Delaying the developer should have consequences

Ihad planned to send this letter in a few months ago but figured it was too late to do any good. But after seeing this week's Thousand Oaks City Council meeting, I had to send it.

I don't think anyone can say that I have been pro-development in my 40-plus years living in Thousand Oaks, so I think I'm qualified to make these comments regarding support of a development in the city.

At the council meeting of Jan. 9, 2007, developer Skip Padberg was given a setback to his development of a small parcel of land in Newbury Park. His group had spent considerable money in planning for an office building on Borchard Road between Silas Avenue and Theresa Drive based on a condition placed on this parcel in 1985.

The portion of Silas that exits into Borchard Road was to be eliminated at the developer's expense when this parcel was developed. The developer had figured this agenda item was simply a formality and would be approved without much discussion since they were complying with the city's mandates.

But at the council meeting, 10 residents, out of the 400 that were given notice of this agenda item, objected to the abandonment of Silas, and the council caved in to this 2.5 percent objection.

They sent the project back to the city's traffic and transportation committee for a formal study on the current status of Silas Avenue.

To reverse the proposed abandonment would require a total redesign of the project costing considerable money to the developer.

At the April 24 council meeting, with Councilman Gillette absent, the council was split 2-2 on the Silas issue. So they decided to continue the issue for two weeks until Gillette returns to break the tie.

So the developer is faced with more delays on what he can do with this property. It was mentioned by one council member that the city didn't owe the developer anything and it was his risk in planning for his project.

I usually agree with this, but (regarding) this issue, in which for many years it was the plan and desire of the city to abandon the Silas intersection with Borchard for several valid reasons, I think it is unconscionable for the city to renege on its plans and subject the developer, who's been in good faith abiding by the city's wishes, to incur additional expense and delays of his project.

If the council, in its infinite wisdom, elects to not allow for the abandonment of Silas, I think the least they should do for the developer in this case is to allow for a two-story building here. And if the residents in this area don't like this, they can thank those who objected to closing Silas Avenue. Don Volz Thousand Oaks