June ballot initiative may be more about land use than traffic
By Nancy Needham  nancy@theacorn.com

After lots of discussion, the City Council decided to take no action on a resolution that would have allowed them to write arguments against the traffic congestion initiative slated for the June ballot.

Or maybe it should be called the land-use initiative.

During the public speaking time at the beginning of the council meeting, Jere Robings of Thousand Oaks spoke about what the city calls the Land Use Initiative/"Right to Vote on Traffic Congestion" measure.

Robings, who has operated taxpayer watchdog groups in Ventura County, argued the initiative has nothing to do with traffic but is a well-designed campaign by the Do-it Center to prevent Home Depot from opening on Hampshire Road.

Robings based his opinion on a financial disclosure record that shows $210,000 was given as of the end of last year to the campaign by the Do-it Center corporation, pushing for the initiative to go to voters, he said.

Robings also noted the Do-it Center helped to successfully block Home Depot in Agoura Hills and a Lowe's home improvement store in Westlake Village.

The way the signatures were obtained to get the initiative on the ballot didn't please Robings.

"It's the ultimate bait-and-switch," he said.

Those signing the petition did so after deceptively being told the petition was for traffic reduction or saving the city's open space when it is actually to stop the building of a Home Depot in Thousand Oaks, according to Robings.

Later during the City Council meeting, the subject came up again when the council considered whether the city should include an argument against the initiative on the ballot.

"After reading through the independent impact analysis report and listening to the presentations by the two opposing consulting firms last week, I'm concerned about the initiative's potential impacts to the city's recurring revenues, service levels, especially general fund and public safety service levels, infrastructure and, oddly enough, the potential to actually increase the volume of traffic," Councilmember Dennis Gillette said.

City Attorney Amy Albano told the council the proponents have a right to write an argument in favor of the initiative and the council may write an argument against it.

"The initiative, just to reiterate . . . is just asking the voters to decide specific development projects, and I don't see any harm in letting the voters decide what should be built in the city with the remaining 20 percent of commercial space still left," said Councilmember Claudia Bill-de la Peña.

Others spoke during public comment time, not on the agenda item of whether the council should write an argument, but regarding the initiative itself.

Moorpark Councilmember Keith Millhouse, who serves on the Ventura County Transportation Commission, said what will be on the ballot isn't a traffic initiative but a land-use initiative that uses traffic as the guide for whether a particular land-use decision will be made.

"We see that the initiative has a very strong potential to significantly and adversely affect our schools and our community," said Conejo Valley Unified School District Superintendent Mario Contini.

During the City Council meeting on Feb. 3, Los Robles Hospital and Medical Center CEO Jim Sherman expressed concerns about how the initiative would affect the hospital. A mention of his concerns during the Feb. 12 council meeting started a debate between council members Bill-de la Peña and Andy Fox.

Bill-de la Peña said she didn't think that a project like retrofitting the hospital would have been hurt by the initiative.

"I was really taken aback when I heard these claims made that half the hospital would have to be shut down if voters approve this initiative. That made me feel extremely uncomfortable because it's not true, in my opinion," she said.

Fox said, "I do believe that it's not appropriate, either on purpose or not, to insinuate that respected members of the community are somehow testifying, being dishonest or mischaracterizing the facts in areas that they clearly are the expert."

Bill-de la Peña said, "I strongly would like to suggest that any comments made do not attack or impugn the integrity or character of any speaker before the City Council. . . . Suggestions to that effect would actually indeed violate the norm, and I do want to remind my colleagues to try to stick to the norm and not misinterpret statements made by other council members."

The council voted unanimously to not write an argument to be placed on the ballot.