| Homepage |
| Return to Last Page |
| Issues |
| Calendar |
| Newsletter |
| Photo Gallery |
| Announcements |
| Evac |
| Trails |
| Resources |
| Who we are |
| Contact Us |
| ||
Letter to Councilmember Wendy Greuel, Whitebird Development ProjectJune 7, 2005 Councilmember Wendy Greuel Re: Whitebird Development Project, Case No. CPC 2004-4345-SPP-SPR and VTM No. 61672 Dear Wendy, Thank you very much for meeting with us today about the Canyon Hills development. We appreciate your time and the opportunity for dialogue. As representatives of several community groups, we want to convey the community’s continuing attitudes about Canyon Hills, discuss critical questions that remain unanswered for the community, and request that you take an even stronger position about Canyon Hills on behalf of the community. While we respect and appreciate the fact that you spoke out against the project as it was currently delineated, we are deeply concerned that the compromises will not result in the positive outcomes you’ve anticipated in your position. You’ve done much good for our community. You’ve listened to us on many issues and taken strong stands for us, such as getting the Scenic Preservation Specific Plan passed into law, creating new parkland, and fighting against Home Depot. We applaud you for these stands. However, your position on Canyon Hills is rapidly becoming "too little, too late" to serve the community’s best interests. We recognize, from your point of view, you believe you are addressing the critical questions for the community, and are advocating a position that is best for the community. You have made your position very clear in some respects, such as your intent to preserve as much open space as possible. Of course we agree with this intent, and we appreciate your repeated emphasis on the need for preservation. We disagree with the reasoning that leads to your position, and with your position on Canyon Hills in general. Your recent letter received by some members of our group stated – "… it appears to me that some degree of confusion exists as to the interpretation of the slope density ordinance and of my own position on the Canyon Hills project." We are not "confused" on either of these points. We simply disagree – but we disagree based upon a very different line of reasoning from yours. There is a very critical facet in our disagreement with you which we believe you might understand by way of analogy: • You have recently taken a strong public stand against "Business as usual" in City Hall. This is commendable. As you make progress with needed changes, you will encounter stubborn resistance from people who have been used to doing things in habitual ways. • People within the bureaucracy will fall back upon the "we’ve always done it this way" argument, and will likely cite policies, procedures, guidelines and even laws which serve to justify their unwillingness to change. • Some people who agree with you will superficially cooperate until it gets too close to their own government role or pocketbook. They will resist your intention to question the roots of the actual problems which lead to inefficiencies, waste, and repetition of "business as usual". • Personal loyalties and group dynamics within City Hall will threaten to undermine your intentions to bring needed changes. The points listed above parallel what we are saying about Canyon Hills, why we are not "confused" about slope density, and why we disagree with the argument you make about subdivision. For example: • The slope density ordinance has been interpreted and applied by City officials in an habitual way, which tends toward favoring a higher number of lots allowed in an area. These habitual interpretations have guided how City officials have instructed developers to calculate slope density. This was made obvious when Jack Rubens and an engineer for Whitebird got angry at Bob Sutton during the Planning Commission hearing and said Bob had told them to interpret it a certain way. • When the interpretation was questioned by the community at the Planning Commission, the general response from the Commission members was "we’ve always done it this way, so it must be right." • Personal loyalties were aroused, and some of the Planning Commission members rushed to support Emily Gabel-Luddy’s expertise, as if the issue were a personal one instead of an objective ordinance. • The need to examine the facts objectively was overlooked by the group dynamics in the Planning Commission. They were motivated to protect decades of decisions – per "business as usual". The fact that the range of allowable lots has shifted so often (169, 175, 230, etc.) should raise logical questions, not rationalizations. When it comes to public safety, which is one of the reasons for the slope density ordinance, the City should not rely on rationalizations for correct interpretation. The recent disaster in Laguna is just one example. • In addition, the wrong maps were used, and apparently under the City’s guidance, per habitual methods. Even when the wrong maps are used, the correct interpretation still results in a much lower number of lots allowed. • "Clustering" continues to be defined in a circular manner, also according to habitual, incorrect reasoning. The fact is that clustering is required by our Community Plan and the Scenic