeanah questioned the Council majority’s stance not to support ballot placement. “This has been a very popular ordinance, and it’s going to get on the ballot, no doubt about that,” Zeanah said. Lazar countered, saying that Parks’ initiative was not her “favorite by any means” and that its popularity remains to be seen.[44]
Mayor Fox switched his ordinance topic yet again, now focusing on general plan changes instead of a population cap, which other cities had tried and had been overturned by courts.[45] [46] This proposal was supported by all councilmembers;[47] “It has nothing to do with population,” Fox said. “It has everything to do with density and total build-out of the city.”[48] Though Councilmember Zeanah voted to move forward with Fox’s proposed ordinance, she cautioned how effective it would be, calling it a “feel-good ordinance.”[49]
The various forms of a Council-backed initiative to compete with Linda Parks’ measure demonstrated the threat the majority saw in Parks; winning a Council seat alongside Zeanah and Zukowski could form a slow growth Council majority with strong resolve. Once her parks and open space initiative was underway, Mayor Fox drove to place a rival measure on the ballot — first to require voter approval of the sale of public lands, then for a cap on the city’s population, and finally settled on restrictions for general plan amendments. After her initiative qualified for the November ballot, Parks’ adversaries now focused on her prospective run for Council with her popular measure in front of voters.
Under the California Elections code governing initiatives, once an initiative has received enough verified signatures to qualify for the ballot, the Council has three options: place the measure on the ballot for voter consideration, approve the ordinance without changes into law, or order a fiscal impact and planning consistency study, after which the Council must act on the first two options.[50] Heading into the meeting to consider the now-qualified Parks Initiative, Mayor Fox said he would seek to have the Council approve the initiative into law instead of having it on the November ballot.[51] Zeanah and other Parks supporters accused the Mayor of trying to steal the spotlight from Parks.
“With the Parks Initiative being on the ballot, that would give Linda a lot of visibility,” Zeanah said. “Let’s face it: He’s the head of the pro-growth council, and this is a smart political move on their part. That initiative was such a powerful message that he is trying to put his political spin on it quick. He sees this as a political plum for Linda, and he is concerned.” [52]
Fox said he was “outraged by such implications,” [53] stating he was supportive of approving Parks’ initiative because of the public’s widespread support and added that his own measure for restricting other type of general plan amendments was needed to prevent their city from turning into a dense urban grid like the San Fernando Valley.[54]
Zeanah felt Fox’s proposal should be dismissed, since “[h]is ploy to present a rival ordinance to compete with Linda clearly did not work.” Fox countered, saying that unlike other councilmembers, he wasn’t playing politics.[55]
“There is a clear effort by Councilwomen Zeanah and Zukowski to divide the community at a time when we are trying to come together,” Fox said. “I’m not saying ‘they’re wrong, I’m right.’ I’m saying, ‘The people have spoken, and… as their representative we need to take action.’ That’s all.”[56] With a unanimous vote of the Council approving the ordinance, the Parks Initiative became law without going on the ballot and became the second SOAR measure to protect lands within Ventura County.[57] [58]
The environment surrounding the Parks Initiative and its approval goes to the heart of the initiative, referendum, and recall processes in California. Circumstances arose presenting real possibilities that a narrow Council majority might allow development on land that the public wanted to protect. When that occurred, the people organized, using the initiative process to enact a law preventing the Council from redesignating parks and open space lands without voter approval. Lawmakers generally consider themselves good public decision makers, and they disapprove of measures that take away their discretion. However, there are some decisions where the people do not want lawmakers to have unlimited discretion, either due to concerns for, or actual experiences of, the Council making poor choices.
This goes to the core of self-governance: using the tools available to create checks and balances in accordance with community ideals we as a people deem important. In Thousand Oaks, preservation of open space and parkland is of paramount importance, and given previous Council actions, the public was troubled that some parks and open space could be used for development and the Council would rationalize such a decision. With the Parks Initiative, the voters would be involved in any change in the use of open space lands going forward.
When it came time to consider Fox’s measure, the controversy only intensified. Mayor Fox’s proposed ordinance sought to lock in the residential density and commercial acreage on the city’s General Plan and require any changes increasing these citywide densities or acreage levels to be approved by voters before taking effect.
