Developer Sues City Over Denial of Project

THOUSAND OAKS — The owner of a Newbury Park shopping center has filed a $10-million lawsuit against the city for rejecting its expansion plans, alleging, among other things, that city officials scuttled the project due to plans for a similar entertainment complex beside the Civic Arts Plaza.

The lawsuit, filed in Ventura County Superior Court this week by the Newbury Park Group, also alleges that a legal fight could have been averted had city leaders not been embroiled in recalls, and more concerned with avoiding a “pro-development” label than reaching a settlement.

When City Council members unanimously denied the group’s plans to renovate and expand the aging Newbury Park Center last year, they did so without “factual or legal basis,” according to the group’s lawyer, John Randolph Haag. That amounts to the city depriving the Newbury Park Group of a fair use of its property without any payment in return--an unconstitutional action, Haag contends.

Council members rejected the plan to expand the shopping center at Newbury Road and Giant Oak Avenue because it would require grading of a hillside behind the present buildings and the removal of several oak trees.

However, the council did so “without prejudice,” meaning that the developer has an opportunity to resubmit an amended proposal. City Atty. Mark Sellers was on vacation this week and Assistant City Atty. Nancy Schreiner did not return phone calls.

The lawsuit cites various reasons why Thousand Oaks shot down the 90,000-square-foot movie theater and health club development. For example, it maintains that some city leaders want to preserve the hill on the property as open space without actually buying it.

But its main argument is that some Thousand Oaks leaders and city officials, worried that another movie theater project would hurt their chance of securing a similar type of development on city-owned land beside the Civic Arts Plaza, conspired to derail the Newbury Park Group’s development.

The group had been working closely with planners for two years, repeatedly going over the minutiae of the development--only to be handed a list of supposed deviations from city norms minutes before the project was to go before the city’s Planning Commission, the suit maintains.

Commissioners deadlocked 2 to 2 on the development, and it went before the council, where it was voted down.

“At some point, when you have a certain number of movie theaters, no one is going to want to build another one,” Haag said. “I think the city was worried its plans were in trouble.”

Haag acknowledged he has no direct evidence to support his theory, but he believes it will surface as the case moves forward. At the very least, he said, the city’s similar plans for an entertainment complex beside the Civic Arts Plaza constitute a conflict of interest.

“We’ve heard it from a number of people--we didn’t make this up,” Haag said. “My client heard it from people who know what is going on at the city.

“We have a strong suspicion that this took place,” he added. “We don’t think all the council members behave that way, but some of the others seem to look for any reason to turn a project down.”

In addition, the suit contends that there were several attempts by the Los Angeles-based ownership group to negotiate a settlement and avoid a legal battle with Thousand Oaks. But those attempts went nowhere because, Newbury Park Group President Ara Ohanian stated in a news release, “the City Council’s members are so busy pursuing recalls against each other that fair play and common sense have no chance.”

Earlier this year, the Newbury Park Group submitted a $7-million claim to Thousand Oaks, representing the loss of potential profit from the property, a loss in property value, and loss of past and future rent and tenants. The City Council rejected the claim, and the developers filed suit, increasing their asking price.