T.O. General Plan Update: Including the Voters
In two previous articles (here and here), I discussed that the upcoming Thousand Oaks General Plan update. For the public to be well informed about these critical decisions, the current proposal should be contrasted with an alternative that is reduced in size and scope, and a full citywide analysis is needed to understand the full impacts of such an update.
In this article, I discuss voter approval for such a General Plan update; I’ve already voiced my belief that the General Plan update should and must receive approval from the voters of Thousand Oaks.
Why? Three reasons.
One reason: when the update was first proposed and the public was sold on the idea, city leaders recommended and supported such approval. Mayor Andy Fox highlighted this aspect in his last State of the City address as Thousand Oaks Mayor:
“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.”
Three years later, Mayor Claudia Bill-de la Peña reiterated her support for her former colleague’s recommendation:
“[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.”
Argument in favor of Measure E by its proponents, November 1996
A second reason: Through city laws enacted via initiatives and measures, the voters of Thousand Oaks have demanded to be part of the approval process.
For example, the much-touted Measure E was presented to the public as being needed “because the voters should have the power to vote yes or no when significant changes to the General Plan are proposed.” [3] Additionally, the same proponents claimed that “Measure ‘E’ takes power from the politicians and puts it in the hands of the voters. The proponents of Measure ‘E’ trust the people. It’s that simple.” [4]
I’ve written about the history of our General Plan protections and the rise and fall of Measure E itself. The voters didn’t approve these protections to be window dressing; they were meant as an additional check against changing our city’s development plan without also having public support.
And with the size and scope of the changes being proposed, as someone who was part of the implementation of Measure E when it was clear to everyone that we were nearing buildout, I have already stated that “no one contemplated that a change of this magnitude would ever be enacted without including the voters.” [5]
A third reason: Given the specific proposal under official public review, unless altered, city law actually requires voter approval, which I’ll discuss below.
In this article, I’ll focus on the ordinances that require voter involvement and approval of changes to our city’s General Plan Land Use map. Below is the last in a three-part series on the Thousand Oaks General Plan update, where the articles include:
A Reduced Scope Alternative – A More Prudent and Measured Approach
Voter Approval Requirements of Amendments to the Land Use Element [this article]
Just as in previous articles, I’ve provided specific and more technical comments, highlighting what I believe should be reviewed in preparing the Environmental Impact Report; my memo to the City can be found here.
Voter Approval Requirements of Amendments to the Land Use Element
Over the decades, the voters of Thousand Oaks initiated and approved their involvement in key decisions regarding amendments to the General Plan. With the passage of these measures, the voters’ intentions were clear: legislative acts of the City to approve certain types of amendments to the city’s General Plan Land Use Element map (“LU Map”) specified by these ordinances do not become effective unless they also receive approval by City voters.
These measures include:
The city’s local version of Save Open Space & Agricultural Resources (Thousand Oaks SOAR)
In 1996, via the Parks Initiative, voters protected lands on our LU Map designated “existing parks, golf courses, open space.” If the Council approves a change of these lands to any other designation, voters must approve before the changes become effective.
In 1998, voters approved a City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB) line around the city through Measure P. To mitigate urban sprawl, any actions to allow for urbanized uses of land outside the CURB line must receive voter approval before becoming effective.
In 2016, through approval of Measure W, voters extended these protections for the next quarter century through 2050.
Measure E
In 1996, voters approved a city-sponsored measure regarding residential density and commercial acreage increases. If the cumulative effect of proposed changes exceed the city’s baselines from 1996, such changes need voter approval to become effective. These protections are in place through 2026.
In my view, the proposal out for official public review requires changes to be aligned with the City’s voter approval protections. Specifically, these include:
Incorporation of the city’s Planning Area boundary and the City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB) lines, as they are critical references for proper management of the City’s General Plan.
The map under consideration only identifies the city limits and the Sphere of Influence lines, excluding the Planning Area and CURB lines on the current LU map.
An addendum to the Land Use Element setting the policy for reviewing any recommended changes to the Land Use Element in context of the voter approval ordinances in place.
Reviews of General Plan changes are generally done on a case-by-case basis, affecting a very limited set of properties.
Given the full scale citywide changes in this update, a more systematic approach would provide confidence that city decision makers are honoring these voter protections.
The reason I call these out specifically is that the information provided to the public thus far already contains mistakes, omissions, or changes not widely known. These are especially critical to these intended voter approval protections, which I’ll describe in more detail below.
We should note that people make mistakes, so with the vast array of changes being made in this General Plan update, things can fall through the cracks and details can be overlooked. However, mistakes are more likely to occur if the importance of the details are thought to be less salient.
