Political Plot Alleged Over Land Swap

A majority of the Thousand Oaks City Council is threatening to censure one of its members and oust half the Planning Commission because of a controversial land-swap deal.

Three councilmen have called a special meeting today to discuss the fracas that has erupted over a plan that would preserve nearly 200 acres in an area known as the Western Plateau.

In exchange for the land, developers could build hundreds of market-value homes elsewhere, while scaling back on senior and affordable housing.

Councilman Dennis Gillette said that as many as three of the city’s five planning commissioners may have conspired to help Councilwoman Linda Parks in her bid for county supervisor by delaying action on the land-swap deal at Monday night’s meeting.

“It takes on the appearance of being little more than a thinly veiled subterfuge,” he said.

Gillette said Parks would be in a sticky position if she were required to vote on the swap before the March 5 election. If Parks voted for it, she might be accused of assisting developers, and if she opposed the plan, it could hurt her reputation as a protector of open space, he said.

Parks called the accusation outrageous and contended that Gillette and Councilmen Dan Del Campo and Andy Fox are trying to embarrass her, help her campaign opponent Randy Hoffman and punish planning commissioners for failing to rush through a plan that would benefit developers.

“The whole thing is ridiculous,” she said.

Planning commissioners are appointed by council members and serve only in an advisory capacity. In a terse memo issued Tuesday, Del Campo wrote, “No ‘cause’ is necessary to fire a planning commissioner.”

But he went on to charge that at least one commissioner had disregarded factual information, failed to allow the public to be heard, wasted city staff time and jeopardized the land deal.

At Monday night’s meeting, Planning Commission Chairman Michael Farris led a 3-2 vote to postpone a recommendation on the Western Plateau deal for at least a week. He said he and Commissioners Nora Aidukas and Claudia Bill-de la Pena had concerns about the accuracy of land-use maps.

Parks for weeks had been raising questions with individual commissioners and city staff about the validity of the Western Plateau deal, saying an earlier city map showed that a portion of the land where Dos Vientos developers would be allowed to build additional housing appeared to be park and open space.

Under city law, construction on such land would require a public vote, she said. City staff told planning commissioners that the map Parks saw contained an error and that the land was not covered by the ordinance.

But Farris and his colleagues wanted more time to consider the matter before issuing a recommendation.

Parks and Farris said there were no secret strategy sessions among commissioners, nor was there a plan to drag out the recommendation in order to delay a council vote.

“I would love to vote on it,” Parks said of the land-swap proposal. “I’m so ready to vote on it, I can’t even tell you.

“I gave those maps to planning commissioners and now they want to remove those planning commissioners,” Parks said. “That’s all that’s happened. I’m not influencing them to vote against it or for it. I just gave them the maps.”

Planning Commissioner Tom Glancy, who along with Commissioner Jim Bruno was on the losing end of the panel’s vote, said his other colleagues’ actions appeared orchestrated.

“It was sort of apparent that those three guys came in with their minds made up to delay a decision,” Glancy said.

“The smoke-screen is they wanted information, but when it was stated that staff could explain their questions, they said they really didn’t want that, they wanted extra time to study it.”

Farris said he intended to issue a recommendation at the commission’s meeting next week, which would still get the proposal to the City Council in time for its scheduled Feb. 26 vote--a full week before the election.

“I’m trying not to fly off the handle on this and to take it in stride,” Farris said. “But I think it’s a sad commentary on the council to take this action purely for political reasons.”