Planning commission upholds Miller Ranch HOA lot line adjustment over neighbor objections

The Thousand Oaks Planning Commission on June 22 upheld an administrative approval for a lot line adjustment at 2100 Upper Ranch Road that reduces a 7.03-acre HOA buffer (Lot 15) and reallocates portions of it to three adjacent residential lots, denying an appeal filed by a neighbor.

The decision matters because the adjustment changes ownership boundaries of the buffer lot created during earlier approvals of the Miller Ranch (Estates at North Ranch) subdivision and prompted sharp disagreement about whether past mediation and a memorandum of understanding established a permanent buffer. Commissioner Don Lanson moved to deny the appeal; the motion carried 3-1, with Commissioners McMahon and Vice Chair Busse joining Lanson and Commissioner Ferris dissenting.

Community Development staff presented the project as a ministerial lot-line adjustment (PM2025-70009) that does not change general plan designations or zoning, does not create new parcels or building sites, and therefore remains categorically exempt from CEQA under the Class 5 minor alterations exemption. Staff wrote that the application does not authorize grading, construction or new development and that recorded easements (wastewater, storm drain) would continue to constrain certain uses of the affected area. "The request before you is to consider an appeal of the administrative approval," staff said, recommending that the commission find the project exempt and deny the appeal.

The appellant, Nina Sandy, who owns property adjacent to Lot 15, argued the lot was created and repeatedly documented as a 7.03-acre buffer in the tentative tract map, staff reports and a mediation-based MOU. Sandy said the proposed adjustment "alters lot 15, so that there is almost no buffer between Miller Ranch Development and my property," and warned the change would undermine the prior settlement and could harm drainage, wildfire protections and property values. Sandy asked commissioners to treat the historical record and mediation outcome as material to the decision.

The applicant, David Turnbull, identified himself as president of the Miller Ranch HOA and described the HOA's financial and maintenance concerns. Turnbull said the HOA conducted a secret-ballot vote approving the proposal, and that the sale of a roughly 1.36-acre portion of Lot 15 (the area proposed to be absorbed by the three residential lots) would fund landscaping, drainage and wildfire-safety work on remaining HOA land. Turnbull said the HOA's plan includes bioswales, native drought-tolerant plantings and irrigation improvements tied to Cal Fire and Ventura County Fire Department guidance. "The HOA determined that the sale of a small portion of lot 15 would generate a portion of the income required to finish improvements on lot 15," he told the commission.

Staff and several commissioners emphasized the legal scope of review: the Planning Commission's de novo review on appeal is limited to objective lot-line adjustment criteria in the Thousand Oaks Municipal Code and subdivision standards, not private agreements. Staff repeatedly characterized the MOU as a private agreement among parties (not the city) and said it is not a city-adopted entitlement the commission may enforce. Staff also noted that some historical grading agreements included recording language, but that the MOU itself was not recorded as a city document.

Commissioner Ferris, dissenting, said she was troubled that the adjustment would change the conditions of approval by effectively eliminating the need to place the previously-intended landscaping on that portion of the buffer. Ferris said she could not make the required finding that the change preserved the intent of the conditions for landscaping and buffer function and therefore voted no. Commissioner Lanson and others said the application met applicable municipal code criteria (minimum lot sizes, setbacks and the limits that prevent creation of new parcels or increased density).

The commission recorded the motion and vote in open session: Commissioner Don Lanson moved to adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding PM2025-70009; the motion carried 3-1 (Lanson — yes; McMahon — yes; Vice Chair Busse — yes; Commissioner Ferris — no). No second was verbally recorded in the transcript. The staff notification included instructions that any aggrieved party may appeal the decision to the Community Development Department within ten days.

The outcome keeps in place the administrative approval subject to the conditions described by staff; staff reiterated that any future proposed construction, grading or development on the affected area would require its own, separate review process and environmental evaluation. The commission closed the hearing and proceeded to routine announcements and adjourned to its next meeting on July 6, 2026.

Votes at a glance: motion to deny appeal/uphold PM2025-70009 — Result: carried 3-1; yes voters: Don Lanson, (Commissioner) McMahon, Vice Chair Busse; no voter: (Commissioner) Ferris. Next steps: the decision may be appealed to the Community Development Department within 10 days.