Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
From: Jolie Willett [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 2:47 PM To:
Subject: Canyon Oaks Project
Dear City Council and Planning Commission:
It is painfully obvious that the general plan can be and is being bent to the whims of the Planning Commission and City Council. Equally obvious is that our government officials side with the money and the citizens be damned.
The City Council should stop acquiescing to the wishes of the here today, gone tomorrow carpetbaggers whose development projects are destroying our City and pay attention to the wishes of it's citizens who pay the lions share of taxes to the City.
Sincerely, Jolie Willett
From: SK [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 4:45 PM To: info Subject: To City Council and Mayor
Dear Sir/Madam,
This is regarding the proposed construction for Canyon Oaks property.
Calabasas hills and areas surrounding this neighborhood are already over developed. If we cannotcontrol the growth atleast we can find alternatives to keep nature intact. Please leave the nature for ourcommunity than converting it for business. We do not want to become LA or Chicago.
#1 This property is not zoned for ANY hotel.#2 The developer is asking for zoning changes to develop portions of their 71 housing units and thehotel in designated DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTED OPEN SPACE.#3 Both Calabasas Code 17.16.030 & Measure O, passed in November 2015, require voter approvalbefore any land in Calabasas zoned as open space in the General Plan can be re zoned for other uses.This is in place to prevent a simple majority of the City Council from permitting urban development onthese parcels.#4 I oppose ALL zoning changes for the Canyon Oaks property and strongly oppose development in anyopen space.#5 Alternatives we prefer: For example, a village concept center, in the spirit of Old Town Calabasas
Thanks,Shashi
From: Greg Daum [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 9:31 PM To: info Subject: Opposed to Hotels
To whom is may concern:I am adamantly opposed to the building of these hotels along Malibu Canyon Drive/LasVirgenes! The property is not zoned for any hotel, and I oppose all zoning changes for theCanyon Oaks property. I do not want to see any development in any space.Thank you for your consideration of the community wishes.
Sincerely,Greg DaumCalabasas resident
From: Marti [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2016 1:08 PM To: info Subject: To:City Council & Mayor
April 9, 2016
Canyon Oaks Development
I am not in favor of any approval for the requested development proposal. The current zoning codes do not allow for this development to move forward. The zoning and General Plan were put in place to preserve this space and control development to ensure it fits into the City's vision.
Any approval of zoning changes or variances should be submitted to the citizens of Calabasas to vote upon.
As elected officials, each of you have been elected based on your promises and commitments to preserve the City of Calabasas's unique environment. It is your job as elected officials to represent your constituents and their desires.
Please do not make Calabasas the laughing stock of "open space" by changing the gateway to the Santa Monica's from rural to a huge commercial development!
Sincerely,Martha Ortiz 26807 Cactus Trail Calabasas Hills, CA.
From: sherry goldsmith [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2016 5:51 PM To: info Subject: City Council and Mayor
I am opposed to the Canyon Oaks Proposed Development. 1. W should be voting on this. 2. Please oppose all zoning changes for the Canyon Oaks property. 3. Please oppose the impact on the views. 4. The proposed development does not serve the local community as envisioned in the General Plan. 5. The development should fit the land, not the other way around.
Thank you, Sherry Goldsmith 27077 Esward Dr.
From: Karin Randolph [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2016 7:44 AMTo: infoSubject: City Council & Mayor
I live at 4267 Las Virgenes Road. I used to see cows, goats and sheep in the hills opposite me. I felt like Iwas coming home to a resort each day. Now I see an increasingly congested, over developed, crowdedurban type environment. For the first time in 26 years I'm thinking of leaving. Why would anyonedevelop along the scenic corridor through this canyon? Please rethink the Canyon Oaks project. Noteverything should have a price. Karin Randolph
Sent from my iPad
From: Mary Kay Fry [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2016 12:37 PMTo: infoSubject: Development of Malibu Canyon Area
Any development of Malibu must be decided on by the people of Malibu. This must be the case with thearea of Malibu Canyon at Las Virgenes Road. Don’t shirk your responsibilities. Save the beauty of ourarea. It’s all we’ve got.
Thank you.Mary Kay Fry
From: Joan Hurley [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2016 1:33 PM To: info Subject: TO: City Council & Mayor
Dear City of Calabasas Elected Council Members,
As a resident of Calabasas pre dating cityhood 25 years ago, I am writing today to express my strongopposition to the proposed Canyon Oaks development. The development under consideration proposesthat some portions will be built on restricted open space. Per a vote passed in November 2015,Measure O requires a 2/3 vote of the electorate prior to encroaching on any existing open space in theCity. The developer would have to change zoning boundaries to build as proposed, and this would be aviolation of Measure O if not voted upon. This property is not zoned for a hotel, not to mention thatanother hotel has been proposed only 120 yards from another proposed 4 story hotel (which I have alsoformally opposed). My other primary objection to this development is the destruction of the naturalhillside by the projected moving of 2 million cubic yards of dirt. The proposed movement of dirt toelevate the foundation pad would raise the pad to over 55 feet above Las Virgenes Road, blocking theview and having significant impact on the area’s natural beauty. Such a development is not in keepingwith the spirit of Calabasas’ General Plan.
For these reasons, I urge you to reject the Canyon Oaks project as proposed. It is not in the interest ofthe city’s citizens to rush such decisions in favor of developers. Please listen to the opinions of yourcitizenry.
Sincerely,
Joan Hurley27072 Esward Dr.Agoura, CA 91301
From: Randy Cooper [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2016 2:18 PM To: info Subject: To: City Council & Mayor
Re: Canyon Oaks proposed development.
Please recognize Measure O and let the people of Calabasas vote on this important decision.
I oppose any change in zoning.
I oppose the impact this development will have on the beautiful views.
This development does not fit the natural setting of this beautiful area.
Thank you for your consideration.
Randy Cooper, resident of Calabasas.
From: Karl Heinz Pitsch [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2016 4:01 PM To: info Cc: Babs Subject: City Council & Mayor
Ahead of your council meeting 4/13/16 I would like to share with you our opposition against theproposed Canyon Oaks development. I believe this development does not serve the community but ishurting the quality of life for most all citizens of this city, destroys valuable restricted open space, is avisual deterioration and will create a traffic and accident hazard at an important junction between LasVirgenes, exit 101 and the surrounding shopping center.Seeing the importance of this question this matter should be not decided by the City Council but by thepeople & voters of Calabasas.
Best Regards
Barbara & Karl Heinz Pitsch5505 Villawood CircleCalabasas
From: Victoria Deanda [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2016 4:45 PM To: info Subject: To city council & Mayor.
To whom it may concern. I would like to be heard as a long time resident of beautiful Calabasas, Lost Hills Rd . I am VERY Much opposed to ANY more development of this area. I purchased my property because of the feeling of open space. Comming from Pacific Palisades I can attest to what happens when you let developers run rampent! ! PLEASE DON'T MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE!! It only serves the short term. Thank you.
From: Jeff Jaime [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 12:50 PM To: info Subject: Opposition to Canyon Oaks Hotel development
I appreciate property rights and I am not opposed to developing the land at Las Virgenes and AgouraRoads, however I am opposed to the encroachment of the Open Space ordinance with the height of aproposed hotel.
I understand this is not zoned for a hotel. I am opposed to any and all zoning changes to the CanyonOaks property. I am also opposed to any plan cutting off public access to hiking and cycling trails,showcasing the beauty of Calabasas. Please consider something that conforms with the natural, andbeautiful terrain of Calabasas.
Jeff Vaughn, 26939 Alsace Drive, Calabasas, CA 91302
From: Sally Shoji [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2016 6:27 PM To: info Subject: Calabasas City Council & Mayor James Bozajian
RE: CANYON OAKS PROJECT,
PLAIN AND SIMPLE, STICK TO THE ESTABLISHED BUILDING AND ZONING CODES. WHY SHOULD THEY BEALTERED OR CHANGED NOW?
PLEASE DO NOT RUSH INTO THIS PROJECT. THINK ABOUT THE LONG TERM RAMIFICATIONS THAT WILLIMPACT THE ENVIRONMENT AND LIVES OF THE RESIDENTS FOREVER.
ALLOW ALL THE FACTS TO BE PRESENTED AND REVIEWED BY EVERYONE BEFORE DECISIONS ARE MADE,SO THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND RESIDENTS MAY MAKE THE BEST DECISION FORALL CONCERNED.
TRUTHFULLY, WE HAVE ENJOYED OUR RELATIVELY RURAL EXISTENCE FOR OVER 50 YEARS AND TOOK ITALL FOR GRANTED UNTIL NOW. WITH THE RECENT RAINS, THE HILLS ARE EVEN MORE BEAUTIFUL ANDOUR VIEW LINE WILL SADLY BE LOST FOREVER.
PLEASE LISTEN TO THE RESIDENTS WHOWILL BE MOST DIRECTLY IMPACTED BY THIS PROJECT ANDTHANK YOU FOR LOOKING OUT FOR ALL OF CALABASAS.
RESPECTFULLY YOURS,JIM AND SALLY SHOJI
From: Bruce Auerbach [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 9:26 AMTo: infoSubject: To city council & mayor
Wanted to have these pictures of the new Avanti project in the public record to show how overbuilt thisproject is and how it has destroyed the beauty of our great city. As you are now considering anothermassive development, Canyon Oaks, you must not allow this glorious land to be destroyed for anothermassive and unneeded project.
Story Poles don't accurately show the density of the project and these pictures prove the mistake of this4 story project that now overshadows the lake and tennis center.It seems government is moreconcerned about pleasing the developer than us, the people you are working for.