My concern is that voter protections are considered less important than other items of interest. And while there are numerous important items to consider in reviewing General Plan changes (such as better transportation options, conservation of water, or addressing effects of climate change), the requirement for voter approval of certain changes is the law; it’s part of our self-governance framework, and these laws should be honored in our city decision making.
Incorporation of the Planning Area and CURB lines
References to the City’s Planning Area and CURB lines are key to interpreting the City’s Land Use Element, especially in relation to voter approval requirements. Incorporating these boundaries on the LU Map will alleviate confusion for future City decision makers and the public regarding the allowed uses of various lands and when or whether voter approval is required for any changes.
Unfortunately, errors have already occurred in the General Plan update process with respect these critical planning boundaries. In preparing this General Plan update and describing the existing General Plan conditions, the CURB line was described below:
“In addition, Measure W prohibits the City of Thousand Oaks from approving urbanized land uses and extending urban services outside of the City Urban Boundary (CURB), which is coterminous with the City’s Sphere of Influence.” [6] [emphasis added]
This is, however, not true and presents an incorrect understanding of the history of City decision making and the allowable uses of these properties. In 1998, Thousand Oaks voters established the CURB line and prevented any “urbanized uses of land” [7] to be allowed outside the CURB line without approval by a majority of Thousand Oaks voters.
The voter approval aspects of this measure were extended to apply through 2050 via passage of Measure W in 2016. As indicated in Measure W, since the time of the original establishment of the CURB line, the current Sphere of Influence line has changed, but not the CURB line, so they are no longer coterminous:
“Although the Sphere of Influence has since been expanded to include the Broome Ranch, the CURB line shall continue to be in its current location, coterminous with the Sphere of Influence line applicable to the City of Thousand Oaks in existence on January 1,1998, approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission.” [8] [emphasis added]
Without proper understanding of the relationships between the CURB line and the Sphere of Influence line, some may look at the proposed General Plan map and conclude that the 326 acres of Broome Ranch was approved for urbanized uses, even though the property has always lied outside the CURB line before and after City annexation proceedings commenced in 2010. [9]
Additionally, first approved via the Parks Initiative in 1996, Measure W extended the protections for lands within the City’s Planning Area designated “Existing Parks, Golf Courses, Open Space” through 2050. Critical to understanding which lands are protected is whether those lands lie within the City’s Planning Area boundary, as noted in the measure’s purpose:
“The unique character of the City of Thousand Oaks and quality of life of City residents depend on the protection of a substantial amount of open space, rural and agricultural lands both within and without its City limits. Part of that unique character requiring protection is the land use designations of Existing Parks, Golf Courses, Open Space within the City’s planning area.”[10] [emphasis added]
On the current General Plan LU Map, there are lands outside the city’s Sphere of Influence, yet inside the City’s Planning Area, designated “Existing Parks, Golf Courses, Open Space.” Absence of the Planning Area and CURB lines on the LU Map can lead to incorrect conclusions by City decision makers and the public about the allowable uses of various lands and the requirements for approval for any such changes to these lands. For these reasons, they should be incorporated as part of any update to the General Plan LU map.
Addendum to Reviewing any Land Use Element Amendments in Context of Voter Approval Ordinances
Since certain amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element would require voter approval, a question arises: If an amendment to the LU Map is approved by the Council, how does the public know whether voter approval is required to become effective?
Said another way, it is not the voters’ burden to prove that an amendment requires voter approval; it is the City’s burden to prove that an amendment does not require such voter approval. To meet that burden, the City should demonstrate sufficiently either that the proposed amendment is not one of the types covered by the ordinances or that voter approval of the amendment is not required to become effective.
A detailed analysis of the proposed map indicates that key areas of analysis against voter approval ordinances have been missing in its preparation, and additionally, if the proposed map were to be adopted unchanged from its current form, the amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element would require voter approval to become effective.
The 20 acres on the north end of Conejo Creek Park South. The current land use designation (left) is “Existing Parks, Golf Courses, Open Space” and the proposed designation (right) is “Institutional”
It should be noted that the voter approval requirements under Measure W (Parks Initiative and SOAR) are part of the General Plan itself; its title states that it is a “Land Use Voter Participation General Plan Amendment.” [11] Specifically, Measure W requires that “…the Existing Parks, Golf Courses, Open Space land use designations, as identified herein, may not be amended, altered, revoked or otherwise changed prior to December 31, 2050, except by vote of the people or by the City Council pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 4 of this General Plan amendment.” [12]
However, the proposed map shows the intent to change the land use of properties currently designated as Existing Parks, Golf Courses, Open Space to other designations, thus requiring voter approval under Measure W. Specific examples include, but are not limited to:
The northern 4.5 acres of the Sycamore Canyon School site. The current land use designation (left) is “Existing Parks, Golf Courses, Open Space” and the proposed designation (right) is “Institutional”
The 20 acres on the north end of Conejo Creek Park South
The northern 4.5 acres of the Sycamore Canyon School site
Additionally, with the current General Plan update, much of the focus has been on residential density calculations and requirements under Measure E to approve any changes without voter approval. However, there has been little if any consideration to the other Measure E requirement – maintaining the baseline of commercial acreage resulting from any amendment unless voters approve.
