Simi Valley Council Upholds Approval for Cochran Street Industrial Project Amid Easement Dispute

The Simi Valley City Council on April 7 denied an appeal of a Planning Commission approval and upheld Conditional Use Permit CUP‑S‑2023‑0011, authorizing a 24,290‑square‑foot industrial building with outdoor storage near 875 Cochran Street. The council voted to deny the appeal 4–1, with Councilmember Litster voting no.

The decision preserves the Planning Commission’s finding that the application complied with municipal code and the West End Specific Plan. The appeal, filed by property owner Doug Feldbinger, contended the project would interfere with rights he holds under a recorded western access easement — specifically existing parking, landscaping encroachments and a claimed right to maintain those encroachments.

The council’s deliberations centered on the limits of the city’s land‑use review versus private property rights. Deputy Environmental Services Director Sean Gibson and staff told council members the city requires that recorded easements be shown on project plans and that disputes over easement scope and property rights are civil matters best resolved in superior court. Applicant representatives said the project would reconstruct and restripe the access drive and parking and would not remove access rights.

Appellant Doug Feldbinger told the council he had negotiated the right to maintain certain encroachments when he purchased his parcel and that the project as planned would remove landscaping and parking he has historically used. Applicant Mike Lohman and his counsel, Jeff Nurdin, said Lohman holds fee title to the site and that the easement grants ingress and egress rights rather than co‑ownership; they said the proposed improvements would comply with planning and engineering standards, improve drainage and replace parking and landscaping to city standards.

Appellant counsel Pooja Nair argued the easement language and a 2017 amendment protect the appellant’s right to existing parking and landscaping and that those recorded rights should weigh on the CUP finding. Lohman’s counsel and staff repeatedly told the council that interpreting the competing deeds and amendments is a legal question for the courts; the city may require plans to show easements but cannot itself resolve competing property‑title claims.

Councilmembers raised practical options during deliberations: several urged the parties to seek a negotiated settlement to avoid costly litigation; others noted either party could seek injunctive relief in court if construction began while a title dispute remained unresolved. Councilmembers also clarified that signage drawings shown during review were not part of the CUP approval and would require a separate review process.

By denying the appeal, the council left the Planning Commission approval in place. Staff told the council that a court determination in favor of the appellant could later render the CUP void if a court found the approval relied on defective easement/encroachment conditions. The council did not impose additional special conditions altering parking or landscaping, and members encouraged the parties to pursue a negotiated resolution to clarify rights before construction moved forward.

The applicant and appellant both said they preferred resolution outside of litigation but acknowledged the dispute may ultimately be resolved by a superior court quiet‑title or related action.