With all of the massive projects you folks are approving, you are ruining the beauty and tranquility ofour beautiful city!
As you can tell, I am 1000% against this project and the Rondel project as well.
Bruce15 year resident of Calabasas
From: tamiko fuote [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2016 7:06 PM To: info Subject: Fwd: Canyon Oaks impact
Dear City of Calabasas, City Council and Mayor,Re: Canyon Oaks development.
Please see the 2 attachments that reflect my concerns and opposition to the Development Plan ofCanyon Oaks as it is presented at the moment.
Please note the images that refer to the view we have of the Eastern view from the intersection ofAgoura Road and Las Virgenes. Note that the story poles as they stand represent structures that willcompletely obscure the view shed of the hills and valley as it show in the top image.
The image on the bottom left, represent the visual impact on the view or likely view we will have oncethe structures are built as planned per story poles.
The image on the bottom right represent a possible view of what was referred to as a green burm infront of the hotel.
All of these images hopefully demonstrate the total decimation of our view shed. You cannot let thishappen.
Tamiko Fuote,Calabasas resident818 730 [email protected]
From: S. Denmark [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2016 8:05 PM To: info Subject: TO: City Council and Mayor
I will not be able to make it to the city council meeting on April 13. However, regarding the proposed Canyon Oaks development, my neighbors and myself want to strongly state that this is too big, and too much, for our area.
At the very least, city residents should be voting on this as it is not zoned properly, and we don't want zoning changes going through without our votes.
One hotel is enough for this area--the Blue Marble project is enough to attract business travelers and others to use our restaurants and businesses. Any council member who has been on Las Virgenes Road trying to get through the intersection at Agoura Road to get on the freeway (or anywhere else in the area) knows of the daily, unrelenting commuter congestion coming through Malibu canyon that backs up car traffic for miles.
We want our open space to remain open, and to continue to have park & ride parking for commuters, and access to trails going through those mountains.
Stephanie Denmark HomeownerRuthwood Drive Calabasas CA 91302
From: Michel Jacoby [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 12:35 AM To: info Subject: City Council & Mayor
Public Comment regarding April 13, 2016 City Council meeting, Item 12, File # 140000011, In opposition to the Canyon Oaks project. Please see attached. Thank you, Michel N Jacoby
This
Pro
ject
sho
uld
not b
e ap
prov
ed fo
r :
1.It
can
not b
e bu
ilt u
nder
CE
QA
. 2.
It re
quire
s a
publ
ic 2
/3 v
ote
of a
ppro
val.
3.S
taff
mis
suse
s D
P ov
erla
ys.
4.M
isna
min
g a
hill
a la
ndsl
ide
caus
es fe
ar.
5. T
he c
redi
bilit
y of
the
EIR
is in
dou
bt.
1
1) C
EQA
does
not
allo
w th
is pr
ojec
t to
be b
uilt
•Th
e pr
ojec
ts E
IR c
oncl
udes
: “T
he N
o Pr
ojec
t Alte
rnat
ive
(Alte
rnat
ive
1) is
co
nsid
ered
env
ironm
enta
lly s
uper
ior,
sinc
e it
wou
ld e
limin
ate
near
ly a
ll of
the
antic
ipat
ed
envi
ronm
enta
l effe
cts
of th
e pr
ojec
t. “
2
Staf
f des
ires
to o
verri
de th
is “S
uper
ior
alte
rnat
ive” w
ith a
Sta
tem
ent o
f Ove
rridi
ng
Con
sider
atio
n.
The
Law
is –
“Whe
n th
e le
ad a
genc
y ap
prov
es a
pro
ject
w
hich
will
resu
lt in
the
occu
rrenc
e of
sig
nific
ant e
ffect
s w
hich
are
iden
tifie
d in
the
final
EIR
but
are
not
avo
ided
or
subs
tant
ially
less
ened
, the
age
ncy
shal
l sta
te in
writ
ing
the
spec
ific
reas
ons
to s
uppo
rt its
act
ion
base
d on
the
final
EIR
and
/or o
ther
info
rmat
ion
in th
e re
cord
. The
st
atem
ent o
f ove
rrid
ing
cons
ider
atio
ns s
hall
be
supp
orte
d by
sub
stan
tial e
vide
nce
in th
e re
cord
."
The
Staf
f’s S
tate
men
t of O
verri
ding
C
onsid
erat
ion
is.
“How
ever
, thi
s al
tern
ativ
e w
ould
not
acc
ompl
ish
any
of
the
obje
ctiv
es o
f the
pro
pose
d pr
ojec
t, in
clud
ing:
de
velo
ping
low
inte
nsity
sin
gle
fam
ily h
omes
, pr
ovid
ing
com
mer
cial
opp
ortu
nitie
s, re
mov
ing
the
land
slid
e co
nditi
on, a
nd p
rovi
ding
add
ition
al h
ousi
ng.“
St
aff p
rovi
de n
o su
bsta
ntia
l evi
denc
es a
s re
quire
d on
ly
a lis
t of B
enef
its w
hich
doe
s no
t com
ply
with
the
law
.
Staf
f’s c
laim
doe
s no
t com
ply
with
The
C
alifo
rnia
Sta
te S
upre
me
Cou
rt ru
lings
.
“CE
QA
does
not
aut
horiz
e an
d ag
ency
to p
roce
ed w
ith a
pr
ojec
t tha
t will
have
sig
nific
ant,
unm
itiga
ted
effe
cts
on th
e en
viro
nmen
t, ba
sed
sim
ply
on a
wei
ghin
g of
thos
e ef
fect
s ag
ains
t the
pro
ject
's b
enef
its, u
nles
s th
e m
easu
res
nece
ssar
y to
miti
gate
thos
e ef
fect
are
trul
y in
feas
ible
.” •
Staf
f mak
es n
o cl
aim
of i
nfea
sibi
lity.
The
EIR
mus
t be
follo
wed
.
•“T
he N
o Pr
ojec
t Alte
rnat
ive
(Alte
rnat
ive
1) is
co
nsid
ered
env
ironm
enta
lly s
uper
ior,
sinc
e it
wou
ld
elim
inat
e ne
arly
all
of th
e an
ticip
ated
env
ironm
enta
l ef
fect
s of
the
proj
ect.
“
2)
It re
quire
s a
2/3
appr
oval
vot
e of
the
vote
rs.
Und
er C
ity C
ode
17.1
6.03
0
Mea
sure
O:
•“T
he O
pen
Spa
ce In
itiat
ive
inve
sts
in th
e pe
ople
the
pow
er to
mak
e im
porta
nt d
ecis
ions
rega
rdin
g fu
ture
gr
owth
. The
Ope
n S
pace
Initi
ativ
e re
quire
s a
2/3
vote
of
the
elec
tora
te b
efor
e an
y la
nd in
Cal
abas
as z
oned
as
open
spa
ce in
the
Gen
eral
Pla
n ca
n be
re-z
oned
for o
ther
us
es, t
here
by p
reve
ntin
g a
sim
ple
maj
ority
of t
he C
ity
Cou
ncil
from
per
mitt
ing
urba
n de
velo
pmen
t on
thes
e pa
rcel
s.”
The
proj
ect i
s bu
ilt on
OS-
RP
land
. Al
l land
out
side
the
trian
gle
is pr
otec
ted.
•
Map
of r
ed fo
otpr
int b
y S
taff
•
Map
ove
rlay
pres
ente
d by
Sta
ff
3) S
taff
mis
suse
s D
P ov
erla
ys.
•R
egar
ding
this
pro
ject
, the
Pla
nnin
g C
omm
issi
on
Cha
irman
sai
d “I’
m s
till u
ncle
ar w
hat d
evel
opm
ent
stan
dard
s ar
e”.
•B
artle
tt re
spon
ded:
“In
a D
evel
opm
ent P
lan
the
stan
dard
s ar
e th
e pr
ojec
t, it’
s P
lann
ed U
nit D
evel
opm
ent t
ype
zoni
ng
if yo
u w
ill, it
bec
omes
tailo
red
to th
e pr
ojec
t.”
Bartl
ett w
as s
ayin
g co
des
don’
t app
ly
He
was
say
ing
a D
evel
opm
ent P
lan
give
s “In
crea
sed
adm
inis
trativ
e di
scre
tion
to a
loca
l pro
fess
iona
l pla
nnin
g st
aff w
hile
set
ting
asid
e pr
esen
t lan
d us
e re
gula
tions
and
rig
id p
lat a
ppro
val p
roce
sses
” (W
ikip
edia
def
initi
on o
f a
Pla
nned
Uni
t Dev
elop
men
t(PU
D)).
He
and
his
staf
f mak
es th
e de
cisi
ons.
Obv
ious
ly w
rong
and
sel
f ser
ving
and
cha
nges
are
ne
eded
for a
DP
is in
add
ition
to th
e st
anda
rds
and
regu
latio
ns fo
r the
ben
efit
of th
e co
mm
unity
.
A D
evel
opm
ent P
lan
is no
thin
g lik
e a
PUD
.
•A
Dev
elop
men
t Pla
n is
an
Ove
rlay
Zone
•
Sect
ions
: 17.
18.0
10 -
Purp
ose
and
appl
icab
ility
. •
“The
ove
rlay
zoni
ng d
istri
cts
esta
blis
hed
by th
is c
hapt
er
prov
ide
guid
ance
for d
evel
opm
ent a
nd la
nd u
ses
in
addi
tion
to th
e st
anda
rds
and
regu
latio
ns o
f the
zo
ning
dis
tric
ts, w
here
impo
rtant
site
, nei
ghbo
rhoo
d, o
r ar
ea c
hara
cter
istic
s re
quire
par
ticul
ar a
ttent
ion
in p
roje
ct
plan
ning
.”
