2 Squabbles Threaten Jungleland Complex : Development: A disagreement over land price and a push to place the matter before voters pose obstacles to the Thousand Oaks civic center project.

Two disputes are threatening to unravel Thousand Oaks’ most ambitious project ever, the $63-million Jungleland civic center.

“It’s the most frightening thing I’ve ever seen,” City Councilman Larry Horner said. “We’ve spent over a million dollars on this project already, and there are two things, two negative unknowns, looming in the background.”

The first obstacle is a disagreement over the price of the land. The city is being sued by the owner, who wants $22 million for the 22-acre site at Thousand Oaks Boulevard and Conejo School Road, where the Jungleland animal amusement park once stood.

The second is an effort by three residents to put a measure on the ballot that could stop the project cold next spring.

City officials concede that the uncertainties cast a shadow on the project. But City Manager Grant R. Brimhall says the chance of failure is slim. “If you look at the risks, they’re nominal,” he said.

The project would convert the oak-studded Jungleland site into Thousand Oaks’ civic centerpiece, including a civic auditorium and government complex.

The dispute over the land price is doubly important because a $65-million private development hinges on the city’s ability to purchase the site at a reasonable cost.

If the development falls through, the city will lose millions of dollars in lease and tax revenue needed to help pay for the public project. Also, the developer has threatened to sue the city for damages if the deal collapses.

The city condemned the site, owned by Asad Morovati of Santa Monica, several years ago. Morovati sued, claiming the $12 million the city deemed a fair price was too low. His attorney says he is prepared to “fight to the bitter end” for $22 million.

“It’s an extremely valuable piece of land,” Morovati’s lawyer, James Longtin, said. “The city is going to make a lot of money off of it, and they have to pay the fair market value.”

Although Thousand Oaks has enough money to meet Morovati’s demands, “the question is how much are we willing to spend,” Horner said.

“About a year or so ago, if we had any indication that the cost of the land was going to be in the way . . . we certainly would have backed off the site,” Horner said.

He said there were several other parcels in Thousand Oaks where the project could go.

But city officials decided on the Jungleland site because of its historical significance.

In 1928, Goebel’s Lion Farm was established on the site to breed and train wild animals for films and circuses, but it also became a popular amusement park. The last owners of the park, renamed Jungleland, were Louis and Kathleen Goebel. They closed it and sold the animals in 1969.

The cages were torn down. The land has been vacant since.

About two years ago the city began negotiating with Lowe Development Corp. of Los Angeles, which wants to lease part of the site and build a hotel, restaurant, movie theater and office and retail complex. The company has secured part of the money for the project from a Japanese investor and has hired an architect.

Thousand Oaks officials consider the private development a nice complement to the city project, which includes a 1,800-seat civic auditorium, a 176,000-square-foot government center and a seven-acre park. The Lowe development would generate nearly $487 million in lease revenue and taxes over the next 80 years.

“We’re talking about a lot of money,” said Ed Johnduff, the city administrative services manager.

The city has hired an outside law firm to defend Morovati’s suit. Both sides have agreed to hire retired Orange County Superior Court Judge Bruce Sumner to preside over a jury trial in October.

City Atty. Mark G. Sellers said it might have taken a year for the case to reach a Superior Court judge. Hiring a retired judge for $360 an hour was faster.

Behind the citizens’ campaign against the project are Joan Gorner, Dick Booker and Heinrich (Corky) Charles. They say the complex isn’t needed and would waste more than $100 million.

They scoff at the notion that a city hall can turn a profit. They predict that the city will lose the lawsuit and that the Lowe deal will fall through, taking the projected revenue with it.

“We should take our lumps now and get out while we can,” Booker said.

The three want to prohibit the city from using the money from the sale of its assets to pay for the project. The city is trying to sell its current and former city halls, which officials say are outgrown, for about $23 million to pay for part of the project.

City officials say they will stop the project--even if construction is under way--if the initiative passes.

“If it’s clear that a majority of the people don’t want the project, then we’ll just abandon it,” Councilman Frank Schillo said. “If the citizens of this community say no, then why should we go on?”

Sellers gave the three residents the go-ahead Friday to begin circulating petitions to place the issue before the voters in April. Under state law, city attorneys must review such a petition to ensure the wording is clear.

The three need the signatures of 8,366 people, 15% of the city’s 55,768 registered voters. If the drive succeeds, the City Council will decide whether to call the election.

In 1988, city officials rejected an attempt by the same three to take the project to a vote, even though they had enough signatures.

Citing legal advice from private attorneys and the state Fair Political Practices Commission, the council voted not to hold a referendum, saying the measure would be only advisory.

“As an advisory measure, it is not a proper subject to be placed before the voters by the initiative process,” according to a written opinion by a private law firm the city hired.

Booker says the three have learned their lesson. This ballot measure would be legally binding and would have the same effect as an ordinance passed by the City Council.

Sellers said if the residents gather enough valid signatures, he would have to analyze the measure to determine its ballot-worthiness. California law also gives city governments absolute discretion over placing measures on the ballot as a means of weeding out improper and unenforceable initiatives.

“Let’s look at this from a logical point of view,” Sellers said. “We’re looking at a minimum of an April or May election. By then, grading will already be started on the project. Suddenly, would that mean that we just stop? There’s a time for everything in life.”

And the time to place the issue before the voters may have already passed, Sellers said.

Regardless of whether the measure reaches the voters, the fact the trio is circulating petitions could have an impact on the project, officials say.

The city has launched a fund-raising campaign to build an endowment for the civic auditorium. “I just hope this does not hurt in terms of donations,” Schillo said. “The endowment is a very important factor” in the success of the project.

So far the controversy has had little impact on fund raising, according to city officials. About $900,000 has been pledged.

Johnduff said he believes that the petition drive could hinder the city’s efforts to sell the city halls, both on Hillcrest Drive. He said he will have to tell potential buyers about the controversy.

“We’re going to proceed in marketing the land,” Johnduff said. “But we have to disclose what’s going on.”

Johnduff added, “It gets frustrating. We’ll never know exactly what’s going to happen until the very end. . . . There’s a little bit of risk. But you can’t wait and worry.”