Thousand Oaks Council Votes to Censure Parks

Brushing aside angry protests from dozens of residents, a split Thousand Oaks City Council voted Wednesday to censure Councilwoman Linda Parks and oust two planning commissioners over a dispute involving a controversial land-swap deal.

The council voted 3 to 2 during the highly charged meeting to reprimand Parks and dismiss Planning Commission Chairman Michael Farris and Commissioner Nora Aidukas. The council also voted to ask the district attorney’s office to investigate the commission for any possible violations of the state’s open meetings law.

Immediately after the vote, Farris stood up and said: “See you all in November. I’m running for City Council.”

More than 40 speakers addressed the council during the four-hour hearing at the Civic Arts Plaza, with most charging Councilmen Dennis Gillette, Dan Del Campo and Andy Fox with using the issue to cast a shadow on Parks’ candidacy for county supervisor.

“This is a total sleaze-bag move,” said resident Richard Messina, among about 80 people who crammed into the council chambers for the special meeting. “This stinks. It’s a disgusting political move. I’m ashamed of you people.”

“It’s a disgrace to have this occur,” added resident Mitch Rheingold. “Because you guys aren’t getting your way, you want to pull these guys off the Planning Commission? That sounds like Saddam Hussein or Moammar Kadafi. We might as well pack up our democracy. This is more like a dictatorship.”

The firestorm centers around a land-swap deal that would preserve a 191-acre swath in an area known as the Western Plateau. In exchange for the land, developers could build more market-value housing in place of 225 senior and affordable housing units in the Dos Vientos area.

A majority of the council accused Parks and the planning commissioners of discussing the matter in advance of the commission’s meeting Monday, in possible violation of state law. They suggested that commissioners may have conspired to delay their vote so that Parks wouldn’t have to take a stand on the issue before the March 5 election.

In fact, the commission voted to delay its vote by a week, citing a need to gather more information. The council had been set to vote on the matter at its Feb. 26 meeting.

“I truly believe the decision by the Planning Commission was predetermined,” Fox said at Wednesday’s meeting.

“The Planning Commission majority acted in a matter inconsistent and in conflict with their charge,” added Gillette.

Parks, who has built her political career on protecting open space, is locked in a tight race for county supervisor against millionaire entrepreneur Randy Hoffman.

Critics say the Western Plateau deal has put her in an awkward position.

If Parks voted for the deal, she might be accused of assisting developers, and if she opposed the plan, it could hurt her reputation as a protector of open space, they said.

In the proposed land swap, developers would have to build 50 affordable units elsewhere if the city can provide a location. But senior advocates question whether this provision could be enforced.

Moreover, the deal would allow for additional housing to be built on land at the Dos Vientos subdivision site that appears to be set aside for parkland and open space on some earlier city maps. Under a 1996 ordinance championed by Parks, a public vote would be required before any development could proceed on such land.

In recent weeks, Parks showed the land-use maps to individual planning commissioners and city officials. But she said she never arranged for secret meetings.

At Monday’s commission meeting, city staff told the panel that park and open space designations had been made in error on the earlier maps. They said they learned of the errors months ago and corrected them.

Commissioners Farris, Aidukas and Claudia Bill-de la Pena remained skeptical and decided to postpone a decision, despite protests by their colleagues Tom Glancy and Jim Bruno.

But Steve Weston, an attorney for one of the Dos Vientos developers, told the council Wednesday night that the commission acted unfairly.

“The planning commission majority used fabricated questions and false concerns to improperly delay the hearing,” Weston said. “To what end and what purpose? The political ambitions of one council member, no matter how important to her, cannot be placed ahead of the interests of the city.”