However, the measure contained language that troubled many, including Parks. Mayor Fox’s ordinance actually included the operative language from the Parks Initiative approved just the week before, but unlike the citizens initiative, it contained an exception for publicly owned land if it is “declared surplus as no longer needed for a public purpose.”[59]
Parks was alarmed, saying that she believed the exemption would all but nullify her newly enacted ordinance. “I’m really disappointed. I feel tricked. They approved my initiative as an ordinance, knowing full well that they were going to turn around and do this. This completely undermines all the work I did, and all the public support I received from people wanting to save our open space,” Parks said. City Attorney Sellers countered that Parks misunderstood the exemption clause, stating that it didn’t apply to public open space. [60]
The politics were palpable in the debate of Mayor Fox’s measure. Councilmember Zeanah blasted the effort, stating that she “cannot believe the arrogance of [Mayor Fox]. This is a cold-blooded, political massacre of the Parks ordinance.” [61]
“This is poor sportsmanship,” she added. “[Fox] cunningly made sure that the Parks initiative would not appear on the ballot then pulls this with his [measure].”[62]
Fox felt that Councilmembers Zeanah and Zukowski would be hypocritical to oppose his measure, since it addresses their core issue — growth. “It should come as no surprise that Mrs. Zeanah and Mrs. Zukowski will criticize my growth-control measure, which is very restrictive, when they have been criticizing me as ‘pro-growth’ all along,” Fox said. “That’s because this argument is about who’s going to get elected next fall, not how this ordinance works.”[63]
Commissioner Parks disagreed, saying that “[i]n my mind, this is an attempt to return this open-space issue to the way things were before my ordinance. At the heart of this is the fact that they don’t want some of these [development proposals] to go to the people, because they will be unpopular.”[64]
Commissioner Parks and attorney Richard Francis compared the Parks Initiative and Mayor Fox’s proposed ordinance and highlighted the conflicts in the exemption language, making it “impossible to read the two measures harmoniously when the City seeks to approach General Plan issues respecting publicly owned property.”[65] To avoid the potential conflict, while Fox maintained that the plain language “does not contain” a loophole to undermine the Parks ordinance, [66] he offered an amendment to remove any effects to the “parks, golf course, and open space” designation altogether; the Council approved the revised ordinance 3–2, with Zeanah and Zukowski opposed, [67] and Zeanah saying afterwards, “It is full of loopholes. This will not prevent us from becoming another San Fernando Valley.”[68]
With the success of her open space protection initiative, Planning Commissioner Linda Parks decided to seek a seat on the Thousand Oaks City Council, but hopes of securing a slow-growth majority were dampened with the retirement of Councilmember Jaime Zukowski in July 1996. The resignation raised discussion about removing Parks from the Planning Commission, who was Zukowski’s selection to the planning body; Councilmember Lazar said this was “certainly a possibility.” [69] However, concerned that it would be made into a political issue, one that could benefit Parks in the upcoming election, the Council chose to take no action regarding her Planning Commission seat.[70]
In parallel with the Council race was the campaign to pass Mayor Fox’s growth control measure, Measure E. Supporters of the measure formed a committee — Citizens to Protect our General Plan — which was formed by business interests, raising $1,500 from the Thousand Oaks Auto Mall Association, and $15,696 from BTR Inc, owned by Jill Lederer, Fox’s 1994 campaign manager. “My response to any criticism of money spent is that it’s a small portion of the money I donate to causes in this community,” Lederer said. “There’s no price too high to pay for the truth, and what is important to Thousand Oaks.” [71] Lederer’s contributions to back Fox’s Measure E eventually exceeded $20,000.[72]
Parks and Zeanah tried to communicate the measure’s flaws, but felt outgunned by the well-funded campaign for Measure E. “The money’s incredible,” Parks said of the contributions by Lederer, who owned ten Domino’s Pizza franchises. “I’m just blown away. I’m trying to get my word out to the people too, but I don’t have a sugar mama, a pizza mama.” [73]
Linda Parks won the top spot in the 1996 City Council election going away, receiving 22,066 votes, and Mike Markey finished second with 16,599 votes, securing the two seats available. Additionally, Measure E passed with 74% of the vote, giving Fox a political victory and a continued majority with Lazar and Markey.[74]
1996 became a year of great significance in Thousand Oaks history. With her citizens initiative protecting open space and election to the Council, and his successful growth-control measure passed by the voters, Linda Parks and Andy Fox started two of the most consequential political tenures in Thousand Oaks history, and their political fates were intertwined.
