Council to Review Detached Condos at Dos Vientos

Compelled by a court order, the City Council will revisit a controversial decision tonight that allows homes on smaller lots in one tract of the massive Dos Vientos Ranch project.

Foes of the sprawling 2,300-home project at the edge of Newbury Park contend that Thousand Oaks officials skirted their own development standards by giving developer Courtly Homes and builder Pacific Greystone Homes permission to erect 208 detached condominiums--essentially large homes on comparatively small lots--in an area earmarked for a decade for 224 standard duplex condominiums.

The central issue at today’s meeting is a relatively procedural one, but some residents fear it could set the standard for future developments across the city.

If one developer is allowed to build detached condominiums--some of which have skimpier yards, smaller setbacks, shorter driveways, higher heights and less space between them than the city typically requires--others could follow, foes of Dos Vientos argue.

“When I think of 3-foot side yards, I think of a trash can,” said Councilwoman Linda Parks, a critic of the Dos Vientos project. “Can you even fit a trash can and me in a 3-foot side yard without going into someone else’s lot?

“This is not a Thousand Oaks-type of development. It’s something you’d see in Newhall or Palmdale. We have standards, and I want us to stick to them.”

But proponents of the change contend that it makes for a better, more appealing project.

“There are fewer units total than what was there before,” said Thousand Oaks Mayor Mike Markey. “And, from what I’ve seen, detached condominiums appeal to the public versus attached condos. There’s been an enormous amount of interest in these homes for purchase.”

The detached condominiums, while less densely populated than the attached duplex variety, would mean almost twice as many buildings in the same 39-acre space: 208 instead of 112. Allowing them could erode the stringent development standards that make the appearance-conscious city what it is, critics say.

*

“If they allow this, they will be setting a dangerous precedent: allowing homes that don’t meet normal housing standards,” said Newbury Park resident Lorraine Slattery, who successfully sued the city for approving the changes the first go-around. “We’re afraid they’re opening the door to homes that are neither urban nor suburban, crammed together on tiny lots--mini-tenements, practically.”

The Dos Vientos Ranch project has been in the works since 1976, and it garnered city approval in 1988. Model homes opened to the public on a recent weekend with great fanfare and enviable attendance.

The change in the kind of condominiums available in one tract of the Dos Vientos project was first approved by the Thousand Oaks Planning Commission on July 29, 1996, using a new city law that allowed for detached condominiums as “in-fill” housing. In-fill housing is designed to fill in undeveloped spots in the city, rather than expand onto virgin land.

The City Council heard an appeal of the matter last Sept. 10 and decided that the condos were not in-fill housing after all, because they were bordered by open space. Nonetheless, the City Council denied the appeal, causing Slattery and the environmental group Save Open Space/Santa Monica Mountains to sue.

In November, a judge sided with Save Open Space. Saying the city disingenuously approved the change without proper public notice, the judge threw out the city’s decision and ordered officials to start from scratch.

*

On Tuesday night, city planning staffers are recommending that the city approve the changes anew, because the detached condominiums are “consistent” with the intent of city guidelines. To satisfy the judge’s concerns, all deviations from the city’s rules are explained in detailed waivers.

City planners “strongly believe that the subject project is superior to the original project even with the ‘deviations’ listed above,” according to a staff report. “The minor waivers are compensated for by other off-setting design and street scape features incorporated in the overall design of the project.”

Councilwoman Parks, however, believes the staff endorsement will not satisfy the judge or the project’s critics.

“The judge clearly said you have to apply the city’s standards,” Parks said. “And the staff report is saying the project is better than it was before, but it doesn’t say if it meets the standards for single-family homes.

*

“The city is looking at these as condominiums or townhouses when they’re actually homes,” she added. “A rose by any other name is still a rose. And a house sitting on a lot all by itself, not touching another building, is still a house.”

Land-use attorney Chuck Cohen, who represents Courtley homes--now called Miller Brothers--disagrees with part of Parks’ interpretation.

*

“The resolution of the council was not as complete as [Superior Court] Judge [Barbara] Lane wanted to see, so you have this reconsideration,” he said. “She did not make any claim that this was not a good project.”