•“T
he -D
P ov
erla
y zo
ning
dis
trict
may
be
appl
ied
whe
re
site
cha
ract
eris
tics
and
envi
ronm
enta
l res
ourc
es,
adja
cent
land
use
s, o
r oth
er c
omm
unity
con
ditio
ns
may
be
bene
fited
“ (1
7.18
.030
)
A D
evel
opm
ent P
lan
is ap
plie
d to
con
form
with
th
e co
des
not a
void
them
. •
“A D
P ov
erla
y di
stric
t may
be
cons
ider
ed o
nly
whe
n th
e re
sulta
nt d
evel
opm
ent p
atte
rn (w
hen
com
pare
d to
that
w
hich
wou
ld o
ther
wis
e be
acc
ompl
ishe
d w
ithou
t the
ov
erla
y) w
ill be
mor
e co
nfor
man
t with
the
polic
ies
of th
e G
ener
al P
lan
and
mor
e ef
fect
ive
in im
plem
enta
tion
of
appl
icab
le G
ener
al P
lan
polic
ies.
” (17
.18.
030
A)
•
The
City
Cod
es a
re th
e im
plem
enta
tion
of th
e G
ener
al
Plan
cre
ated
to m
ake
sure
it is
follo
wed
.
DP
over
lay
only
allo
ws
mod
ificat
ion
of 7
item
s
but o
nly
if th
ey b
enef
it th
e C
omm
unity
. •
“Dev
elop
men
t Sta
ndar
ds. A
ppro
val o
f a d
evel
opm
ent p
lan
with
in th
e -D
P ov
erla
y di
stric
t may
incl
ude
spec
ific
mod
ifica
tions
to a
ny o
f the
city
's a
dopt
ed s
treet
sta
ndar
ds,
and/
or th
e fo
llow
ing
deve
lopm
ent s
tand
ards
whi
ch a
re s
et fo
rth
in th
is a
rticl
e an
d A
rticl
e III
: min
imum
lot a
rea,
set
back
s, s
ite
cove
rage
, flo
or a
rea
ratio
, hei
ght l
imits
, lan
dsca
ping
or p
arki
ng.
Prop
osed
dev
elop
men
t and
new
land
use
s w
ithin
the
-DP
over
lay
zone
sha
ll co
mpl
y w
ith a
ll ot
her a
pplic
able
pr
ovis
ions
of t
his
deve
lopm
ent c
ode.
” (1
7.18
.030
E)
•
Sta
ff as
sign
men
t of a
DP
zone
doe
sn’t
give
Sta
ff th
e po
wer
to a
llow
the
deve
lope
r to
avo
id th
e de
velo
pmen
t co
des
nor g
ive
them
fina
l app
rova
l pow
er o
n an
ythi
ng.
4) M
isna
min
g a
hill
a la
ndsl
ide
caus
es fe
ar.
•The
tria
ngul
ar
shap
e an
d lo
catio
n of
the
build
able
pr
oper
ty w
as c
lear
ly
sele
cted
to a
void
bu
ildin
g on
the
slop
e.
•Thi
s pr
ojec
t goe
s de
eply
int
o th
e sl
ope
requ
iring
sl
ope
repa
ir an
d cr
eatin
g a
stee
per
slop
e.
The
reas
ons
give
n fo
r the
nee
d to
mitig
ate
the
slope
•
At t
he M
arch
17
PC
mee
ting:
•
Thei
r Geo
Tech
: “It
is n
ot m
ovin
g no
w a
t lea
st th
ere
is n
o in
dica
tion
that
it
is m
ovin
g“ a
nd “T
he m
inut
e th
is la
ndsl
ide
is to
uche
d, a
ny g
radi
ng d
one
to it
, th
e ap
plic
ant i
s ob
ligat
ed to
rem
edia
te”
•
Sta
ff to
ld th
e C
omm
issi
oner
s th
e sl
ope
is re
quire
d to
be
repa
ired
beca
use
: (0
0:35
:22)
The
City
has
a m
anua
l of p
repa
ratio
n of
G
eolo
gica
l and
Geo
tech
nica
l rep
orts
and
the
sect
ion
of 5
.4.1
of
slo
pe a
nd s
lope
sta
bilit
y es
tabl
ishe
d m
inim
al c
riter
ia f
or th
e sl
ope
and
it sa
ys “
all s
lope
s of
hab
itabl
e st
ruct
ures
, acc
ess
road
s an
d on
site
dis
posa
l sys
tem
s sh
all b
e re
quire
d to
mee
t the
follo
win
g fa
ctor
of s
afet
y cr
iteria
and
the
very
firs
t bul
let p
oint
her
e is
the
stat
ic c
ondi
tion
of s
afet
y ha
s to
be
1.5.
“
•Th
is c
ode
does
not
app
ly, t
here
are
no
"hab
itabl
e st
ruct
ures
, ac
cess
road
s or
on
site
dis
posa
l sys
tem
s“ o
n th
e no
rth
faci
ng
sout
h sl
ope,
it’s
alre
ead
1.0
to 1
.2.
This
pro
ject
unn
eces
saril
y cr
eate
s th
e ne
ed fo
r rep
air.
The
cred
ibilit
y of
the
EIR
is in
dou
bt fo
r it
mak
es c
laim
s lik
e th
is:
•“T
he p
ropo
sed
proj
ect a
lso
gene
rally
con
form
s to
the
City
’s
over
all v
isio
n fo
r the
site
. The
City
’s 2
030
Gen
eral
Pla
n vi
sion
fo
r the
pro
ject
site
incl
udes
the
follo
win
g:
• O
bjec
tive:
Nea
r Las
Virg
enes
Roa
d an
d A
gour
a R
oad,
fost
er
the
crea
tion
of a
mix
ed u
se re
side
ntia
l, re
tail,
and
offi
ce d
istri
ct
with
a d
istin
ct v
illag
e fe
el.
•P
olic
y IX
-17:
Pro
vide
a m
ix o
f use
s th
at c
reat
es a
des
tinat
ion
area
whe
re p
eopl
e ca
n co
me
and
stay
– li
ve, s
hop,
rela
x, p
lay.”
•It
certa
inly
doe
s no
t com
ply
with
the
City
’s 2
030
Gen
eral
Pla
n w
hat i
s m
ore
impo
rtant
is w
hat t
hey
leav
e ou
t, th
ings
like
: “IX
-18
Fac
ilita
te th
e de
velo
pmen
t of m
ore
amen
ities
in w
este
rn
Cal
abas
as, s
uch
as s
hopp
ing,
ped
estri
an fa
cilit
ies,
and
ga
ther
ing
plac
es.”
whi
ch it
tota
lly fa
ils to
pro
vide
.
Plea
se tr
uly
cons
ider
thes
e fa
cts
for,
•A
ppro
val o
f thi
s pr
ojec
t with
out m
itiga
ting
the
envi
ronm
enta
l fa
ctor
s an
d re
quiri
ng a
vot
e of
the
elec
tora
te c
ould
pos
sibl
y le
ad to
a c
ourt
deci
ding
the
mat
ter a
long
with
cau
sing
vot
ers
to
be v
ery
angr
y.
•
Mos
t of t
he re
side
nts
only
app
ose
the
envi
ronm
enta
l dam
age
this
pro
ject
pro
duce
s, th
ey a
re n
ot a
gain
st d
evel
opm
ent o
n th
is
site
. Th
ey ju
st w
ant a
dev
elop
men
t tha
t gra
ces
the
envi
ronm
ent n
ot d
isgr
ace
it. D
on’t
you
also
wan
t som
ethi
ng
the
City
can
be
prou
d of
? C
an y
ou re
ally
say
this
pro
ject
is
supe
rior?
Than
k yo
u,
Mic
hel N
. Jac
oby
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2016 11:36 PM To: info Subject: City Council & Mayor
Proposed Canyon Oaks Development: I am opposed to such a large scale development. The reason people want to move to Calabasas- Especially off of Las Virgenes Area is be away from the crowding and see open space that the majority of Los Angeles City Areas do not have anymore. Too much Development!!! Calabasas is known to have the open space existence. Why is the City ok now with Developers changing our landscape!! I understand that development will take place on land owned - but there are spaces that should not be allowed this DENSITY. I was under the impression that Calabasas City Council was there to represent the majority of home owners in the area not just developers. Over development will change the whole area of Las Virgenes. Traffic is also an issue in the area NOW without any new development at all!! The 101 fwy needs more cars on it everyday off Las Virgenes ramps. It is not quite at a stand still all day yet- So we should build as much as we can to get the area to have traffic problems all day long with no new roads offered. It is sad that City of Calabasas is selling out to developers who have the money to get their way to what they think is profitable to build for themselves. Not for the good of the City or the Community. An Owner/Developer should be allowed to built but not where it will impact and change the area. That is what City planning was designed not let happen I thought!! How many hotels do we need of Las Virgenes?? From the looks it seems we should be building a hotel on any open land we have left and the City will approve it. We need a City that will Vote 1st before allowing the taking away open space that is left. Most homeowners could not get approval to change the zoning of the land they own. Why can a developer now?? Canyon Oaks Developer seems to run the City Planning Dept!! No other side opinion is going to change that then.