The Parks Initiative, along with its companion measure from Ventura, became the foundation for the broader open space protections to come in Ventura County. Parks’ original initiative extended protections to open space lands until 2030, and a later measure in 1998 created a City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB) for Thousand Oaks; these ordinances were further extended through 2050 as part of the county’s Save Open-Space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR) protections approved by Thousand Oaks voters in 2016.[75] Parks would be reelected to the Council in 2000 and eventually in 2002 win the first of five terms on the Ventura County Board of Supervisors.
Fox would go on to serve twenty-four years on the Council, and none of Fox’s accomplishments were more significant than Measure E early in his tenure. Though, while Andy Fox pushed for passage of Measure E, had it not been for Linda Parks and her Parks Initiative, there may have been no impetus to propose Measure E in the first place. The political identity of Andy Fox, one as a self-defined champion for slow growth, is in no small part due to Linda Parks.
============================
[1] Bustillo, Miguel, “Planning Commissioner’s Open Space Initiative Divides Officials,” Los Angeles Times, March 25, 1996.
[2] Memo to City Council from Andrew P. Fox, Mayor, “Subject: Growth Control,” April 22, 1996.
[3] Fox, Andy, State of the City Address, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQAbSICS5V4 (21:34), December 11, 2018.
[4] Bill-de la Peña, Claudia, discussion on Item 9B General Plan Consultant Selection, Thousand Oaks City Council, https://toaks.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=8&clip_id=2317# (1:31:33), January 8, 2019.
[5] Ibid (1:32:05).
[6] Ibid (1:32:16).
[7] Bill-de la Peña, Claudia, State of the City Address, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjlBXIozoMk (9:44), December 7, 2021.
[8] The Council met on 11/19, 12/10, 12,17, 12/22, and 12/29 to approve the General Plan. The General Plan was codified through the following approvals: Resolution 70–380, approved December 17, 1970, and amended December 22, 1970, Resolution 70–381, approved December 29, 1970, and Ordinance №190-NS, approved December 29, 1970.
[9] https://raimi.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=926fa752c4d3482abf888e166f8fd577
[10] Fox, Andrew P., Mayor, Judy Lazar, Mayor Pro Tem, Michael Markey, Councilmember, Argument in Favor of Measure “E,” Sample Ballot and Voter Information Pamphlet, County of Ventura, City of Thousand Oaks, General Election, November 5, 1996.
[11] Bustillo, Miguel., “Sport X Marks the Spot as Target of Irate Citizens,” Los Angeles Times, February 16, 1996.
[12] Bustillo, Miguel., “Angry Foes Seeking to Bench Sports Complex Puzzle a Top Backer,” Los Angeles Times, February 25, 1996.
[13] Bustillo, Miguel., “Sport X Marks the Spot as Target of Irate Citizens,” Los Angeles Times, February 16, 1996.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Bustillo, Miguel., “Angry Foes Seeking to Bench Sports Complex Puzzle a Top Backer,” Los Angeles Times, February 25, 1996.
[17] Minutes of the Thousand Oaks City Council, February 27, 1996.
[18] Minutes of the Thousand Oaks City Council, March 5, 1996.
[19] Minutes of the Thousand Oaks City Council, February 27, 1996.
[20] Memo to City Council from Mark G. Sellers, City Attorney, “Subject: Impacts of a City Ordinance Requiring Two-thirds Approval at an Election Prior to Change of Use or Sale of Public Land,” March 26, 1996.
[21] Ibid.
[22] DeVita v County of Napa (1995), 9 Cal.4th 763, 795.
