Business Leaders Protest Rulings : Thousand Oaks: Some say they are fed up with the city’s rejection of development projects. Officials say rulings reflect will of majority.

Concerned about a recent tide of rulings against developers in Thousand Oaks, area business leaders have begun meeting informally to examine whether the city is violating the rights of property owners.

Members of the group say they are fed up with the city’s rejection of a string of projects proposed by property owners and developers in recent years.

City officials have said repeatedly that they are simply carrying out the will of the majority of Thousand Oaks residents, who wish to preserve open space and limit the city’s growth.

But developers point to inconsistencies in several recent rulings that they say raise questions about the city’s planning process.

“Nobody here is taking issue with the rules that are already in place to prevent a lot of growth in the city,” said architect Neal Scribner, who helped start the as-yet unnamed group.

“But what we’re seeing is the rules being tossed out the window,” he said. “The city has been terribly inconsistent. There’s just no sense in it.”

Scribner pointed to several recent City Council and Planning Commission decisions that he said showed how the city rejects developments that follow planning guidelines.

Those projects include a proposed housing and commercial development by Nedjatollah Cohan on 47 acres of land in Newbury Park, a commercial development on property near Janss Mall and a proposed zoning change on land near Conejo Community Park.

“What we’re finding is that there are dozens of cases,” Scribner said. “One of the things this group may want to do is start to document the examples.”

The group, which was initially made up of representatives from the Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce and Conejo Valley Assn. of Realtors, held its first meeting in January and plans to meet again this month.

“Our primary goal in meeting like this is to come up with a way to convince the city fathers to follow their own rules,” said Gene Baker, a Thousand Oaks architect.

“We don’t want this to be a confrontational group; we want to work with the city,” he said.

Planning Commissioner Mervyn Kopp said he was invited to attend the group’s first meeting but was unable to attend. He said he agrees, however, that several issues being raised by the group need to be addressed by city officials.

“The problem, as I see it, is that we appear to be looking for ways to say no to a project instead of looking for reasons to say yes,” Kopp said.

An example of this, according to Kopp and members of the newly formed group, is the city’s effort to change the zoning on property owned by Cohan in Newbury Park. Kopp has supported development of the Cohan property.

But the city has raised a host of objections to development on Cohan’s parcel in the past 12 years, including most recently the suggestion that a rare species of cuckoo bird might be nesting there.

“Here’s a guy who had his project approved by the Planning Commission, rejected by the City Council; he’s fought with the state, and now the city is trying to downzone it,” Scribner said. “It’s really crazy.”

Cohan’s son, Albert Cohen, has consistently argued that the city is simply looking for excuses to prevent development where it should reasonably be allowed.

“We have done everything right and they continue to tell us no,” Cohen said after the Planning Commission voted in March to change the zoning on his family’s property to further limit development. That recommendation must still be approved by the City Council. “Apparently there are property rights for everyone living around the development, but not for us.”

But city officials see the debate over Cohan’s property differently.

“There have been several problems with development there, and the city has been well within its rights because at no time have we eliminated the total use of the property,” Deputy City Atty. Bob Rogers said.

“The problem with (Cohan’s project), and with most of the projects we’re seeing these days, is that the easy decisions are gone,” he said. “Now the properties being discussed for development are the tough ones, the ones with problems.”

In Cohan’s case, the city has objected to development near wetlands on his property. With other projects, the city has raised flags when developers propose building on steep slopes or near ridgelines.

Rogers said property owners have been frustrated because the city has been strict in its protection of ridgelines, wetlands and other natural resources.

And, says Planning Commission Chairman Irving Wasserman, many residents agree with that philosophy.

“We try very hard to keep in mind the attitude survey of the city,” Wasserman said, referring to a 1989 polling of residents on local issues. “We want to ensure that property owners are able to use their land, but the community has rights as well, and we have to keep those in mind too.”

And Thousand Oaks residents want to have input on how development is handled by the city, the survey showed.

“I think the reason this city is so desirable is because of that input,” said Cathy Schutz, president of the Westlake Joint Board of homeowners associations. “There has got to be a give-and-take, but input from existing communities is certainly an essential ingredient.”

But relying too strongly on community opinion can create more problems, Kopp said. Vocal residents who protest development on neighboring lots are creating a situation where the people who built first have the advantage, he said.

“This is a clear case of ‘not-in-my-back yard’ politics, where people have seen an empty lot next door and, once they move in, they don’t want anyone else to build,” Kopp said.

The “not-in-my-back yard” syndrome is an issue the group intends to address, Baker said.

“We have to come up with a way to take these peoples’ concerns into consideration, but not allow them to totally relieve us of our rights as property owners,” he said.

One of the reasons the group has formed to discuss these issues, Scribner said, is that questions of property rights will eventually affect everyone, including people who already own their homes.

“If this is left unchallenged, we’re leaving ourselves open to a lot of potential problems,” Scribner said. “There’s great power in controlling someone else’s land, and we have to keep an eye on that.”