City lets housing limits die
By Nancy Needham nancy@theacorn.com

The city decided to drive around without buckling up its child, according to an analogy made by 37-year resident Jeff Carlson, who spoke during public comments at last week's Thousand Oaks City Council meeting.

Before the council made its decision on whether to continue Measure A or let it expire on Dec. 31, Carlson said, "(Measure A) is like telling your child to put a seat belt on."

He's watched what the ordinance has done since voters passed it in 1980, he said, and he likes the way the measure protected the city.

The measure limited the amount of new residential housing that could be approved for construction per year, with subsidized affordable housing for lowand moderate-income families being exempt. It also had a point system that was given to developers applying to build in Thousand Oaks that rated them according to items--such as open space and trails--they would provide to the community.

However, after listening to Carlson and holding a discussion during a public hearing, the council voted 3 to 2 to not continue Measure A.

City Council members Dennis Gillette and Claudia Bill-de la Peña didn't support the council's decision to allow the measure to end.

"It seems to me . . . with potential for 900 additional units and some of the things that are going on, I'm not convinced that I'm ready to let this go yet," Gillette said.

Gillette, a 44-year resident of Thousand Oaks whom Mayor Andy Fox often refers to as the council's historian, explained his reasons for wanting the ordinance to remain.

Though he realizes there is very little land left to be developed in Thousand Oaks, Gillette said, almost 1,000 units can still be built according to the city's General Plan.

Also, he noted, future development not currently specified in the General Plan is being discussed, such as ideas for Thousand Oaks Boulevard.

Back in 1980 the focus was on being sensitive about controlling growth and maintaining the city's reputation, he said.

Councilmember Jacqui Irwin had a different opinion.

The measure, she said, was a waste of time and a silly exercise that was completely meaningless with the city at 97 percent build-out.

"The time has come to say this is no longer a slowgrowth measure. It's ridiculous to call it a slow-growth measure at this point," Irwin said.

Councilmember Tom Glancy said he appreciated Gillette's comments and agreed it's wise to take a safe route, but he was much more inclined to agree with Irwin that the measure was a futile gesture since the city isn't currently threatened with unbridled growth.

"If things get out of hand I think we can attempt to reestablish a Measure A," Glancy said.

Bill-de la Peña said it might be difficult to re-create the safety net down the road.

She also noted the possibility that units might be built along Thousand Oaks Boulevard as part of a Thousand Oaks specific plan or somehow the General Plan might be changed .

"I don't have a crystal ball, and I don't know what future councils will do," Bill-de la Peña said.

Reasons for not renewing the measure include its vulnerability to challenges from developers or anyone else and concern that the state is now looking closely at any city's constraint on housing, even though the measure doesn't affect affordable housing, according to City Attorney Amy Albano.