Home › News › Local News
13 areas considered for land-use changes
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from Local NewsThirteen pockets of vacant, underutilized or poorly performing land in Simi Valley have been evaluated for future growth possibilities by the City Council and Planning Commission.
During a joint study session Monday night, discussion addressed proposed land-use changes in an updated general plan. While no vote was taken, it was a chance for city leaders to give input on the direction of the land-use study.
The general plan defines the type, amount and location of future growth and development in the city. The update would guide the city through 2030. Officials are considering 13 study areas, located west of Erringer Road and east of Tapo Canyon Road.
Woodie Tescher, general plan consultant for the city, said some parts of the proposed plan need to be studied further, and both the council and commission agreed.
Among the most controversial of the study areas considered was the Leeds Street neighborhood near Rancho Susana Community Park in east Simi Valley.
Under a proposed land-use change, the area would go from a very low-density residential, semi-rural area to one that includes medium-density housing. The General Plan Advisory Committee, however, recommended no change in the area, and that decision was upheld by a consensus of the two agencies Monday night.
Many in the audience came to speak in favor of maintaining the nature of the Leeds corridor, which contains rural, large lots. "Sometimes it's best just to leave people alone," Mayor Paul Miller said to audience applause.
Officials said land planning needs to reflect the area's need for a balance of jobs, housing and business to accommodate a growing population over the next 30 years. Because the city is largely built out, existing locations will have to be used or land on the periphery of the city will have to be rezoned.
A possible five-star resort near the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum is also being looked at, as well as a potential medical and research community built around Simi Valley Hospital.
Other areas being considered for land-use alternatives are the Los Angeles Overlay area, including Mountain Gate Plaza; a portion of Tapo Street; the Kadota-Fig neighborhood; the Patricia Avenue/Heywood Street neighborhood; the West End Specific Plan Area; the Katherine Road Connection; the Easy Street industrial area; Old Town; Parker Ranch; and the Metrolink area on Los Angeles Avenue.
Land-use changes around the hospital on Sycamore Drive and the Reagan Library on Madera Road were strongly favored by residents at an earlier public meeting.
Confirmation of land-use changes is expected in the fall, and the final general plan is expected to be completed in winter 2009.
For more information, visit http://generalplan.simivalley.org.
Posted by Legal_American on July 16, 2008 at 7:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Sometimes it's best just to leave people alone," Mayor Paul Miller said to audience applause. OMG! He will be the 1st to approve medium-density housing.
The mayoral and two council seats are up. Mayor Paul Miller announced that he will run again. Councilwoman Barbra Williamson said she will seek re-election. Steve Sojka's seat is also up. The mayoral term is two years and the council term is four years.
Why is their no other choice on the ballot for a new Mayor of Simi Valley? The last several times I’ve gone to vote it seems that no other candidates are available for the Mayor’s seat. I feel Simi needs a fresh council to refrain on some of the urban sprawl that has taken over our beautiful hills of Simi Valley. Our previous mayor got every thing he wanted and now we are widening the 118 Freeway just as he requested. Simi has become too dense with way too much population with in a square mile thanks to our incumbents. Let’s please consider alternative options in this upcoming election.
Posted by finnmcgowan on July 16, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Why is their no other choice on the ballot"
How do you think names end up on the ballot?
If you don't like how things are going, you can choose from the following options:
1) complain about them
2) hope somebody else will appear and do exactly what you want
3) take it upon yourself to change things
Posted by caskier on July 16, 2008 at 12:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Legal American, finnmcgowan is right. If you don't like it you should run.
But I can tell you, if you are elected, you will quickly learn that property owners have the right to develop their land as they choose within the existing zoning laws in place. Period. There is nothing the city council can do about that. Just because you don't want building doesn't mean others don't have a right to use their propoerty. As a Legal American one would hope you got that concept of FREEDOM.
So go ahead and criticize all you want but reality is that in order to stop development you have to buy the land with scarce tax dollars and turn it into parks - which require maintenance $ over the years too.
Posted by tedmackel on July 16, 2008 at 4:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Legal American,
There are three places left that building can occur in what you would describe the Hills. Runkle Ranch, Alamos Canyon and Lost Canyons. Since Unocal was chased out of town, now Waste Management owns the project, so which was the better decision? Constrain a development to the point that they (Unocal) would sell the land and now the landfill can expand? or take more housing?
Runkle was planned a long time ago, that project is not new. Lost Canyons...Golf is not as profitable as homes. As for the rest of the hills, they are off limits until SOAR expires. Now the only place to build will be infill in the city.
-Ted Mackel
http://www.homebuysblog.com
(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.