Power to the Planners

As a result of the recent appellate court decision, which informed the council of Thousand Oaks that it erred in appealing and overturning a Planning Commission decision, all city councils must give the future considerable thought.

Thus, councils must appoint with considerable care commission members who are in harmony with the council. It is safe to say that those cities where each member selects a commissioner will have less of a problem. The commissioners, too, will need to have a fair understanding of that city’s General Plan and the limitations of law. The council needs to bear in mind that the planning commission may make a decision that will stand, regardless of the majority of the council.

State law allows the councils to appoint themselves to serve as the planning commission. There may be some merit to this, in that the elected decision makers (who are responsible to the public and charged with the fiduciary responsibility) would actually have the opportunity to address the process from the beginning. This well might shorten the entire procedure, a result devoutly to be desired.

The decision mentioned that the council had responded to the “hue and cry of the crowd.” It is the rare council or council member who does not respond, especially in an election year. Such a response may even be proper, if it really represents what is best for the city as a whole. It is not proper when it impinges on any legal rights of another.

At times, councils have brought a planning decision to the council because it does not reflect the council’s interpretation of community goals. Perhaps the process should be altered to allow a group, willing to pay a nominal fee, to file an appeal on behalf of city residents.

Presumably, this decision will be appealed and very likely your city and mine will join in the appeal. In all reasonableness, the decision might be more rational, were the planning commissioners elected, rather than appointed. As the system now stands, councils may find themselves frustrated by the very people they have appointed.

ELOISE BROWN

Moorpark

Eloise Brown is a former member of the Moorpark City Council.

*

The recent ruling of the state court against the city of Thousand Oaks is a travesty against all the people of California. The council heard the people and overturned the Planning Commission’s approval of an overly built development because it met the General Plan that Thousand Oaks created over 20 years ago.

We blame the city for having outdated zoning areas and the Planning Commission for squeezing by environmental issues on an obviously sensitive wetland project. But for a state court to imply that council members can’t listen to the “roar of the crowd,” makes us angry. How else can the citizens of Thousand Oaks be heard besides going to the council meetings and speaking up against any issue? The three judges said the “city trampled on the developer’s constitutional rights.” What about the rights of the people in the community that will have a commercial development that is not needed and doesn’t conform with the surrounding bedroom-community environment?

We implore the new council members to send this case to the California Supreme Court. Hopefully, they will hear the “roar of the crowd.” We would also encourage the council to either ax the Planning Commission or see to it that the Planning Commission has neighborhood or homeowners group representatives on each development plan that goes before it. There should also be a committee formed to review outdated zoning areas. It would be nice if all these people would be elected officials.

DENIS AND SUZETTE DUX

Newbury Park