Lang Ranch Developer Told to Spare as Many Oaks as Possible : Thousand Oaks: The court also orders the city to help pay for a modified flood control project for the 2,200 dwellings.

Lang Ranch Co. must save as many oak trees as possible in building a long-contested flood control project, but Thousand Oaks will have to pay the costs of making the project more environmentally friendly, a federal court judge ruled Monday.

U.S. District Judge Dickran Tevrizian said that Lang Ranch should not shoulder the economic burden of the modified flood control project, which he called “clearly in excess of its original commitment.”

But the judge showed a soft spot for the city’s namesake trees, threatened to be uprooted by flood controls for the planned 2,200-dwelling housing project. “Save as many trees as you can,” he advised Lang Ranch’s attorney.

Tevrizian fell far short of giving Lang Ranch Co. everything it sought, including forcing the city to assume the multimillion-dollar responsibility of building and maintaining the dam and debris-collection basin. Yet, he chastised city officials for allowing their on-again, off-again dispute with Lang Ranch to return to his court.

“I thought that this case would go away, but it has resurfaced again because of a 2-2 vote on the City Council there in Thousand Oaks,” Tevrizian said. “I don’t know why this case has not concluded and the animosity disappeared, but I guess that’s politics.”

Lang Ranch Co. filed a lawsuit against the city in February after members of the City Council failed to approve its North Ranch project.

Construction of the basin, which is required by county and state flood control officials, would mean uprooting 140 ancient oak trees growing in a canyon near Westlake Boulevard and Avenida de los Arboles.

Residents were in an uproar when they learned that the canyon--the natural habitat of bobcats, coyotes, hawks and owls--would be destroyed to build the dam and debris basin.

But flood control officials said the project is needed because construction of 2,257 homes at the Lang Ranch development would strip hillsides of natural vegetation and increase the chance of downstream flooding.

Within days after hearing of the lawsuit, council members reconsidered the basin and unanimously agreed to allow the company to build what is referred to as Concept B, a version of the project that could save between 46 and 60 of the century-old trees.

Lang continued to press forward with its suit, insistent that company officials had never said they were willing to undertake the more expensive Concept B, despite testimony to the contrary at public hearings.

In its motion last month, as well as asking to be freed from responsibility for the project, the company asked for attorney’s fees, reimbursement for design and engineering plans and for delay damages.

Tevrizian denied most of these demands, but said that the city must pay the costs incurred in maintaining temporary storm water basins on Lang Ranch over the course of one month, due to the delay in processing the developer’s request. Those costs are not available yet, City Atty. Mark Sellers said.

Lang officials said they do not have a cost estimate for building the modified version of the massive flood control project.

The ruling was viewed as somewhat mixed by city officials.

“This is good news for the city,” Councilwoman Elois Zeanah said. “The court did agree with the city that apparently Concept B is more environmentally suitable for this area.”

Councilwoman Judy Lazar was less enthusiastic. “We did OK in some areas and we lost in others,” she said. “We will have some costs that we incur. On the other hand, it could have been a whole lot worse.”

In 1987, Tevrizian reprimanded the city for excessive interference with the developer’s plans and instructed city leaders to quit meddling.

In Monday’s court order, there were still signs that Tevrizian disapproves of Thousand Oaks’ way of doing business.

“The city . . . has attempted to take advantage of Lang Ranch,” the ruling reads. “The city’s recent approvals appear to be mere reaction to the filing of the present motion and the city had no intention of acting in a timely fashion. . . .”

At the same time, Tevrizian was clear he does not want the issue to come back to him again.

*

When Lang Ranch attorney Karen Lee suggested that the development take a few more trees than Concept B allowed, the judge interjected:

“Don’t come back to court if you’re talking about one or two trees,” Tevrizian said. “These trees take 200 years to reach maturity and I sure don’t want to take them down.”

Tevrizian also rejected Lang Ranch’s request that he dictate the funding source for the city’s portion of construction expenses, saying it is not the court’s responsibility.

An improvement fund of $6.3 million has been set aside for the project, and Sellers said Lang wanted to block the city from being able to use part of that for the modifications.

After the hearing, Lee called the ruling successful, pointing out that the judge agreed the city has dealt poorly with Lang Ranch. “We hope that in the future we don’t have to come back.”