Barbara Wiesener | Estate AgentEwing Sotheby's International [email protected]
From: Jeff Werdesheim [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 5:33 PM Subject: "NO" on Canyon Oaks Development!
On behalf of myself and family (5 adults total) who live in Mont Calabasas off Las Virgenes, we stronglyoppose this development.
If money or revenue is the only reason the city council is considering pushing this through, then shameon them. We moved here just 2 years ago specifically because of the beautiful hillsides, open space andlack of congestion from where we came from. If Measure O was just approved last November topreserve this open space, then why are we not being given an opportunity to vote again on a project I'msure the majority of Calabasas and surrounding areas would oppose. And if I'm not mistaken, wasn'tCalabasas voted in to "cityhood" 25 years ago to protect our open space?
With a General Reserve Fund of $14 million and the city of Calabasas running a budget "Surplus", why isthis project so important to push through without hearing from the people? Thank you for reading thisat the City Council Meeting on 4/13/16.
Jeff Werdesheim
From: Jim & Kelly [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 2:33 PM To: info Subject: MAYOR BOZAJIAN & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Dear Mayor Bozajian and City Council Members,
RE: Denial of Canyon Oaks development proposal
This letter is to reiterate the letter that I sent to you along with the Planning Commission on 3/15/2016prior to the Planning Commission meeting 3/16 – 3/17/2016. Since several of the planningcommissioners elected not to do further research into our city’s zoning codes, ordinances, city measuresand resident’s concerns and passed the decision making on to you, I’m asking that you be willing to dothe research, as many concerned residents have, to realize that this project is not appropriate asproposed.
The Canyon Oaks development proposal violates a myriad of zoning codes and ignores the GeneralPlan. The sheer size and scale of the development is completely inappropriate for the ScenicCorridor. Its excessive height obliterates the view shed, replaces natural rolling hillsides with unsightlyand unnatural manufactured “hillsides” creating a massive adverse impact to the aesthetics of the area,and will impact traffic in many ways no matter what the studies show. Most importantly, it encroacheson open space. Measure O, passed overwhelmingly by the voters, requires 2/3 voter approval beforeany land in Calabasas zoned as Development Restricted Open Space can be rezoned for other uses.
What was envisioned in the General Plan for the area is simply a “village” meant to serve the communityand its citizens. If that beautiful piece of property must be developed, it is requested that the developerutilize the existing graded areas only to create this village. No massive grading, no hotel, no homes. Itwould be a historic act for the city to purchase the open space portion of the property and share it withthe public. The trail at the east end of the property is spectacular and deserves to be seen and notburied under graded dirt. What a devastating tragedy that would be.
I have several requests:1) Reject the entire project as proposed.2) That any zoning changes be put to a vote of the residents per Measure O.3) That the city not “re envision” codes for this project or any other development. It is not the
city’s job to bend the rules and codes already in place for developers.4) This project is too enormous and disruptive to the area, please do not abruptly push it through
without adequate deliberation and research.5) Listen to the testimony of the city’s residents and the Calabasas Coalition, they’ve done their
research and know what they’re talking about.
The 2030 General Plan states on page XII that the City “will not sacrifice the area’s natural environmentor its resident’s quality of life in the pursuit of municipal income”. Thank you for your time andconsideration for this very serious matter. Once done, it cannot be undone.
Sincerely,Kelly Spadoni
From: Lisa [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 9:09 AM To: info Subject: City Council and Mayor
City Council,
Our city planners should be ashamed of themselves. If this council remains dismissive of the citizens concerns regarding the "Canyon Oaks" project then shame on you. Is this taxation without representation? Yes we pay our taxes and yet do not feel fairly represented. The Canyon Oaks proposal is dismissive of communities concerns. We voted in Measure O to protect our open space. It would be with complete disregard to our community to approve any zoning changes. I believe the citizens have the right to vote on any rezoning to open space. I would like to exercise my vote. Your mountain blocking project impacts the rugged beautiful views of our hills . Our mountain views should remain just that as the entrance to Malibu Canyon, a world known destination, the country in the city, a place in which I have alway been proud to call home.
Thank You, Lisa Edwards Michael Edwards
From: JOHN QUINONES [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 9:17 AM To: info Subject: City Council and Mayor
My wife and I are long time residents of the city, 28+ years.We are opposed to the Canyon Oaks project and any hotel development on or near LasVirgenes.We are opposed to any zoning changes which would allow any developer to build onland that is currently zoned as open space and is protected by Measure O.If you decide to go ahead with any zoning changes then the residents of the city should vote onthis.We also feel strongly enough about these issues that we have to say that we would not supportaMayor or City Council member that supports the projects of zoning changes.Thank youMr and Mrs John Quinones26218 Alizia Cyn. Dr.
1
PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THE CALABASAS CITY COUNCIL Canyon Oaks – April 13, 2016
Carl Ehrlich; 50+ Year Calabasas Resident INTRODUCTION
The Canyon Oaks proposal that’s before the Council has no redeemable measures of merit. The Final EIR report states that “The change in visual character would be a Class I, Signifi-cant and unavoidable impact,” [emphasis by the author] and requires an unjustified judg-ment call based on the guidelines as stated in that same document. That prospect alone should send a clear message that this proposed project has serious flaws – one, in particular, is that the residential component will obstruct views of the mountains to the east as seen from Las Virgenes Road in direct violation of the General Plan. However, from the City’s standpoint, it could bring in a measurable amount of occupancy tax revenue, always a temp-tation irrespective of other considerations. On the other hand, from the CEQA’s and the general public’s (i.e., local residents) standpoints it is another story. As is well-known, this proposal is unique among the four that on the table at this time: it has two components – a 4-story hotel and 71 residences in a package deal – and these each have differing and diver-gent needs. 1) The earth movements required for the landslide mitigation and the on-site grading will move more earth (4,382,164 cubic yards) than the entire finished volume of Boulder (aka Hoover) Dam (“only” 3,250,000 cubic yards)! Locally, the earth movements would dwarf other on-going or recent projects. 2) There has been precious little justification presented for one much less two upscale hotels in this area and essentially back-to-back. 3) The oak tree mitigation plan leaves much to be questioned. Neither the species nor the ultimate source of water for the trees was indentified. Water could be a long term problem. 4) The zoning changes to the existing General Plan to accommodate this project should be denied since they enable the adverse impact of the residential mound.
DISCUSSION Significant and Adverse Aesthetic impact - The Final EIR report (AES-3, page 129) states that “The change in visual character would be a Class I, Significant and unavoidable impact,” [emphasis by the author] and requires an unjustified judgment call based on the guidelines as stated on page 94 of that same document. That prospect alone should send a clear message that this proposed project has serious flaws – one, in particular, is that the residential component will obstruct views of the mountains to the east as seen from Las Virgenes Road in direct violation of the General Plan.
2
Figure 1. This is what a “significant and unavoidable impact” (FEIR AES-3) would look like. The story pole voids have been filled in here and house icons added. The western-most and the most northerly houses on the residential pad will obscure the mountains to the east. The PhotoShopped inset suggests what a por-tion of the mound would look like when completed.
Figure 2. Conceptual view of the intersection showing the absence of any dirt or mountains to the east. (Credit: General Plan)
Now, photo simulations would have been very useful to help visualize the actual visual impact as seen from Las Virgenes Road. I try to answer that question in Figure 1. I have approximated the edge of the
residential mound by creating an arc that’s tied to the existing story poles at each end. The poles that I used are the ones painted a dark green signifying the (future) mound level. Similarly, I again approxi-mated the roof eaves signified by using the yellow poles and webbing. The house icons represent the heights of the homes but no home in particular. The actual homes would be more closely packed, as I’ve mentioned earlier and would have an entire row of their backsides presented to the street view. This figure imparts a visual perception of that impact in the absence of any other. That is what the gen-eral public and the local residents will see forever, if built! An alternative that the developer has been carefully avoiding is the prohibitively high cost of exporting huge amounts of excess material to offsite location(s), while saying that he is trying to avoid using haul trucks over city streets. The latter com-ment is true unto itself, but in reali-ty, that would be a temporary event while the obscuring of the moun-tains would be a permanent adverse impact, henceforth and forever more. General Plan Concepts Ignored – There have been multiple refer-ences to the General Plan and, in particular, to the conceptual West Village development. What has
3
Figure 5. The Canyon Oaks project will be moving a huge amount of dirt back and forth.
Figure 4. The proposed variances to the General Plan are keyed to this particular project.
Figure 3. Existing zoning for the project area as delineated in the General Plan.
been missing is the conceptual view at the Las Virgenes – Agoura Road intersection (see figure 2). This figure has a roughly similar viewpoint as seen in last figure 1. The proposed development won’t look anywhere near to that earlier vision – e.g., where did all the mountains and dirt go from across Las Virgenes Road? General Plan Zoning Change - Part of the decision package before the Council is a revision of the zon-ing for the Canyon Oaks project area. Currently, the zoning calls for a Planned Development (PD) and a Multi-Family (RM-20) area roughly triangular in shape – see figure 3. The proposed zoning is shown in figure 4 with a Business Retail (BR) zone and a Multi-Family (R-MF(20); aka RM-20) roughly con-forming to the planned residential and hotel areas. To be sure, this process is normal for developing areas, but this is just not the project to build these kinds of changes around. It will enable the permanent significant aesthetic impact of the proposed residential mound and homes, as noted.
