Construction Ban Proposed in Thousand Oaks Wetlands Law : Environment: Angry builders say the draft ordinance would condemn their property. Some city officials also say it goes too far.

Thousand Oaks city planners have drafted a wetlands protection law that would ban construction within 50 feet of streams, ponds or even damp soil--a provision some developers say would illegally strip their land of value.

“This ordinance would basically condemn our property,” developer Albert Cohen said, “and I guarantee you it will be challenged in court.”

Environmentalists and some council members have long called for tougher city laws to protect wildlife habitat, preserve stream beds and provide unspoiled natural pockets of land throughout Thousand Oaks.

“This kind of law is crucial, especially in our area, where wetlands are mostly covered over,” Councilwoman Jaime Zukowski said. “It’s long overdue.”

But the draft ordinance released Friday went a little too far for some city officials. “I’m all for protecting wetlands,” Councilman Frank Schillo said, “but I’m concerned about getting into (restrictions on) private property rights.”

The City Council will discuss the draft briefly Tuesday, but will not hold a formal public hearing yet. Instead, the council is scheduled to refer the wetlands law to the Planning Commission for debate.

Even before a public hearing is scheduled, however, the draft ordinance has sparked angry opposition.

The 10-page document broadly defines a wetland as any zone that is “periodically, seasonally or continuously submerged, or which has high soil moisture.”

The law would prohibit any building or paving in a “significant riparian or wetland habitat” or within a 50-foot buffer zone of the wetlands. An area would be considered “significant” if it provided “biologic, hydrologic, aesthetic or educational” resources to citizens of Thousand Oaks. If the wetlands were deemed especially sensitive, the city ordinance could require a buffer zone of up to 100 feet.

Cohen, who has tried for more than a decade to develop a 47-acre parcel on a flood plain in Newbury Park, derided the definition of wetlands as far too vague. “They’re going to have to classify a swimming pool as wetlands if it grows some algae in it,” he said.

Like Cohen, developer Ellen Michiel of Raznick & Sons Inc. vowed to sue the city if the ordinance is adopted.

Strict enforcement of the city’s proposed wetlands protection law, she said, would leave her with only a few slivers of developable land on her 44-acre parcel, located at the southern end of Knollwood Drive, just west of Reino Road.

The City Council has already denied a proposed 92-home development on the site, citing concerns that a handful of lots would edge too close to the creek. Raznick & Sons is considering scaling down the project to 89 homes to address some of the council’s fears about wetlands destruction.

But preserving a 100-foot buffer along the stream that runs through the property would leave enough room for only 50 homes, Michiel said--not nearly enough to cover the cost of land and needed improvements to roads, sewers and other utilities.

“The fact that the city has control over zoning does not give them a blank check,” Michiel said. “It’s very nice to regulate this stuff, but you can’t take people’s property without compensation,” she said, suggesting that if the law were adopted, it would spark plenty of lawsuits.

City Atty. Mark Sellers has told the council that cities can adopt stringent wetland preservation laws as long as they do not preclude “reasonable” use of private property.

And Mayor Elois Zeanah, who first proposed the wetlands protection ordinance, argued that cities “have a responsibility to protect our environment.”

Zeanah stopped short of endorsing the draft law Friday because she was ill and unable to study the proposal. But she said she approved in concept a law that would “give us one more control over vanishing, and irreplaceable, wetlands.”

State and federal law already requires developers to obtain permission from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Game before encroaching into any riparian or wetlands area.

Developers insist that those standards--which have already forced Raznick & Sons to redesign its project at least once--provide sufficient protection for wetlands. But some environmentalists argue that the city should weigh in with more stringent standards.

“There are a lot of little critters who would benefit from this law, because (the buffer zones) would give them enough breathing space from human intrusion,” said Cassandra Auerbach of the Conejo Valley Sierra Club.

Predatory dogs, runoff from garden pesticide use and the bright lights of residences can affect riparian habitat, Auerbach said. A buffer zone might soften some of the negative impacts, and also provide more protection for humans living in a flood plain, Auerbach said.

In addition to the Cohen and Raznick properties in Newbury Park, the wetlands ordinance could affect tentative plans for a golf course in Hill Canyon, near Wildwood Regional Park.

A stream runs through the bottom of the canyon, where consultants are now studying the feasibility of building an 18-hole course.

Although project manager Patrice Kroll said architects could design a course with adequate buffers, the canyon bottom narrows to less than 400 feet across in some spots--leaving little room for fairways outside the riparian zone.