Committee Revises Thousand Oaks’ ‘72 Open Space Guidelines

For months, a committee has been poring over the city of Thousand Oaks’ open space guidelines, suggesting revisions and--in the process--making some members of the city’s business community mighty nervous.

Nervous because the committee, charged with updating parts of the city’s General Plan, includes several outspoken slow-growth advocates. And some local businessmen fear these committee members could turn the plan’s open space section into a weapon against development.

“Who makes the amendment makes a lot of difference, and I don’t see an impartial group here,” said Raul Gutierrez, a Thousand Oaks insurance agent who founded the pro-business community group, Save Our City.

Seated on the panel are City Councilwoman Elois Zeanah and Planning Commissioners Marilyn Carpenter and Linda Parks--all known for their resistance to development. But also included in the group are decidedly pro-business Councilwoman Judy Lazar and two community representatives.

“Frankly, we didn’t break much new ground,” said Carpenter, chairwoman of the Planning Commission and an avowed open space supporter. “It’s pretty much what this community has said it cares about, and one of the things we care about is open space.”

Sounds simple enough. But last month, a former planning commissioner railed against the proposal, urging Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce members to voice their opinions. Last week, one local architect voiced objections to guidelines he said would restrict development, that is, until he read the final draft of the committee’s report.

“I think it’s an ideal document, but it hasn’t been implemented,” architect Francesco Behr said after reviewing the document. “I’m just afraid that this is just another tool that can be misused.”

The revisions have been a long time in the making. The current open space element of the General Plan was adopted in 1972 and has never been revised.

The original document lists specific properties and natural features such as hills and streams that should be preserved from development, stating that such open spaces are necessary to provide an environment that is “at all times healthful and pleasing to the senses of man.”

It spells out ways to regulate development, including a special zoning law to preserve hillsides. And it anticipated a ring of open space around the growing city, stating most of that space should remain in private hands.

Few of the document’s basic principles have changed. In the revised draft, open space still provides an environment “pleasing to the senses of man,” while new language describes that environment’s importance to preserving local plant and animal species.

One major difference: public ownership of open space is now preferred to private.

But like most of the revisions, that preference is not new, having evolved over the course of years. “It’s much more effective in ensuring public access to open space,” Lazar said.

Much of the committee’s work, Lazar said, consisted of taking vague portions of the old document and making them more specific. “The language was vague because the city was young, and outcomes were more indefinite,” she said. “Now the city is older, and the geographic outlines of the city have been more or less defined.”

For instance, the old guidelines had three pages addressing the benefits of keeping land open. The new document spends 14 pages on using open space for recreation or within a city setting, as well as the need to keep land open to protect residents from floods, mudslides and other natural disasters.

Lazar said she made a point of including language that protects the rights of landowners to develop their property. As a result, the document reminds readers that undeveloped land is not necessarily open space.

“Many times people will say, ‘I live right next to this open space. How can you let someone develop it?’ ” she said. “Well, they can develop it because it’s private property.”

Committee member Linda Parks, a vocal environmental advocate, wanted the document to give the city some legal footing as it tries to control development. She, too, feels the document reflects her concerns.

“As we are growing, more sensitive areas are up for development,” she said, “and this open space element gives a tool--if the council wants to use it--to hold the line and prevent sprawl.”

The public will have several months to evaluate the revisions and comment on them. Following a 45-day public review period, the City Council will host a study session, with the public invited, on the open space guidelines as well as the General Plan’s conservation and public safety sections. The revisions will then go to the Planning Commission for a public hearing before returning to the council for a vote.