Protests Rise With Condos That Mar Home Buyers’ View

Rob and Catherine Wirtz first looked out over the western Conejo Valley from the backyard of a new Thousand Oaks house about 18 months ago and knew they had found the perfect home.

But now they are angered and distressed about their dream home, and so are a handful of neighbors who say they bought their newly constructed houses for the same reason as the Wirtzes--the view.

Raising the ire of the residents is a 114-unit condominium development being built behind their homes, a project that has obstructed a view for which the residents say they paid a premium.

The residents contend that they were lied to by the seller of their homes--the same firm that is building the condos. Residents concede that they were told in general terms of the planned condos, but they allege that sales agents said their view would be only slightly obstructed and then by just the rooftops, not the buildings themselves.

Because the condominiums are being built as so-called “affordable housing,” city design standards were relaxed somewhat, contributing to the homeowners’ feelings of anger and frustration. In exchange for pricing the condominiums lower so that less affluent families could afford to buy them, the city allowed the developer to increase the number of condos he could build on the property.

In February, two of the five affected homeowners filed lawsuits against the developer, Northoaks Properties, charging fraud, deceit and breach of contract.

The lawyer handling the cases for the Northoaks firm is out of town, and Northoaks officials would not comment in his absence. In filing their response to the suits, Northoaks representatives denied every allegation but did not elaborate.

Situated atop a hill, close enough to California Lutheran College to hear its chime tower, the five affected homes and a dozen others were built in a tract named Cambria View Estates. According to a sales brochure, many of the lots afforded “views overlooking the Conejo Valley.’

Rob Wirtz, 29, a Santa Monica City firefighter, said he and his wife were told in January, 1984, by sales agent Judy Caldwell that a condo project was planned behind the home they were hoping to buy. Wirtz said Caldwell told him the closest building would be across a driveway and several parking spaces, maybe 35 to 45 feet away.

In addition, the Wirtzes signed a generally worded form acknowledging that their view would be “partially obscured.”

Believing they had negotiated a good deal for a three-bedroom home at $142,450, with a view that would be only somewhat diminished, the Wirtzes bought the house and moved in in the spring of 1984.

But in March, the Wirtzes grew concerned when they saw workers constructing the frame of a four-unit condo building that reached to within 15 feet of their backyard and rose 20 to 25 feet above it. Two balconies overlooked the Wirtzes’ bedroom and kitchen. The building nearly eradicated the Wirtzes’ view.

‘We Were Furious’

“We were furious,” Catherine Wirtz said. “We felt as if we had been taken.” Said her husband: “I can’t even sit in my family room and read my newspaper by myself because the guy across from me is going to be asking me to turn the page.”

Several of Rob Wirtz’s neighbors are experiencing similar, though less drastic, problems with the condos.

One of those who filed suit, Thousand Oaks dentist Gary Witkoski, said he can stand in his kitchen and look into the windows of one of the unfinished condo units above a six-foot stone wall at the edge of his backyard.

“Our view has been drastically diminished,” he said, repeating claims that sales agents had said that would not occur. “Had we known about this ahead of time, we would not have purchased the property. We were lied to is what it comes to.”

Declined to Comment

The other suit was filed by Frank and Sybel Morris, who declined to discuss the case with a reporter.

In the Wirtz case, original plans submitted to the city in April, 1983, for the Northoaks and Cambria View Estates projects called for a driveway and parking spaces to separate what was to become the Wirtz home and a multi-unit condo building, said Philip Gatch, director of the city Planning Department.

But the project was rearranged after the city Planning Commission ordered revisions because of complaints raised by residents of existing neighboring homes.

The driveway and parking spaces originally planned next to what was to become the Wirtz home were removed and the condos moved closer. Although the shuffle mollified most of the current residents, it made things worse for those who would buy the homes built later.

Several Factors

Gatch said his department and planning commissioners were aware of the Northoaks condos’ proximity to the planned Cambria View Estate homes when the condo project was approved in mid-1983.

But city officials had to weigh several factors, Gatch said. Because of the project’s affordable-housing status, a minimum number of units had to be built in order to keep each unit reasonably priced, and there was a limited amount of space for all the units.

So the city’s normally stringent standards on density and design were relaxed, Gatch said.

“It’s a matter of balancing social needs of affordable housing with environmental problems of having buildings so close with other structures,” Gatch said. “It was a value decision.’

Trees, Wall Refused

The Wirtzes said they have refused offers from Northoaks officials to place trees and a stone wall between the two properties if the Wirtzes would waive their right to sue.

Two weeks ago, though, workers moved the two balconies overlooking the Wirtz home to the other side of the condominium unit. Gatch said this was done without city approval.

Although they have been in the home little more than a year, the Wirtzes say they want to move. Their home has been up for sale since they realized the shape and proximity of the condo project early this year. Prospective buyers have raved about the home--until they saw the backyard, said Kathi McLean, their real estate agent.

After a tour of the home, a group of real estate agents was shocked that the condo building was allowed, McLean said, “because usually the City of Thousand Oaks is so rigid about anything like this. . . . If they paid for a view, then they got taken.”