Extreme Volumes of Earth Movement – For a long time now, I’ve been concerned about the new res-idential building pad – the height of it and just how much fill that it will incorporate since the builder’s plan is to have no exported material. So, I looked at several nearby projects that are either under way, planned, or have recently been completed. I took the cut, fill, and export data from their associated EIRs and/or MNDs. I couldn’t find the data for the Lost Hills Inter-change in its MND so I got the data from the Parsons project construction manager. Figure 5 shows the comparison of these project earth movements (including all cuts, fills, and export earth movements). My take on this is that if the folks down the road opposite the Paxton project are concerned about the amount of ex-
4
Figure 6. Cut/fill profile as presented to the Planning Commission and with the full extent of the mitigation cut shown. Underground water disclosed by test borings also shown.
Figure 7. The proposed construction schedule does not allow for any delays.
cavation going on, they ain’t seen nuthin’ yet! Here's an astounding fact that I discovered in conjunction with my review: the total earth movements proposed for this project, including all cut and fill operations, will be 35% more that the entire volume of Boulder Dam! That's 4,382,164 cubic yards for the project vs. “only” 3,250,000 cubic yards for the dam (Google, and others). That has been included in figure 5 for reference Figure 6 shows the cut and fill profile that was presented at the Planning Commission hearing (upper image). It including the full extent of the mitigation cuts (lower image). Test borings have indicated water at their lowest point as repre-sented by the blue line in figure 6. Even if the engineered fill that would be placed to reinforce the original slide area, the water will remain, although drained off through subsurface drains. Other elements that will remain include the residual stresses in the unmiti-gated slide area. The fill here will act as a dam, resisting those forces, but that doesn’t logically explain adding to those stresses by deposit-ing excess fill on top of the slope. Why tempt fate? Project Construction Schedule – This raises additional uncertainties and questions. The construction schedule included in the FEIR allows about 8 months for the grading cycle, after 1 month for brush clearance. The construction schedule is presented in FEIR Section 2.5, pag-es74-75, and figure 7. It does not al-low for a long-term settlement after the rough grading is completed, while FEIR Section 4.4 GEO-2(b) does not indicate how long that period could be. That time could only serve to ex-tend the time for the grading period before that building construction could be started. As displayed, the schedule doesn’t show uncertainties such as rain delays, earth settlement after placement, and final grad-ing after settlement. For reference, both the Paxton and the Lost Hills projects have been grading for about 6 months, moving far less material than the proposed project plans to do, thus rainsing questions about how long the grad-ing and overall construction will actually take. Considering how much material will be moved during landslide mitigation plus the residential and hotel grading, there should be a provision in the schedule, like: “could be as long as. . ,“ or something similar. After all, if we have a rainy season during con-struction, delays could easily be experienced during the period of 1 October through 1 April at the call
5
Figure 8. The street level renditions virtually ignore the residential mound. Credit: New Homes and Google for underlying images)
of the City Engineer. On top of that, it doesn’t show the schedule of completion for any of the 171 con-ditions cited for the Development Plan. No Justification for the Hotel – Only with the late disclosure for the Planning Commission was there been any attempt at justifying even one much less two hotels essentially back-to-back. Not only that, but the marketing analysis that was presented made a good case for another hotel in the Warner Center area. It gave no specific recommendation for any hotel in the western area of Calabasas, much less a justification for this second hotel, if that turns out to be the case. If the Rondell Oasis project is ap-proved by the City Council, it would at least have the “draw” of an internationally-known hotel chain (Marriott) and a nationally-known chain of hotels (SpringHill Suites), while the hotel chain being con-templated is only a small local Southern California chain (Ayres) with its inherently less wide-spread “draw.” Renditions Avoid Significant Visuals - In my eight years as an Air Force photographer, I learned how to use my camera to show what I wanted to show and how, most significantly here, to use that camera to avoid what I didn’t want to show. In the rendition photos presented in the FEIR, I noticed a distinct lack of coverage of the residential mound that will be created. Accordingly, I mapped the camera locations for the closer-in of the images presented in Figure 8 (the four stars in the figure correspond to the numbers representing the FEIR images). The arrows represent the viewfield of each rendition while the colored overlays illustrate the dominant features of each image. Most noticeable is the total lack of images that emphasize the western edge of the residential mound, particularly from Las Virgenes Road at its intersection with Agoura Road. A partial exception to this is noted by the gold star (#7) in figure 8, which shows a section of the mound as seen from the Shea homes. However, this location is some 17 feet above the public street level and, while it does show the disruptive character of the mound, it’s not a true image from the street level, as required by the CEQA Guidelines and application thereof. The following is copied from the FEIR document (AES-3, page 94):
“For the purposes of this analysis, an aesthetic impact is considered significant if it can be rea-sonably argued that: (a) the project's physical improvements would adversely affect a viewshed from an identified important public vista (such as a roadway or other publicly accessible proper-ty). . .” [emphasis added by author]
6
Figure 9. The mountains in the existing view are iden-tified for the Figure 4 analysis.
Figure 10. Graphic illustration of how the first row of houses on the residential pad will obscure the mountains.
To be sure, this is all within the New Homes job description: accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative [Johnny Mercer song from the early 1940s!]. But it does not satisfy the EIR requirements quoted above. Missing are views from Las Virgenes Road looking east and southeast, as in figure 1. Significant and Unavoidable Adverse Visual Impact – The foregoing comments lead into the views that we will have, or rather not have, if this project is allowed to be built. In particular, I’ve been wor-ried about the new residential mound that will be created with the some 850,000 cubic yards of material that will be used to create that mound (grading plus leftover fill from the landslide mitigation). The western end of the mound will be at a low of 836 feet elevation above mean sea level (amsl) (drwg. C-7 7/9/2016) – that’s 56 feet above the intersection of Las Virgenes and Agoura Roads (776 feet amsl) and about as high as the ridge of the hotel roof (ref.: New Homes drawing packet dated 7/9/2016). That is significant and, in fact, the FEIR says the same thing (see AES-3 starting on FEIR pg. 129 using the guidelines on FEIR pg. 94). No renditions of the view from that intersection looking southeast are available, as noted earlier. Nor are story poles for that view, at least in the center of that view. You can see some in Figure 9 to the left of center to the right of the signal and to the very right – hard to pick out but they are there. So I set out to see what I could do to fill that visual gap.
While Figure 9 encompasses the area of the future residential mound and identifies several mountain features in or just behind the nearby mountains, Figure 10 graphically shows those mountains along with their elevations and distances from my viewpoint taken from Google Earth. The inset image shows the relative height of the house roof peaks (60 feet pad relative height plus another 27 feet to the ridge lines per drwg. A-9 7/9/2016 ) and the distance from my position (364 ft. per drwg C-14 7/9/2016). The re-sulting viewline is seen to be over the mountains, blocking their view. The product of this analysis was presented in figure 1. To carry this approach a little farther, one could envision the western-most homes being at street level with the remaining home being terraced up to the most easterly house, retaining that house and the near-by catch basin at their currently defined elevations. That would yield the prospect of a clear and unob-structed view of the mountains, as depicted in figures 11 an 12. Couple that with the more easily achievable goal of a 3-story hotel at street level, and one would have a more acceptable project.
7
Figure 12. View from the street level would be far more attractive if houses were lowered.
Figure 11. The viewline to the farthest house almost matches the nearest house if at street level. Careful terracing of the building pads can accomplish this.
Figure 13. The majority of the replace-ment oak trees will be placed over the engineered fill area in which there will be little or no water for the trees to survive.
Oak Tree Mitigation Plan – The Oak Tree mitigation plan raises more questions than it aswers. Note that a major portion of the replacement oak trees will be directly above the landslide mitigation area, as seen in figure 13. The mitigation backfill will incorporate engineered fill, a dense compaction of various materials de-signed to resist the upper reaches of the landslide area and have subsurface drainage to channel water away from the backfill and topped with a natural soils cap, which itself will have a layer of topsoil to enhance future vegetative growth. The question arises here as to whether the newly planted oak trees will be able to find sufficient water on their own in the future to survive. The proposed plantings will be far more dense than exist at present which implies that they will have to find more water than the current trees have collectively, particularly after the required five year monitoring plan stipulated in the proposed approval resolu-tion expires. In the aforementioned draft resolution, there is no mention of the particular species of oak trees that will be planted other than indicating “specimen” trees (elsewhere referred to as “heritage” trees) that will be placed at and around the entrance to the project site along Las Virgenes Road. Residential Lot Easements Below CMC Minimums – The proposed residential lots (proposed to be zoned as RM-20) will have a minimum side clearance (aka easement) of 5 feet on each side, front set-backs of varying distances starting at about 10 feet, and rear lot clearances starting at about 7.5 feet.
8
Figure 14. The side and front/rear easements differ from normal RM-20 standards.
Figure 14 captures a portion of the drawing on page C-7 of the drawing packet dated 7/9/2016. By paying close attention to Pads 11 and 13, in par-ticular, compare the clearances to the Code re-quirements for RM zoned districts within the City (Title 17.13.020-A, Table 2-5) which require 10-foot side easements, front set-backs of 20 feet, and rear set-backs of 20 feet. Here’s part of the real problem for the future own-ers: the side clearances may not provide enough room to squeeze a lawn mower past trash cans, de-pending on just how accurately the house and the wall are located. For example, our mower and green can require 55 inches which would leave about 5 inches for clearance without allowing for the thickness of the block walls. That says if 8-inch wide CMU Precision Blocks are used, there would be about a 1-inch clearance for the mower, if everything is built according to Hoyle. Another part of the problem is that all this could be made possible (subject to approval by the City Council) by including a flexible “Development Plan” in the formal Resolution which has been approved by the Planning Commission. Development Plan Not Clearly Defined – A “Development Plan” is called for in the proposed Com-mission Resolution on its page 16. Now, the CMC Title 17.62.070 - Development plan states the fol-lowing:
“A. Purpose and Applicability. The purpose of a development plan [bold – by the author] permit is to permit greater flexibility and creativity in order to allow land uses and development that is superior to those attainable under existing zoning district standards. Development plan approval is required for the following: . . . . . to modify the standards for multi-family projects pursuant to Section 17.12.145, (v) to increase the allowed height in the CR zones, (vi) to establish a parcel width and depth less than required by Section 17.46.070 and (vii) subdivisions that propose a cluster development project pursuant to 17.18.030(F). Development plans may also be utilized to modify development standards as set forth in this Title.”