[23] Bustillo, Miguel, “Planner’s Open Space Initiative Divides Officials,” Los Angeles Times, March 25, 1996.
[24] Minutes of the Thousand Oaks City Council, March 26, 1996.
[25] Bustillo, Miguel, “Planner’s Open Space Initiative Divides Officials,” Los Angeles Times, March 25, 1996.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Minutes of the Thousand Oaks City Council, March 26, 1996.
[29] On a personal note, I supported the Parks Initiative and helped collect signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot.
[30] Tilsner, Julie, “Council Plans Initiative on Open Space,” Los Angeles Times, March 28, 1996.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Bustillo, Miguel, “Crusader for Open Space Shakes Up City’s Elite,” Los Angeles Times, April 7, 1996.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Ibid.
[35] Ibid.
[36] Bustillo, Miguel, “Park Board Assails Joint Land Measure,” Los Angeles Times, April 24, 1996.
[37] Ibid.
[38] Ibid.
[39] Ibid.
[40] Ibid.
[41] Bustillo, Miguel, “Growth-Limit Proposals Make for Tug of War,” Los Angeles Times, May 4, 1996.
[42] Bradley, Bruce for Richard, D. Dean, Ventura County Clerk, Clerk’s Certificate to Initiative Petition, May 29, 1996, showing 11,011 signatures submitted on May 15, 1996.
[43] Minutes of the Thousand Oaks City Council, May 14, 1996.
[44] Bustillo, Miguel, “Rival Growth Proposals on Crash Course,” Los Angeles Times, May 16, 1996.
[45] Ibid.
[46] Bustillo, Miguel, “Growth-Limit Proposals Make for Tug of War,” Los Angeles Times, May 4, 1996.
[47] Minutes of the Thousand Oaks City Council, May 14, 1996.
[48] Bustillo, Miguel, “Rival Growth Proposals on Crash Course,” Los Angeles Times, May 16, 1996.
[49] Ibid.
[50] Memo to Grant R Brimhall, City Manager from Nancy A. Dillon, City Clerk, “Subject: Citizens Initiative,” June 11, 1996.
[51] Bustillo, Miguel, “Despite Success, Open Space Plan Still Hot Issue,” Los Angeles Times, June 6, 1996.
[52] Ibid.
[53] Ibid.
[54] Ibid.
[55] Ibid.
[56] Ibid.
[57] Minutes of the Thousand Oaks City Council, June 11 and 18, 1996.
[58] Ordinance 1265-NS, City of Thousand Oaks, adopted June 18, 1996.
[59] Bustillo, Miguel, “Slow-Growth Proponents Say They May Be Out-Foxed,” Los Angeles Times, June 24, 1996.
[60] Ibid.
[61] Ibid.
[62] Ibid.
[63] Ibid.
[64] Ibid.
[65] Letter from Richard L. Francis to Linda Parks, “Re: General Plan Amendments in Thousand Oaks,” transmitted to City by Linda Parks and included in supplemental packet to City Council, June 25, 1996.
[66] Memo to City Council from Andrew P. Fox, Mayor, “Subject: Growth Control Ordinance Requiring Voter Approval for Certain General Plan Amendments,” June 25, 1996.
[67] Minutes of the Thousand Oaks City Council, June 25, 1996.
[68] Helft, Miguel, “Growth-Control Measure Goes to Ballot,” Los Angeles Times, June 27, 1996.
[69] Helft, Miguel, “Wait to Fill City Council Seat, Say 2 Leaders,” Los Angeles Times, September 7, 1996.
[70] Ibid.
[71] Bustillo, Miguel, “Growth-Limit Measure Attracts Big Funding,” Los Angeles Times, October 26, 1996.
[72] Bustillo, Miguel, “Ex-Campaign Chief Pushing Measure E,” Los Angeles Times, November 1, 1996.
[73] Bustillo, Miguel, “Growth-Limit Measure Attracts Big Funding,” Los Angeles Times, October 26, 1996.
[74] Resolution 96–228, Thousand Oaks City Council, adopted December 3, 1996.
[75] Minutes of the Thousand Oaks City Council, December 13, 2016.
