Door Open for Builder in 2-Year Battle

In a decision that could leave Thousand Oaks open to a multimillion-dollar lawsuit, the state’s highest court has refused to hear a city appeal of a judge’s 1994 ruling that said the City Council trampled on a developer’s property rights.

The state Supreme Court’s decision opens the door for developer Nedjatollah Cohan to build 144 residences and a 117,000-square-foot strip mall on 47 acres of rolling grassland in Newbury Park.

With the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruling affirmed, Cohan’s son, Albert Cohen , said Tuesday he expects the city to pay damages caused by the City Council’s rejection of his father’s project.

“If the city does not agree to settle with us, I can say that we will be asking for damages in the millions,” Cohen said. “We lost a great deal of money because of these two years of delays.”

Cohen said the legal battle that has ensued since the council denied his project in 1992 will cost his family millions of dollars not only in legal fees, but in revenue lost as the land remained idle. Also, he said he believes the housing and commercial markets have shriveled since the council rejected the proposed development.

For instance, Cohen said, a supermarket chain that had planned to locate in Cohan’s shopping center has since pulled out of the agreement.

The City Council denied Cohan’s $26.5-million development in 1992 shortly after the Planning Commission had approved the project. At the time, council members argued that their rejection of Cohan’s project on a 3-2 vote was based on anticipated environmental harms.

Council members said the city had a duty to protect the neighborhood from traffic and smog and to safeguard the sensitive wetland environment at the Reino Road property from possible destruction.

But across the city, property-rights advocates cited the case as an example of how developers were being refused the opportunity to build on their own land, despite having followed all city rules. And in November, the state appellate court agreed, ruling that the City Council’s rejection of Cohan’s project was “cavalier” and unfair.