Woodridge Critics Urge Commission to Reject Plan

Critics of the proposed 273-unit Woodridge housing development showed up in force at Monday’s Planning Commission meeting, warning that the project would eliminate the open-space buffer between Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks and burden already overtaxed city services and utilities.

“How do we benefit from this project?” asked resident Lou Barnett. “Right now, we’ve got everything the developer is promising us. He says he’ll preserve the buffer and the open space, but it’s already there.”

Wayne Possehl of Thousand Oaks said the developer’s plans to bring more luxury residences to the city are misguided.

“The question you have to ask yourself is whether this project is needed right now. Is it needed today? Does Thousand Oaks need more half-million-dollar homes? In my opinion, we don’t.”

Planning commissioners, who listened to more than two dozen speakers, worked late into the night discussing whether to recommend that the City Council annex and subdivide the 743-acre parcel of unincorporated land located between Lang and Wood ranches at its Sept. 9 meeting.

“I think this is a marvelous plan,” said resident George Jones. “I’m particularly impressed with the length the developers have gone to” to preserve open space.

“It seems they took into account those issues we talked about five, 10, 15 years ago.”

*

As planned, the Woodridge project would rest on a crescent-shaped swath of land east of Erbes Road. The nearly 300 homes slated for development would be built on 11,000-square-foot lots located on several parcels totaling about 85 acres. Another 23 acres would be set aside as a buffer between the homes and surrounding brush and for water-retention basins.

The rest of the acreage would be designated by the developer, Woodridge Associates, as permanent open space.

Although critics have argued that the project will take a hefty slice out of the county’s dwindling open space preserves and burden existing city services, planning department officials, who have endorsed the development, said such concerns are unfounded.

City planner Greg Smith said environmental studies submitted to the city in May determined that project-related impacts would be, at most, minimal.

Area roads, he said, are already large enough to accommodate increased traffic, and the city’s utilities department said existing water and sewer systems are capable of servicing the project.

He added that, despite concerns that the development would establish a corridor linking the two cities, any road extensions such as the one planned for Sunset Hills Drive would end within the subdivision.

Regarding schools, Smith said that Woodridge Associates has agreed to pay more than $300,000 to the school district to offset the burden caused by increased enrollment.

“In a relative sense, the impacts of the project in question are quite small and can be easily mitigated,” he said.

Woodridge officials said they have worked diligently to reassure a skeptical public that the upscale and pricey subdivision would not only add value to the area’s real estate market but do much more to protect open space.

*

“Basically, we’re going to be able to do what no governing body has been able to do, and that’s setting aside these areas for permanent protection,” said Chuck Cohen, a land-use attorney representing Woodridge Associates.

Cohen said the homes would sell for between $400,000 and $600,000 and deed restrictions would leave more than 80% of the land owned by Woodridge protected from development.

If the City Council decides to approve the annexation, construction could begin early next year.