Inconsistency in analysis for critical voter approval requirements, even within this comprehensive update, demonstrates the need for a more consistent process of analysis that provide greater clarity and transparency. Incorporating a consistent review policy for any amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element, as proscribed by the City’s voter approval ordinances, would catch these identified inconsistencies and remove concerns the public may have about adhering to these voter protection ordinances. Since Measure W requires such voter approval for at least the next 28 years (through 2050), it seems prudent for the Council to incorporate a policy of requiring analysis of any amendment to the LU Map against the voter approval ordinances in place.
Such a policy can be described as a series of tests, where an example can be described as follows:
For the proposed amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element, some preliminary questions are presented:
(A1) Are any lands affected by the amendment currently in a land use designation of “Existing Parks, Golf Courses, Open Space"?
(A2) Would the amendment expand the CURB line outward from its current boundaries?
(A3) Do the lands affected by the amendment, when considered cumulatively, result in a net increase in the maximum number of residential dwelling units which could be permitted under the proposed land use designation(s)?
(A4) Do the lands affected by the amendment, when considered cumulatively, result in a net increase in the amount of acreage designated "commercial”?
For this General Plan Land Use Element amendment, there are two questions:
(A) Are any of the answers to A1 through A4 "YES"?
(B) Do the lands affected by the amendment fall outside of the specific exemptions within these ordinances?
If the answer to both (A) and (B) is "YES" (they trigger one of the voter approval requirements AND they’re not exempt from such voter approval), then the General Plan Land Use Element amendment requires voter approval to become effective.
If the answers to either (A) or (B) are "NO" (the amendment passes all of the test OR all of the lands affected are exempt in some way), then the General Plan Land Use Element amendment does not require voter approval to become effective.
Questions A1, A2, and B must be part of the test through 2050 per Measure W (unless extended). Questions A3 and A4 must be part of the test through 2026 per Measure E (unless extended).
As a note of completeness, any policy requiring evaluation of an amendment to the General Plan against voter approval requirements should also add a test for amendments to the Open Space Element. Measure W incorporates and amends Chapter 8 of the Open Space Element and states that the measure “may be amended or repealed only by the voters of the City of Thousand Oaks at an election held in accordance with state law.” [13]
Given the importance of voter approval ordinances to the voters’ involvement in the decisionmaking process regarding changes to the City’s General Plan Land Use Element, a consistent review policy can provide greater clarity and transparency in cases voter approval may be required. Additionally, such a policy will ensure that no aspects of analyzing any proposed amendment against voter approval ordinances are overlooked.
Lastly, with the comprehensive nature of the Land Use Element revisions, it is expected that a detailed citywide analysis of parks/open space designations, residential densities, and commercial acreages of every property affected will be conducted to demonstrate sufficiently whether or not voter approval is required under Measure W and/or Measure E.
==========================
[1] Fox, Andy, State of the City Address, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQAbSICS5V4 (21:34), December 11, 2018.
[2] Bill-de la Peña, Claudia, State of the City Address, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjlBXIozoMk (9:44), December 7, 2021.
[3] Argument in Favor of Measure “E”, Sample Ballot and Voter Information Pamphlet, County of Ventura, City of Thousand Oaks, General Election, November 5, 1996.
[4] Rebuttal to Argument Against Measure “E”, Sample Ballot and Voter Information Pamphlet, County of Ventura, City of Thousand Oaks, General Election, November 5, 1996.
[5] https://twitter.com/MicFarris/status/1356817958006218755
[6] Thousand Oaks Land Use & Community Design, Existing Conditions, March 2020, p 19.
[7] Thousand Oaks Municipal Code, Section 9.2-502 – 3(a).
[8] Thousand Oaks Municipal Code, Section 9.2-501(b)(5).
[9] Minutes of the Thousand Oaks City Council, April 27, 2010.
[10] Thousand Oaks Municipal Code, Section 9.2-501(a)(5).
[11] Ordinance 1268-NS, City of Thousand Oaks, effective December 23, 2016.
[12] Thousand Oaks Municipal Code, Section 9.2-502 – 3(e).
[13] Ordinance 1268-NS, City of Thousand Oaks, Section 7 of Measure W, effective December 23, 2016.