But the Plan is neither defined nor described, only the numerous (i.e., 171) conditions that have to be met have been presented, and no indications of public review as to the future status of those conditions.. So, that being said, just what is that Plan and when will it be presented and reviewed?
Flawed Traffic Study – While reviewing the Supplemental Traffic Analysis, I noted that the report stated:
“U.S. 101 was likely congested in the southbound direction during the P.M. peak hour period on the day that the counts were collected . .“ That reference to a single day led me to the FEIR which states in Appendix H that: “Existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for the study-area roadway segments were collected in June 2011 during periods when the local schools were
9
Figure 14. Lowering the hotel to a 3-story building and then to street level would be environmentally superior, but insignificant next to the 56-foot high residential pad.
in session (traffic count data is contained in the Technical Appendix for reference).” [bold & underlines by the author]
Checking the source data in that appendix revealed that the original source data were indeed collected over only a single 24-hour period (Thursday, May 26, 2011). That one period of data sampling bears absolutely no statistical significance. There is no way that this is an “average” daily traffic volume. The data should have been collected over a period of time to make that data statistically significant. For the record, I commuted from Calabasas to Downey for some 25 years and I know personally how traffic can change radically on any given day, from less bad to truly rotten, although over a year’s time general pat-terns do emerge. Further, the suggestion that green arrows be placed Las Virgenes Road at Mureau Road for the right turn there, would be a waste of time and money. No one stops there, anyway, just slowing enough to make the turn. This suggests that the traffic study be re-reviewed in greater depth with greater emphasis placed on de-veloping a data base with some statistical significance. Pedestrian Crossings - One item that was not referred to in the traffic study was the potential impact of pedestrian crossings on the mainstream traffic flows. Pedestrian crossings at the intersections that will be impacted will induce much longer red light timing, as we all know. The residents of the hotel and the residential area may well be tempted to walk to the local stores, incurring additional and significantly longer cumulative wait times for the commuting drivers. That phenomena could very well have a signif-icant impact on traffic flow. Excessive Hotel Height – One might wonder why this topic has been relegated to the last position in this report. The existence and height of the hotel have been the subjects of considerable discussion for the last two years and the principal purpose of this report has been to emphasize other major issues that have been well under the radar. Figure 14 illustrates the sightline improvements that would be achieved by first reducing the hotel to 3 stories and then lowering that to street level. Increasing the size of the footprint to that re-quired for an equivalent 3-story 120 room fa-cility, or reducing the parking requirements, would be a relatively easy to implement and was requested by the Planning Commission. Lowering the footprint to street level would involve a relatively minor amount of earth movement when compared to the massive amounts needed for the residential component – maybe a rough guess at 20,000-30,000 cubic yard of material is almost insignificant to the almost 4,400,000 cubic yards already being proposed for the project. FEIR Section 6.5 states that this would be marginally superior
10
to the proposed project (FEIR Table 6-9) in terms of aesthetics but that the impact of AES-3 would still be significant. That being said, it would do absolutely nothing to reduce the impact of the residential mound, as discussed earlier in this report.
RECOMMENDATIONS Reject this proposal in its entirety and/or send it back to the initial design phases. Require that any future submission for this property be designed so that all components are lowered to street level and terraced so that the present mountain views can be en-joyed forever by everybody. Protecting the mountain views is worth more than the short term export of material. The zoning changes to the existing General Plan to accommodate this project should be denied since they enable the adverse impact of the residential mound. The oak tree mitigation plan needs to be further defined. This is imperative since nei-ther the species of the trees, their long term survivability, nor the ultimate sources of water are defined. Require any future plans of this scope be required to have a series of public meetings, hosted by the City or by the developer. [definition “scope” required] Require the developer to more fully disclose the detailed construction schedule, prior to acceptance, which would include the scheduling of all 171 Conditions of Approval, mit-igation grading, rough grading, material settlement, final grading, and allowances for potential weather-related delays. Require that future traffic analyses develop and utilize statistically significant traffic data, even though common practice says that one day is sufficient. Define and describe in clear terms just what the “Development Plan” is, what it con-tains, and plans for public status/hearings.
1
ADDENDUM - PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THE CALABASAS CITY COUNCIL Item 12 - Canyon Oaks – April 13, 2016
Carl Ehrlich; 50+ Year Calabasas Resident ` This addendum was inspired by the recent letter from; Rick Bianchi, New Homes, to Talyn Mirzakhanian , City planner, dated March 29, 2016. In it, Mr. Bianchi relates New Homes’ response to the Planning Commission suggested options. The following material consists of comments to those responses. Response: “The 4 story hotel could be reduced to 3 stories . . .” [further text deleted here] Comment: The proposer could increase the hotel capacity back to the original 120 rooms by accepting the Commission’s suggestion of reducing the parking requirements. Response: “The homes that will be visible from Las Virgenes can be enhanced architecturally with the following; roof plane changes, additional shutters and other architectural details including wood, stone and brick, use darker colors that will blend in with the landscaping and add trellises at the rear of the homes. Additional trees can be added to the slope to create a more opaque landscape screen. “ Comment: This would be a purely cosmetic change. The houses would still obscure the viewshed permanently. The proposed landscape is already opaque, as one can see in the image below (Figure 1 in the primary Public Comments).
“Some suggestions were made at the planning commission involving the potential of lowering the hotel pad and / or lowering the house pads. These grade changes are not feasible because of various issues that include:”
2
• Response: “Site design is complicated and making adjustments to the grade affects the cut and fill. The site grading must balance - meaning it is not acceptable environmentally to haul away 300,000 cubic yards of material.” Comment: The residential building mound could be lowered by terracing from the upper elevations to the lower elevations, east to west, thus preserving the viewshed. But the requisite site grading raises a particularly significant trade-off question: which is the lesser of two evils?
A temporary environmental impact due to operation of haul trucks, or A permanent aesthetic impact due to the obscuring of the viewshed (figure above).
This is exactly why I suggested an alternate approach to the export of excess material in my response to the draft EIR: the use conveyor belts to transport the material overland to a nearby and already disturbed site, as illustrated below. An actual route would have to be selected to avoid too much, but temporary, interruption of the local trails.
• Response: “The elevation of the pads affects adjacent slopes and lowering the pads will require taller (and potentially unsightly) retaining walls. “ Comment: Mostly true. But, the walls are clustered around the hotel for the most part, according to the developer’s drawing #C-16. Walls 2-A and 3-A would be viewed only by the hotel guests, for the most part, while Wall 4-A would be viewed by entering and exiting residents. That would leave the walls essentially hidden from view of the thousands of daily
3
passersby. On the other hand, lowering the residential pads linearly would have an effect on the northern and southern grading, potentially requiring steeper slopes behind the outer pads. • Response: “Lower pads will negatively affect the design of the detention basins and we lose the ability to channel water and debris as the houses would be lower than the drainage course.” Comment: Not necessarily. The upstream flow input would remain at the presently designed elevation. This includes the most easterly pads (#35 and #36) and the new catch basin. Then the grading would ramp down linearly, as noted above, to the street level for the most westerly pads (#11 through #14). Thus, the input to the drainage channel at the upper end would remain unchanged from the current design, and the output at the lower end would meet the existing channel, exactly as it also does in the current design. • Response: “Lowering the pads puts houses closer to existing residences in the Colony project.” Comment: Not so. In the terracing concept, the houses would be lowered vertically not horizontally. In fact, the residential area would become far better neighbors when it comes to the existing mountain views from the Shea homes. See what would be the end product below.
From: Chris Biancotti [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 1:27 PM To: info Cc: Chris Biancotti Subject: To: City Council & Mayor
Dear City Council & Mayor Martin,
I will unfortunately be out of town for tonight's city hall meeting, but I did want to make my opinion part of public record and STRONGLY oppose the Canyon Oaks development.
Not only are we not voting on this development in West Calabasas, we are also ignoring the fact that the gorgeous hillside in which the development will cut into is not zoned for the Canyon Oaks property and would have to be re-zoned.
We have a gorgeous and tight-knit community over here. The Canyon Oaks development seeks to break that apart by attempting to bypass rules and regulations set in place by the city nearly 25 years ago. We cannot let that happen.
I live in Calabasas to avoid the traffic and misery of general "life congestion" that affects 90% of the rest of LA county. Many of the people in my community live here for the same reason. These developments would do nothing to enhance our community. Only hurt it.
By allowing this development and re-zoning to move forward, you are, in away, giving a big middle finger to the residents that have called this place home for however long they have resided here. We already see the scars on what was once a gorgeous hillside that the Blue Marble project has since destroyed.
The additional traffic that will be caused by these developments is something of great concern to the community as well. Trying to get onto Las Virgenes from Lost Hills Rd. is already a hectic route at key hours during the day. Adding more houses and more commuters would increase the congestion and levels of frustrations in the morning and afternoon hours.