Preservation Specific Plan to occur on the naturally more level areas of the property, and by its very application this creates open space. The notion that Whitebird is "donating" open space in exchange for receiving plan exceptions is a false and inaccurate exchange. Open space is automatically created as a function of clustering, and there are many methods for clustering. We have repeatedly urged the Council office and the developer to consider other methods of clustering to achieve less disturbance to the environment, yet our request has never been heeded. • Subdivisions have also been handled within the City on a "business as usual" basis. In your letter you stated – "Subdivision of the entire property into large lots will lead to further subdivision into smaller lots over the next few decades. If you doubt this assumption, just look at the long history of the San Fernando Valley and the recent history of Chatsworth, Sylmar and Hidden Hills." • We do not agree with this reasoning. It is based on what has happened in past practices based on the City’s "business as usual" habits of granting exceptions rather than upholding current regulations, zoning and other restrictions. • We view the claim that 175 homes will be built over the entire property as untrue. It is topographically impossible. This is why the accurate application of the slope density formula resulted in a - 0.14 allowable dwelling units. If the property could actually be built out everywhere, the correct application of the slope density formula would have resulted in a much higher number. • All of these dynamics which support a "business as usual" approach to planning are why we know that any precedent set with Canyon Hills will open the way for future developers to be granted the same exceptions. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say on the one hand that history proves that subdivisions will occur, and on the other hand say that history does not prove that precedent for future developers will be set by granting exceptions to Whitebird. That is an inherent contradiction in reasoning. In summary, what may appear to you as our "confusion" regarding any of these issues is actually a different perspective – one which questions the "business as usual" approach to planning in most every way. Since we are outside the City planning bureaucracy, we see the subtleties and incongruities of these various arguments – and we disagree with them. Many community members who attended the hearings saw these "business as usual" dynamics in action and became very upset. This is why so much of the community is becoming more frustrated and disappointed with your position on Canyon Hills as time goes by. They do not hear your position being impacted or changed by the new information that has come to light regarding slope density from Bill Eick, Don Keene and Iacobellis & Associates. It is our understanding that another reason for your position is to avoid the claim of "takings" from the developer. We respect the fact that this is a concern you needed to consider, and that is why we had Chatten-Brown & Associates send you a detailed letter with specific case law that clarified why "takings" should not affect your position regarding Canyon Hills. We wanted you to have useful tools to reach a stronger position with confidence that such a position would not put the City at risk. We did not hear from you in response to that letter, nor have we seen any modification in your argument when "takings" is no longer a factor. One of the key facts is that Whitebird knew the laws and the topography of the property when they purchased it. At this point we need to ask: 1) Where is the staff report from the Planning Commission meeting? 2) Where is the analysis from the City Attorney regarding the interpretation of the slope density ordinance? The legally allowable number of homes will remain in dispute until the slope density calculations are addressed to the community’s satisfaction. Any potentially acceptable proposal should also include: 1) Landform grading. 2) No sound walls. 3) Equestrian capable RE-40 lots. 4) No gate or kiosk restricting access. 5) Preservation of the south side in open space in perpetuity. 6) Creation of a public multi-purpose trail system. 7) Realignment of access north of a prominent ridgeline designated on the Duke property but not designated on the Whitebird property. The bottom line, Wendy, is that we are asking you to negotiate a better deal for the community than the one you have been proposing. It isn’t strong enough. We appreciate your willingness to discuss these issues with us. We hope you understand that we are not merely representing a small voice of the community. The changes occurring in our Foothill communities are affecting more and more people who are forming their views against this project and others based on their own observations and values. This momentum is building and needs to be addressed in new ways by you and your staff. Thank you, Julianne Maurseth, Tujunga Steve Crouch, Tujunga Elektra Kruger, Shadow Hills Carol Locus Ford, La Tuna Cyn Deb Baumann, Lake View Terrace Linda Greco, La Tuna Cyn Lisa Keene, Tujunga Charlie Marko, Tujunga Dean Wallraff, Shadow Hills Marc Stirdivant, Glendale | ||
| Copyright © 2002-2005 by Valley Horse Owners Association. All Rights Reserved. |