Relief From Ridgeline Protection Law Weighed

Responding to concerns that the city’s defense of unbroken scenic vistas is simply too restrictive, the City Council on Tuesday may offer some sweet relief by amending its ridgeline protection ordinance.

The law, originally meant to preserve Thousand Oaks’ vast, striking skyline from unsightly buildings, is so stringent that it invalidates private property rights, some say.

Slow-growth and pro-growth council members alike say they are prepared to provide a “relief valve,” allowing a few, rare exceptions to the Protected Ridgeline Overlay Zone ordinance.

“I am very well aware of the [law’s] intent--to honestly protect ridgelines and view sheds,” Fox said. “It’s not meant to completely remove an individual’s right to have reasonable use of their property.”

Critics charge that, as written, the law does exactly that.

The law does not ban ridgeline developments outright. But it does curtail--in minute detail--the specifications for hilltop buildings so they will not overshadow the natural beauty of the goldenrod-hued hills circling Thousand Oaks.

For example, the overlay zone limits structure size to 2,000 square feet including a garage. That same building can be no taller than 17 feet. In other words, anything bigger than a small two-story, two-bedroom house is out, said Philip Gatch, the city’s director of planning and development.

The proposed changes, approved by the city Planning Commission in January, would allow that panel to make case-by-case exemptions to the ordinance’s limits on size, grading and subdivision on the hilltops.

The inflexibility of the law--with or without an amendment--bothers Sister Lisa Megaffin, principal of La Reina High School. Her 620-student parochial school sits on 40 sloped acres owned by the Sisters of Notre Dame.

“We have no immediate plans” for that land, she said. “But if you’re anyone in the La Reina family, you have to be dreaming of what that land could be. If you have restrictions, it would make any further development impossible.

“We don’t want to need a ‘relief valve,’ ” she added.

Fox and colleagues Elois Zeanah and Mike Markey defend the overlay zone, even with its flaws.

“The ridgelines, our open space and our oak trees are the treasures of this city,” Zeanah said. At the same time, she added, “there has to be a little give and take.”

For that reason, both Zeanah and Fox said they support the amendment. But slow-growth advocate Zeanah said she would ask to revise the proposal so that the council, not the Planning Commission, would have final say on exemptions.

“I feel strongly that the City Council must retain the power to make any exemptions to [the law] guarding the city’s treasures,” she said. “The City Council is accountable to the public for the final decision on everything.”

While still undecided about making case-by-case exceptions, Markey said he saw the amendment’s merits.

“We are talking about people’s private property,” he said. “We have to realize that people have property rights and we can’t zone their property right out from under people. Having said that, we still have to protect our ridges and open spaces for the public.”

The amendment does not give developers free rein, council members say. By all accounts, only a handful of the property owners asking for an exception will get one.

A hillside property owner ringed by other homes has a fighting chance for an exemption, Markey said. Those looking to despoil a pristine hillside can forget it.

Added planning director Gatch: “I think that the Planning Commission felt they needed a little bit of breathing room. They’re not talking about carte blanche.”