Home › News › Other News
Rancho Potrero park plan debated
Campfires. No campfires.
Educational opportunities. No educational opportunities.
Weddings. No weddings.
That is just a sampling of opinions about what should be allowed on 326-acres parkland called Rancho Potrero just outside Thousand Oaks' western edge.
As quickly as residents could offer up their thoughts, officials jotted them down on flip charts at a community workshop on Rancho Potrero Monday night at the Conejo Recreation and Park District headquarters.
The information will be submitted to members of a focus group formed to help create a specific plan for the land, which is owned by the Conejo Open Space Conservation Agency.
The plan will help control what happens on the property and will go to the park district's board of directors, the city's planning commission and city council for approval.
On Monday, Mark Towne, deputy director of the city's Department of Community
Development, and Jeff Ferber of San Luis Obispo-based RRM Design, presented the crowd of about 50 residents with a conceptual plan that has so far been put together.
The plan, which is not set in stone, calls for a covered picnic area for up to 200 people in an area of the property called Olympia Farms, several smaller picnic areas, a trailhead and several additional trails. The area could also offer an educational component.
The large picnic area would be reserved through a permit process and parking at that site would also require a permit. Parking would not be allowed at the smaller picnic areas and cars dropping people off would need a permit.
Residents were broken up into three groups to give their input on the concept.
Whatever ends up on the parkland, Martin Usher hopes there will be no light coming from the site at night.
"If there's a glow on the horizon it screws it up," he said.
On one side of the room, an official scribbled barbecues on a large piece of paper. Across the room, Skip Roberts, who lives across the street from the site, was adamant that no open flame be allowed. Fire safety was one of the consistent concerns of the evening.
"I don't think there should be any open fires at all," he said, adding later that he didn't mind picnic accommodations for 200 people as long as the rustic character of the place was preserved and the hours of operation were from dawn to dusk.
"I'm all for kids going up there," Roberts said. "I think it's a good educational opportunity for kids to get out of their classroom."
But Kris Salmon disagreed.
"I think 200 people is overuse," she said. "I don't think this should be made over into another educational (facility). It needs to be passive use."
Dave Hettwer described the concept as "terrible."
"I don't see why we'd build a road into the middle of this beautiful land," he said. "Weddings and corporate picnics are totally inconsistent with an equestrian, hiking area."
As the meeting came to an end Towne said he was pleased with the outcome.
"I think people are very interested in the property," he said. "It's a great turnout. We've had diversity of opinion."




Posted by mandynathan on July 3, 2007 at 9:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How come the article wasn't more specific about exactly where this area is? I have lived in the area for nearly 40 years and had no idea that such a park was being considered. I imagine there are many others who don't know about it either, and who would want to have a say. If it's where I think it is, then I would agree with Mr. Hettwer's comments - leave it as a natural hiking, biking and equestrian area. The City should do a better job of informing residents.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.