Proposal for Jungleland Site: Boon or Boondoggle?

It has been nearly 20 years since Thousand Oaks’ Jungleland wild animal park was closed. But an element of danger remains at the now-vacant property for city officials trying to tame a growing number of angry constituents opposed to a $70-million development planned there.

City plans to build a hotel, conference center, offices and a civic auditorium on the 20-acre parcel, which is on Thousand Oaks Boulevard and Conejo School Road, may be stalled by a citizens’ group collecting signatures to put the project before voters next year.

If that initiative is successful and the project eventually is defeated, the Thousand Oaks Redevelopment Agency could lose more than $1 million already spent on the plan, as well as an opportunity to revitalize an aging section of town, city officials say.

Opponents argue that the project will waste more than $40 million in taxpayer money by converting the former wild animal park into a white elephant.

Advisory Measure

The proposed ballot measure is advisory and would not be binding on the council, but could pressure the council into reconsidering the project.

Regardless of the outcome of the petition drive, the fate of Jungleland may emerge as one of the leading issues in November’s City Council election, say city officials and residents. That is, unless the city is successful in undermining the opposition by convincing a majority of residents that the plan is a good idea.

“Assuming they get the signatures, they can’t lose on this,” said Thousand Oaks Mayor Lee Laxdal, a supporter of the project, who is up for reelection next year. “If it goes on the ballot, then they can get what they want, and if it doesn’t go on the ballot, they have an issue to run candidates on.”

In its fight to win residents over to the project, which would be built jointly by the Redevelopment Agency and a private developer, the city has called for formation of a citizens’ committee, scheduled an $8,000 Jungleland Public Awareness Day on the site in January and encouraged a second citizens’ group collecting signatures in favor of the plan.

The proposed Jungleland project, which was approved in August by the City Council in its capacity as the Thousand Oaks Redevelopment Agency, calls for the city to build an 1,800-seat civic auditorium, public park and multistory parking garage. Private developers would lease the remaining portions of the property to build a 300-room hotel, convention center and 105,000 square feet of office space, an investment of about $30 million.

City officials say the lease money from the private developer and property taxes on the increased value of the land would eventually pay for the public improvements and also provide a portion of the estimated $2 million a year needed to operate the civic auditorium.

Eminent Domain

This fall, the redevelopment agency failed to reach an agreement with the former owner, Asad Morovati, on the price of the land. But it gave him $11.75 million, the value the city’s appraisers put on the land, and took possession under eminent domain. A judge will have to decide the final selling price of the property next year, city officials said.

“The beauty of it is that the site where the civic auditorium is going to be built will be paid for by the developer’s project within three years,” said City Councilman Frank Schillo, a project supporter who is the other councilman up for reelection in November. “So the land is free, and the entire project will be paid for in 23 years, with all the money coming from the private sector.” But to longtime community activist and project opponent Richard Booker, that sort of talk is the reason that the issue should go before the voters. Booker, who has been involved in three previous ballot campaigns that ended with voters defeating similar proposals for an arts center and civic auditorium, said the project “frankly, is doomed to failure” and will end up costing the city millions of dollars.

Booker is one of about 40 people circulating petitions that ask the question: “Shall the city of Thousand Oaks submit for voter approval the Jungleland Redevelopment Project?” He said the group will have no trouble collecting the signatures of 7,600 registered voters required to qualify the initiative for the June primary election.

City Councilman Lawrence E. Horner, although not associated with the petition drive, shares the same concerns about the proposed project. He is the sole council member who favors putting the issue on the ballot if the required number of signatures are collected by the February deadline.

“We are now required to purchase the land, and we don’t even know its actual price,” Horner said. “Secondly, we don’t have a firm commitment for a hotel, which the city thinks it needs as an anchor tenant to produce enough revenue to support the project.”

Only one developer, Lowe Development Corp. of Los Angeles, has shown a serious interest in the project, city officials said. Rob Hussey, assistant vice president, said his company is in negotiations with several hotel operators interested in the site.

“My guess is that developers haven’t responded to the project because of the site,” Hussey said. “Operators want hotels out there, but they want sites with better visibility and access.”

Project opponents say it will be difficult to locate a major hotel on the site because it is not adjacent to a freeway off-ramp. Hussey, whose firm operates resorts in Palm Desert and Aspen, Colo., said he believes that a hotel catering to business travelers rather than tourists would be successful there.

Hussey, whose firm will begin contract talks with the city in January, said he does not oppose a vote on the project. “We want the project aired for public input,” he said.

Should the majority of voters vote yes on the measure, the City Council would have to decide whether to call a second election to decide the actual fate of the project, Booker said. If all goes according to the group’s plan, that second election would be held in November, he said.

A Problem in November

“The city is extremely upset with us because this may spill into the 1988 November election and create some problems for incumbents, particularly if a majority of voters say, yes, it should go on the ballot,” Booker said. “It will be difficult for the city to ignore.”

But ignoring it is just the strategy the city appears to be taking. The City Council this fall hired a Los Angeles firm specializing in redevelopment law--Kane, Ballmer & Berkman--to render an opinion on the Jungleland initiative.

The law firm concluded in October that the City Council has no obligation to put the advisory measure on the ballot, regardless of the number of signatures gathered. “As an advisory measure, it is not a proper subject to be placed before voters by the initiative process,” the attorneys said in a letter to the city.

Under state law, advisory measures can be placed on the ballot by initiative only if there is some specific legislative action or policy that voters ask be carried out, said Thousand Oaks City Atty. Mark G. Sellers.

‘Up to Council’

“I don’t recommend one way or another because it’s up to the City Council to decide whether to spend public funds for an election or not,” Sellers said. “But my opinion is that they don’t have to.”

The petitioners, who call their group Public Rights and Interests Duly Exercised, had the legal opinion obtained by the city reviewed by Oxnard attorney Carl F. Lowthorp Jr. Lowthorp concluded in a letter last month not only that the proposed ballot initiative was proper, but that it could not be ignored by the city if the opponents collect the required number of signatures of registered voters.

Meanwhile, a second citizens’ group, calling itself the Jungleland Support Task Force, is circulating a petition that opposes having an election on the Jungleland petition. Chairwoman Shauna Barrick said she hopes to match the 8,000 or so signatures that are expected to be collected by the competing group.

“We believe people have a better chance of getting what they want on the site by working with the City Council rather than in an election,” Barrick said.

“We fear a blanket ‘No,’ when some of the things people have against the project can be worked out,” she said.

Both Laxdal and Schillo say they are not worried about Jungleland becoming an election issue next year. Most residents have told them that they think the plan is a good idea, the councilmen said.

“No matter what happens, it will come up in November,” Schillo said. “I am going to be faced with the fact that if citizens don’t like it, they will vote against me if I’m on the ballot. But that’s what we were elected for, to make decisions.”