Developer to Ask Judge to Act in City Dispute : Thousand Oaks: Lang Ranch officials are frustrated with council’s inability to make a decision on a flood control project.

Frustrated with the Thousand Oaks City Council’s inability to make a decision, one of the region’s most powerful developers, the Lang Ranch Co., told city officials early Wednesday that they will ask a federal judge to intervene on the company’s behalf.

At 1:30 a.m. Wednesday, after more than five hours of debate on a flood control project Lang Ranch must build in the eastern end of Thousand Oaks, the developers folded up their maps and charts and prepared to leave City Hall.

Before they left, however, developers handed a letter to the city clerk, informing the city that they will seek relief from a federal court judge on the matter.

The hardball tactic is particularly worrisome to city officials, because Lang Ranch won a lawsuit against Thousand Oaks in 1986 involving the same development, a 2,257-house residential neighborhood now under construction at the end of Westlake Boulevard.

U.S. District Judge Dickran Tevrizian, who ruled on the 1986 case, is expected to decide the issue, a dispute over a project to prevent possible downstream flooding in a major storm. The project requires removing a grove of mature oak trees, and under city oak tree protection ordinances, must be approved by the council.

In the 1986 case, Tevrizian ordered the city to stay out of the developers’ way. Based on that decision, city staffers say they do not expect him to be friendly to the city in this case either.

“He doesn’t take kindly to any situation which he perceives as someone interfering unreasonably with one of his court orders,” said Mark Sellers, the city’s attorney.

Sellers said the city could be liable for attorney’s fees, damages for unreasonably delaying the project, as well as possible sanctions for disobeying the judge’s original order.

“Damages could be rather nominal, or they could be in the millions of dollars,” Sellers said.

The city recently lost a suit brought by another developer. Last fall, a state appeals court said the City Council had imposed unreasonable conditions and delays leading to the rejection of a proposed Newbury Park development.

Lang Ranch officials declined to comment Wednesday.

But their irritation was clear as they departed City Hall just before 1:30 a.m. Wednesday along with bleary-eyed residents and the bewildered city staff members who had sat through a long and confusing public hearing.

They had watched as the four-member City Council slammed into what is fast becoming a familiar roadblock: stalemate.

Mayor Jaime Zukowski and Councilwoman Elois Zeanah insisted that a new, less environmentally damaging alternative could be found, and asked that the project be sent back to the Planning Commission for further review.

Councilwoman Judy Lazar and Councilman Andy Fox said they were resigned to approving the project, a modified version of a prior proposal to cut down 140 centuries-old oak trees to build a basin capable of holding 7.5 million gallons of water.

Although neither Lazar nor Fox said they liked the idea of sacrificing the trees, both said a new alternative presented several weeks ago by flood control officials was acceptable because it would do less environmental harm.

“While I love the oak trees, I’m not going to sacrifice the safety of residents,” Lazar said.

But Zeanah and Zukowski were unconvinced, despite urgings from Sellers, city planners and flood control officials, that all alternatives had already been reviewed during the four-year environmental review process.

“I would never even think about approving a project that is going to be this kind of nightmare,” Zeanah said.

Ultimately the council split 2 to 2 on approving the modified version of the basin. Without further action, an earlier Planning Commission approval of the first, more extreme project, would stand.

So the council continued the hearing until Feb. 21, when city staff will suggest a timeline for the approval process should the council send the permit request back to the Planning Commission.

“If we send this back to the Planning Commission, I think if I were Lang Ranch I’d take us to court,” Lazar said at the meeting. “I think we are flying in the face of legal counsel.”

Sellers said the continuance gives the city a final opportunity to settle the debate before the federal judge has an opportunity to step in.

“They (Lang Ranch Co.) are certainly not going to get a hearing before the judge within that time frame,” he said. “Hopefully, we can get some resolution before (Feb.) 21st.”

Fox and Lazar said they were not surprised that Lang Ranch Co. decided to take action against the city.

“I hate to say I told you so,” Lazar said. “But I said so last night. I’m frustrated. The liability to the city is potentially large.”