No Conflict Seen in Fox, Parks Measures

With his growth-control measure under constant criticism from some political factions, Mayor Andy Fox decided he wanted a second opinion to bolster Measure E’s worth.

So he went right to the top to silence his critics, asking the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to review his measure and determine whether it conflicts with the recently adopted initiative written by Planning Commissioner Linda Parks.

On Friday, Fox called a news conference to release a letter from the state’s head planner, Antero Rivasplata, asserting that there is no conflict between the measures.

Parks’ initiative, adopted by the City Council in June, prevents land designated as a park, golf course or open space in the Thousand Oaks General Plan from being developed for another purpose without voter approval.

Measure E, Fox’s initiative, would “expand” on that, according to Rivasplata, by adding changes in commercial-use designations or increases in the density of residential areas to the list of General Plan amendments that would require voter approval.

The letter makes it clear that it is not meant to be a legal opinion on the validity of either initiative, both of which are intended to slow growth. But Rivasplata wrote: “After reviewing these initiatives, I do not find any apparent conflicts between them.”

Parks was clearly unimpressed by the contents of Rivasplata’s letter. “That must be a headline story, huh?” she said sarcastically.

Parks said she doesn’t dispute that the two initiatives don’t conflict--at least not now.

“It would have conflicted until I got him to change it,” Parks said, adding that she too has a letter from the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. But hers, she said, dates back to the original Measure E that Fox proposed, and it says the two do conflict. In late June, Fox revised the measure and Parks said Friday she no longer sees any conflict.

Nonetheless, the official rebuttal to Measure E--the document that voters will be reading before they vote--still harks back to that original proposal, attacking it rather than the final version, the one voters will consider.

As written by Councilwoman Elois Zeanah and former councilwoman Jaime Zukowski, the rebuttal says: “Measure E was designed to nullify the parks and open space initiative.”

Fox pointed out that that sentence does not say “originally designed,” which would be a more accurate representation of Parks and other opponents’ views. “I think it was a clear attempt to mislead the public,” Fox said.

Parks said she has no love for the amended version of Measure E. “I worry about Measure E because nothing like it has ever been done in the United States of America,” she said. “It is unproven.”

She said she believes the mayor’s measure would allow developers to wheel and deal with the city and will encourage overdevelopment on the outskirts of town. Parks also thinks it could not withstand a legal challenge.

For his part, Fox said he doesn’t expect developers to challenge Measure E, so lawsuits won’t be a problem. He said the measure will act as a safety valve, a deterrent that will stop developers from even proposing anything that conflicts with the General Plan.

“We’re not going to end up with a series of elections because developers are going to work within the General Plan,” Fox said. “I doubt there would ever even be a vote.”

Talking about the merits of his measure, Fox said it would have been foolhardy to pass anything like it 10 years ago, when the city was still growing. But with build-out fast approaching, Fox said voters should have some say.

“In my opinion, now is the time that Thousand Oaks voters have more direct control over development. They moved to Thousand Oaks for a reason. They don’t want Thousand Oaks to turn into a San Fernando Valley.”