I strongly urge the City Council & Mayor to stand up for what is right; for what the communities residents believe in and what is best for the citizens and overall community that we have here in Calabasas that many other neighborhoods in LA county lack.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,Chris Biancotti
From: Candice Weber [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 1:06 PM To
Cc: info Subject: RE: Mayor and City Council - Comments on Canyon Oaks from Saratoga Hills HOA
Dear Mayor and esteemed City Council members,
Thank you for listening to our concerns and taking the time to read them!
As you know, our community is very supportive of Calabasas. Many of us are Commissioners and have been for many years. Many of us were also on the General Plan Advisory Committee for 18 months to create a vision for this area of our city. We work hard to make sure that the City decision makers know our wishes in creating and maintaining a quality of life we all moved to Calabasas to enjoy for our community!
We are having trouble, as you probably know, supporting the Canyon Oaks project.
We’re concerned about zoning and ordinance changes that create precedent for a hotel, forexample, to be built on property that is not zoned for a hotel.We’re concerned about height limits being exceeded after being in place for decades.We’re concerned about the view impacts – adding height to the Hotel clearly increases theimpact on views.Many of us spent 18 months working on the General Plan for the City for 2030 and lookedforward to the destination location, Calabasas West Village, we all envisioned for this area.This plan is nothing like that vision and is very distressing in its enormity (size and scope)!We’re concerned that the public is not being asked to vote on whether to build or not on landthat is currently Open Space. We thought these type of decisions had to be brought before thepublic.We would like to see at least 60% of this property be dedicated to Open Space due, in part, to itssteep terrain.We’re concerned that The City council does not have the authority to approve building onportions of this project that are currently Open Space.We’re concerned that the Development Plan rule appears to have no limits. This appears to bean end run around existing rules and seems to allow for whatever is proposed and approvedwithin the “plan” to go forward regardless of existing rules or the concerns of the residents.We’re concerned that the Canyon Oaks Hotel is being driven, again, by City interests with afocus on the amount of revenue that will be generated.We are concerned that rumors are circulating that say that this project will take 36 months tocomplete. Massive earth movement and the needed trucks will create a virtual shut down ofLas Virgenes. Why isn’t the earth being exported? Please think about the disruption to theWestside of Calabasas with all these projects going on at the same time.Why aren’t lower building pads and increased fill exports being considered to mitigate the viewimpact. Instead, all planning is geared towards higher and higher building levels above LasVirgenes.
We already have a two year massive disruption going on for the Lost Hills Bridge widening andassociated corridor leading to the bridge.Traffic is already a mess in that corridor. It can take up to 20 minutes to get from Las Virgenesto the Lost hills bridge and through the signals
We find it ironic that the first sign one sees after crossing Lost Hills road on Las Virgenes says “Scenic Corridor”. From there until one reaches the freeway there is non-stop massive, hillside gouging, traffic cones and confusing driving directions, traffic gridlock and back up, view sheds being destroyed, roads being torn up, story poles, etc.. In other words, about as far from scenic as you can get!
The proposed “freeway travel corridor” will have two travel hotels, four gas stations, four fast food establishments, a liquor store, a smoke shop and about 67 new large, homes on small lots! How can that possibly be designated a “scenic corridor”? Please consider sending this back for significant, additional changes before approving this distressing plan.
Thank you Candice Weber , on behalf of the Community Association of Saratoga Hills
From: Frances Bateman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 1:01 PM To: info Subject: Canyon Oaks Proposed Development
Dear City Council: We should be voting on all of this. The citizens in Calabasas do not want these hotels built here. My family has owned several properties on this side of Calabasas for as many as 51 years. Calabasas is a beautiful community (Calendar Beautiful). We have slowly seen the Beauty ruined by ugly buildings
We are against all zoning changes for the Canyon Oaks property. We do not want our views of the beautiful hills compromised. This property is not zoned for a hotel and large homes on small lots.
The City should enforce Measure O, the protect Open Space ordinance that many voted for this past November. Measure O requires 2/3 voter approval before any land in Calabasas zoned as restricted open space can be rezoned for other uses.
Please don't just disregard this message.
Sincerely,
Frances Bateman
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 12:30 PM To: info Subject: Canyon Oaks and Rondell
Hello City Council members,
I will not be able to attend this evening's City Council meeting on the subject of the Canyon Oaks project, but I would like to be on record that I am opposed to the project.
I do not believe that any project at that location should be allowed to deviate from the Open General Plan or other key regulations that were put in place to maintain the spirit of West Calabasas and the entry point to the Santa Monica Mountains. Building of a large hotel above grade as well as additional homes will strip the land and views, let along the other impacts, and do not belong in that location.
I agree with many of the points already raised on the public record and believe that if the City Council represents the citizens of Calabasas, it should vote to disapprove the project from moving forward as currently proposed.
I am also opposed to the Rondell project, for many of the same reasons. At one point I heard the project developer say that he believed that the land in that location was 'already blighted'. I do not agree that it is blighted at all, and believe the current natural mountains should be maintained.
Please do not vote to destroy the natural landscape in these areas, and remain consistent with the General Plan and zoning that was wisely put in place before in order to protect the land in perpetuity. This should be consistent with the property owner's right to develop.
As far as revenue for the city from these projects, I believe there are steps the City of Calabasas can take to lower their budget. The amenities and services we enjoy in Calabasas are abundant, and my family enjoys a portion of them as we choose as well. However, it seems that the city has a thirst to continue to grow - in services, in buildings, in new median strips with pretty plants and trees and recycled water plumbing that need to be maintained year after year, and in budget....and therefore, in conjunction with that, it is growing in its tolerance for over-development. I suggest that a better balance in perspective be taken among these. Rather than increasing annual budgets to grow or maintain the city's buildings, staff, and infrastructure, perhaps those revenues can be used to someday obtain ownership of the lands at issue and turn them over to public use.
Sincerely,
Kristina Vieten
From: brian padveen [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 8:24 AMTo: infoSubject: Canyon Oaks
Stop this madness. The traffic , noise and losing the beauty of our community has to be stopped. Thecongestion on Las Virgenes and the freeway is already difficult and will now be a continuous traffic jam.This is what happened with Valencia and it's effect on traffic on the 405. Stop this now! Brian K Padveen.
Sent from my iPhone
TO: City Council and Mayor
Re: Canyon Oaks Project
From: David Walker, Calabasas Property Owner,
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Canyon Oaks Project
I’m president of the 84-unit Malibu Canyon Villas Homeowners Association, but I’m voicing my opposition to the Canyon Oaks Project as a private property owner for the following reasons:
1. The story poles erected on the site illustrate that the community’s iconic view of the mountainswill be lost forever. A private property owner should not be allowed to literally move amountain, raise a valley by dozens of feet, obstruct community views, and create structures thatwill diminish the quality of life for all other property owners, residents and visitors in thecommunity.
2. The proposal to construct two hotels within 100 yards of each other appears to have more to dowith the city’s desire for tax revenue rather than a proven need. Variances from zoning in heightor intrusions into open space zoned land should not be allowed.
3. Any development approval should come with the proviso that public access to De Anzatrailheads must continue in perpetuity. Signs already have been posted regarding limits toaccess to a trailhead that has been in public use for decades.
4. The notion that two hotels and two housing developments will not have a traffic impact isincomprehensible to residents who now cope with a near daily onslaught of traffic jams. Thispast Sunday traffic was backed up from Agoura Road to Lost Hills along Las Virgenes Road.Traffic on Lost Hills at Agoura Hills often is backed up; cutting through commercial property wasour only escape valve, which was blocked recently, apparently at the owner’s request. Howabout putting in a right turn only lane onto Agoura Road from Lost Hills, at least until theoverpass work is completed? Residents remain skeptical that traffic will improve once the LasVirgenes and Lost Hills overpass construction are completed, especially since the southbound101 Freeway is blocked virtually every night while morning and afternoon congestion at A.E.Wright grows worse.
5. The video posted on the City’s website featuring the City Manager trying to explain the facts andrealities of development and the Canyon Oaks Development managed to be offensive andcondescending even as it illustrated what appears to be the city council’s priorities andapproved tactics: a) single family homes generate too little in property taxes for the city; b)Hotels are preferable because they generate more income for the city; c) Big developmentproperty owners get to maximize the profit potential of their land, so get used to it; d) Silly, Illinformed residents need to accept the most current development proposal or, God forbid, aneven more onerous earlier version might reappear; e) All development proposals supposedly arepremised on the city’s master plan, which appears to have allowed too much development, butthe city is willing to allow variances to so as to please and placate developers and get aroundefforts to preserve what made Calabasas desirable to begin with. And, finally f) we’ve heard this
tactic repeatedly from developers: accept our magnanimous compromise or look out. What youwind up with will get worse. To hear this form of blackmail from a developer is not surprising,but from the city’s top employee it was revealing, shocking and disheartening. Seriously? Is thisthe way to engage a community and win support?
From: QING ZHOU [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 11:26 AM To: info; [email protected] Subject: To: City Council & Mayor
Dear City Council,
I am a home-owner in the Stone Creek community in Calabasas. I am writing this email to express my deep concerns about the Canyon Oaks project.
1) We should be voting on this since the developer are requiring changing zoning boundaries on the properties on land that is designated Development Restricted Open Space, which requires 2/3 voter approval. I am against any zoning changes for the Canyon Oaks property.
2) The impact on the views and local traffic will be very negative. The proposed development does not serve the local community as envisioned in the General Plan. The development should fit the land, not the other way around.
