Committee to review park proposal

A group of residents in Westlake Village, feeling pressure from the city, are deciding how they’ll react to a park that’s proposed for their neighborhood.

Homeowners from Canyon Oaks in Westlake Village met last week in city hall and formed a committee to officially respond to a park proposal for Lot 79.

They fear that if they don’t provide feedback to the city, they might be forced to live with either an unacceptable park or high-density housing.

Lot 79 is situated between Lindero Canyon Road on the east, north and west of Hedgewall Drive/Landino.

The park would abut existing Canyon Oaks Park, near the Ventura County/city of Thousand Oaks border.

The original park plan three years ago included extensive amenities (two baseball diamonds, soccer fields, a tot lot, a roller hockey area and more).

That plan was strongly opposed by critics of the plan, led by Valerie Freedman who lives just across the county line in the Westlake Village portion of Thousand Oaks.

City councilmembers in Westlake Village are under increasing pressure to build more parks with more playing fields, according to City Councilman Chris Mann, who led last week’s meeting.

Complicating the situation is the state. California wants 315 dwelling units to be built in the city of Westlake Village within the next five years. Some of that housing would be expected to accommodate low-income residents.

If Westlake Village doesn’t make an honest effort to meet its housing expectations, the state could decertify the city’s General Plan, Mann said.

If that happened, developers could sweep into the city, snatch up open space and start building multiple-unit-housing complexes.

Jim Shaw, a real estate investor involved in land-use issues, said it was untrue that if residents don’t want a park for Lot 79 that they might get instead high-density, low-income housing.

Shaw challenged Mann to cite examples of the state decertifying any city’s plan, resulting in down-zoning.

"It’s a red herring," Shaw said.

Mann responded that he wasn’t a lawyer and said he was only repeating what he’d been told by the city attorney.

Shaw, unlike Freedman, opposed any plan for Lot 79. He wants the site left alone as open space and said residents should do nothing until a specific proposal reappears. "We should let it go and see what happens," he said outside council chambers, while the meeting continued.

Freedman expressed hope that the committee will reach a consensus on a park plan that’s acceptable to both residents and the city. By working cooperatively, Freedman said, the homeowners might get a park they could live with.

"We need to say what we’re willing to accept," she said.

David Beckstead, who bought his Canyon Oaks home when it was brand new, said the developer had promised that Lot 79 would remain forever as open space.

The property came into the hands of former Westlake Village City Councilman John McDonough and now belongs to the McDonough Family Trust.

Representatives of the trust refuse to respond to inquiries about the city possibly purchasing the site, Mann said.

The city could use its powers of eminent domain to buy Lot 79 at fair market value.

Homeowner Ed McGuire, among others, questioned the validity of a city survey in which residents called for more parks and ballfields. He and other residents said that Conejo Valley play fields are often unoccupied.

A majority of attendees appeared to be somewhat receptive to a park with limited facilities–but without lights, a public address system and a snack shack.

The committee charged with formulating an official position on the park site proposal for Canyon Oaks will attend the 7:30 p.m., Mon. July 31 Westlake Village City Council meeting at which parks and ballfields will be discussed.

City hall is at 4373 Park Terrace Drive.