T.O. General Plan Update: A Reduced Scope Alternative
In June 2022, the City of Thousand Oaks started the official process of environmental review for the City’s General Plan update.
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. Below, I provide some of the high points and background of my comments.
First, under California law, jurisdictions must conduct an environmental review of any proposed projects, including decisions to make changes to their General Plan, evaluating a wide variety of factors from land use & planning to noise to transportation to tribal cultural resources to hydrology & water quality to aesthetics.
The intent is to ensure that the project is well-planned, that these factors have been carefully considered prior to approval, and that the other interested agencies (e.g., park districts, county governments, school boards) and the public have the opportunity to provide comments before decisions are actually made.
It should be noted that meetings held by the City of Thousand Oaks in 2021 to review a prospective land use map carried no official weight. The City has been careful to say that votes and public discussion in May 2021 led to the “Council’s endorsement of a Preferred Land Use Map.” [1]
However, while these may have been expressed preferences, these votes did not change anything about the land uses in the city, since to do so without environmental review would have violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). That’s what the Notice of Preparation indicates; the official process of updating the City’s General Plan has now begun.
In this article, I’ll review those thoughts about what the public needs to know in the City’s environmental review of the General Plan update. Below is the first in a three-part series:
· A Reduced Scope Alternative – A More Prudent and Measured Approach [this article]
· Sufficient Impact Analysis and Disclosure to the Public
· Voter Approval Requirements of Amendments to the Land Use Element
A Reduced Scope Alternative – A More Prudent and Measured Approach
According to CEQA Guidelines, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must evaluate “a range of reasonable alternatives.” [2] While numerous sessions were held to gather input from the public (whose participation was stilted since these were held during the COVID pandemic), the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) and the public were only presented three alternatives, all of roughly the same size and intensities of growth, varying only in the placement and distribution of such growth.
Unfortunately, there was no discussion nor consideration of an alternative that would meet the needs of the community yet was reduced in scope.
I have served on GPAC since 2019, and I expressed these concerns at the April 2021 GPAC meeting, immediately prior to Planning Commission and City Council consideration of the land use alternatives: [3]
“Coming from a historical perspective, where we’ve come from as a city, and in my view, being part of some of these city decisions, as well as to bring in some additional information for context of thinking about the plan.
“In general, my main concern is about the scope of the change. It is incredibly large; it is probably the largest for the plan for the change of increased development in sixty years - especially since the General Plan was enacted fifty years ago.
“The disappointment I have in this is that the choices we have are more about ‘given the size of it, where would you like the changes?’ as opposed to ‘in the alternatives, the scope of such change.’
“Does it have to be as big as it being presented, or are there options for the Commission and the Council to entertain and address things that are of real concern with the City, such as meeting the RHNA allocation numbers to meet our fair share of the housing crisis needs, as well as some items such as ensuring zoning is consistent with general plan designations - there could be some real penalties for the City and for some neighborhoods if they are not addressed properly.
“Does that require such a full scope and sizable change in order to do that?”
Based on the alternatives and the min-max ranges for the revised and new land use designations, each of the alternatives would add between 15,000–26,000 additional residential units to the City’s buildout projections. [4]
From a historical perspective, this is a huge jump in residential capacity and something out of character with the city’s growth patterns. I and five former Thousand Oaks Planning Commissioners laid out a more prudent approach in an open letter last year.
Here’s a little background as to why the City’s proposal is what I’ve characterized as “the most significant proposed expansion of development in the city’s six-decade-long history.” [5]
Table 4.0-1, Thousand Oaks Planning Area Buildout Projections (residential buildout only), Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan, Final Environmental Impact Report EIR No. 327, dated September 2011, certified October 25, 2011, Volume I, p. 4.0-3.
As of 2019, Thousand Oaks had a housing stock of 48,081 residential units, [6] which is close to the historically understood figure that over decades has been described as “buildout” of roughly 50,000 residential units.
One example of this historical understanding comes from the Thousand Oaks Planning Area Buildout Projections table in the EIR certified by the City in 2011 for the Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan; this table “provides the amount of residential and non-residential development projected at full development of the uses allowed by the City of Thousand Oaks General Plan” [7] and shows the projected buildout under the General Plan of 49,695 residential units. [8]
Now, given the current residential units in the City relative to the projected buildout numbers (approximately 1,700 units using the figures above), there is little room to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation (which is 2,621 units over the next eight years [9]) without increasing the number of residential units allowed under the General Plan.
But there is a big difference between needing 2,600 more units and recommending upwards of 20,000 more units all at once.
An alternative with a reduced scope “would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives” [10] of this General Plan update. The absence of a reduced scope alternative in the CEQA review would be a glaring omission.
One note on something to look out for in evaluating any alternative that is reduced in scope. History demonstrates that staff reports and legal interpretations are sometimes used to frame a recommendation as the only legitimate choice and that disagreeing with that choice would be irresponsible and potentially illegal.
Noting this possibility, city attorneys are cautioned against “acting like a sixth Councilmember,” [11] putting their legal thumb on the scale in support of a council majority with whom they agree, or, conversely, being used by a council majority as a legal bolstering of their weaker political positions. In contrast to being open to alternative views, this creates a dynamic where a council majority can bully their political adversaries.
===========================
[1] Memo to City Council from Kelvin Parker, Community Development Director, “Subject: General Plan Update – Consideration of Draft Preferred Land Use Map (GPA 2019-70760) LOCATION: Citywide,” May 18, 2021, p 14.
[2] CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a).
[3] General Plan Advisory Committee Presentation, Meeting #15, April 21, 2021, https://www.toaks2045.org/gpac/landusealtssurveyreview-erz7s, 1:26:02.
[4] Land Use Alternatives Briefing Book, City of Thousand Oaks General Plan Update, January 2021, p 21-28, 56.
[5] “Open Letter regarding our Thousand Oaks General Plan,” April 23, 2021, https://www.micfarris.com/blog/the-thousand-oaks-2045-general-plan-update-ndlxg.
[6] General Plan Advisory Committee Presentation, Meeting #3, November 14, 2019, p 13.
[7] Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan, Final Environmental Impact Report EIR No. 327, dated September 2011, certified October 25, 2011, Volume I, p. 4.0-3.
[8] Ibid., “Table 4.0-1, Thousand Oaks Planning Area Buildout Projections,” Volume I, p. 4.0-3.
[9] Memo to Andrew P. Powers, City Manager, from Kelvin Parker, Community Development Director, “Subject: 2021-2029 Housing Element,” January 25, 2022, p 4.
[10] CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a).
[11] Amy Albano, “The Role of the City Attorney: Relationships with Other Municipal Actors”, City Attorneys’ Department Spring Conference, League of California Cities, May 5, 2010.