I hope you will take into account voice from nearby residents.
Best,
Qing Zhou
From: Gary Rogovin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 9:58 AM To: info Cc: t; Fred Gaines;
Subject: The Canyon Oaks Proposed Development
4-10-16
Dear Calabasas City Council Members,
The Canyon Oaks proposed development in it's current form must be denied for the following reasons:
1) the City should enforce Measure O, the protect Open Space ordinance, that was on the 11/3/15 ballot, which was approved by voters (the electorate) 3506 YES, to 436 NO. The proposed development requires changing zoning boundaries on the property to build on land that is currently designated OS-RP (Development Restricted Open Space). Measure O requires 2/3 voter approval before any land in Calabasas zoned as Restricted Open Space, can be re-zoned for other uses. Unless I am misinformed, I understand that the project specifically proposes to build PORTIONS of the 71 housing units and the hotel in development Restricted Open Space and to that extent falls under Measue O.
2) this property is not zoned for a hotel. The developer is requesting a zoning change to build a hotel and to allow the building of large homes on small lots.
3) impact on the views: excess dirt from grading should be removed and not used to build up the height of the building pads for the houses. Building must be in harmony with and conform to the terrain
4) the proposed development does not serve the local community as envisioned in the general plan. All access from Las Virgenes Road to the property will be cut off (other than to a small bistro in the hotel), including public access to the scenic fire road known as the DeAnza Calabash Trail.
5) the development should fit the land, not vice versa! It should serve the greater community and instead of a hotel, provide a community gathering area sufficient for retail and entertainment for adults and children. Make this a destination location with parking for hikers, bikers and equestrians and provide access to the backcountry's scenic beauty via the fire road. This should be the scenic gateway to Calabasas and the Santa Monica Mountains, a world class destination.
6) the size and scope of the development will result in the massive destruction of the natural hillside on both sides of the canyon with over two million cubic yards of dirt removed. Excess dirt will be moved to the base of the canyon which will create a dirt foundation that will elevate the existing 20 foot high pad at least an additional 30 feet, making it over 55 feet above Las Virgenes Road and forever blocking the view. Thus the grading and movement of the hillside dirt will have a enormous negative impact on the scenic corridor of the community.
7) what is the purpose of having a general plan that was created to preserve the natural beauty and open space of our community, only to have developers always seeking zoning changes to benefit their own pocket. The density of this project violates the spirit of the general plan, which specifically states that local decision making must take into consideration issues where the community has concerns, including those of environmental sensitivity and preservation.
The main reason that the City was formed was to keep development to a minimum, so as to protect our beautifully scenic area. I have read some of the things that City Manager, Tony Coroalles has said wherein he favors development for the tax revenue it brings in to the City. As the size of the City government keeps increasing, there is a need for more revenue. This is a ongoing cycle and a problem with governments in general. The primary goal of the City should be, as was originally intended, the preservation of our beautiful environment and open spaces, as well as government accountability to the citizens of our city, not increasing revenue.
The planning commission has now recommended approval of two developments (Rondell Oasis and Canyon Oaks) in the last few months, both of which contain hotels, while the latter also includes 67 homes and 2 duplex units (for 4 low income housing units).
Enough is enough!
The City Council is the ultimate arbiter on planning commission recommendations, so I ask the council to send this development back to the planning commission so a more thorough and accurate review can be properly conducted. Please don't rush this decision. As elected officials I request that you listen to the input of our citizens and stop this poorly planned over development.
Thank you,Gary Rogovin
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 9:17 AM To: info Subject: To: City Council & Mayor
I am very much against the proposed "Canyon Oaks" development. As a commuter, traffic along Las Virgenes Road in the morning and evening is already very congested, and the idea of adding a large housing development and hotel(s) in that area sickens me. I would like to formally protest that any such measure should not be approved without a vote by the citizens of Calabasas.
Sincerely, J. Scott Youngson
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 8:51 AM To: info Subject: TO: City Council & Mayor concerning Ordinance No. 2016-333 and adoption of Resolution No. 2016-1507
Dear City Council,
My name is Jacy Shillan; I am a long time citizen of Calabasas and the current President of the Stone Creek Homeowners Association. I'm writing to you today to ask for your NO vote on the Agenda item at your April 13th meeting that concerns: Ordinance No. 2016-333 and adoption of Resolution No. 2016-1507.
I sent a letter of opposition regarding the Canyon Oaks proposed development to the Planning Commission on March 15, 2016. I did this in the hope that the submission of my written testimony and my follow up public testimony on March 16th would be seriously considered as the Commissioners reviewed the Canyon Oaks development proposal.
My evaluation after watching very carefully and attending every hour of those Planning Commission meeting’s is that the Planning Commission does not review projects at all, they simply listen to the Staff present all the reasons that the developer’s plans meet any and all requirements. Then they ask some questions and pass it on to the Council. This was made perfectly clear when Commissioner Washburn asked Staff if there were “any sore thumbs or problem areas”, Staff stated, “No,they could not think of any.” Now, how can that be remotely possible in a proposal that’s made up of dozens of study’s and thousands of pages of documentation?
You can see why I’m dismayed at this flawed process. I've personally read through the reports and documents. Additionally, I was involved in the development of the Calabasas Coalition’s Citizen’s Report that you will receive prior to the April 13th meeting. The Calabasas Coalition developed this Citizen’s Report because of the bias Staff Reporting and the lack of sufficient review of the documentation related to this project that occurred in the Planning Commission hearings.
Now here we are, less than one month since those meetings and Canyon Oaks is in front of you. What’s positive is that’s very clear to see you can only vote NO on Ordinance No. 2016-333 and Resolution No. 2016-1507. It turns out there are many sore thumbs and problem areas and the Staff has specifically buried and covered up these facts in order to favor the developer’s proposal.
Here are the main areas where this development fails to meet requirements and violates existing ordinances and rules set for in the City of Calabasas:
This development is proposed on land currently designated Development Restricted Open Space (OS-RP). That means there should be NO development. This is enforceable within Measure D and the newly passed Measure O, our protect Open Space ordinance. There has been much dispute on this matter,
mostly by the Staff. They presented the land map at the Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday 3/16 and when concerned Citizens testified that the development is planned in open space, they actually came back the next day, Thursday 3/17, with a new map with new boundaries. Their explanation was that the map that had been made public and had been used in the Staff report was wrong. The result of this intentional document switching should have led the Planning Commission to stop the proceeds and deny the applicant. Unfortunately, they took no such action.
Whatever map the Staff chooses to use to better service the developer, this situation is clear, there is a real possibility that development is planned of open space. So I urge you to support our open space now as a priority and if there is even a hint of development planned on it, the proposal must be denied. You have the power to do that with your NO vote on this ordinance and resolution.
Next, this property is NOT zoned for a hotel at all. Within this proposal, the developer is requesting various zoning changes to not only build a hotel but to allow the building of large homes on small lots. All these components require zoning changes that must be denied and you must vote NO on this ordinance and resolution.
Next, the development proposed should fit the land, not the other way around! No proposal should receive City support unless it adheres to these factors at the very minimum:
1. · No development at all in designated Open Space. 2. · Any and all buildings must be built at street level, without elevated pads. 3. · Excess dirt from grading must be removed and not used to build up the height of the building
pads houses or any buildings. 4. · The height of any and all buildings must not exceed 35 ft from street level. 5. · The development must serve the greater Community as envisioned in the General Plan.
The first four items on the list of requirements above can be measured and verified, but what is not as easily handled is how the developer must propose a development that serves the community. I suggest that to better serve the greater community deny a hotel, which the property is not zoned for, and create a community gathering area sufficient for retail and entertainment. Then follow the requirements listed in 1 through 4 where any part of the development is concerned.
Vote NO on Ordinance No. 2016-333 and Resolution No. 2016-1507. Your NO vote will send a message to the developer to only submit a development proposal that follows the rules set forth today and serves the greater community. Then they can propose something that celebrates the amazing natural and rural beauty of our City, provides a service to the community and can be a business success.
Thank you, Jacy Shillan President of the Stone Creek HOA Long time resident of Calabasas
From: Greg and Bonnie Higa [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 8:44 AM To: [email protected]; info Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: To Calabasas City Council & Mayor
Well done Byron!
I will plagiarize this letter and throw my name on it too.
Thanks,
Greg
On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 8:50 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
I have lived in the Deer Springs development since 1995. I supported the City Councils and adjoining neighborhoods in preserving our community's natural resources by opposing the Ahmanson Ranch development, Home Depot, the water park, the strip mall & cinema along with other projects that are now history. I was grateful that my City Council members and Mayor abided by jurisprudence and did not allow shortcuts to be taken in favor of those projects. I was grateful that my City Council members and Mayor listened to the longtime residents who wanted to preserve our community for all the residents to enjoy and benefit and rejected all those projects.
Therefore, I oppose the Canyon Oaks proposed development. I hope that the City Council members and Mayor will do the right thing, listen to the long time residents and reject the Canyon Oaks proposed development.
Sincerely,
Byron Chee
Original MessageFrom: Dave Anderson [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 2:02 PMTo: infoSubject: City council and Mayor
Want to record my no vote for new hotel in Calabasas. Area already crowded (and over developed).Leave area alone please.
David Anderson818 880 8575
From: Beth Stockwell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 8:44 AM To: info Subject: STOP CANYON OAKS! - PLEASE FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL
#1. We should be voting on this! The City should enforce Measure O, the protect Open Space ordinance that many voted for this past November. The developer requires changing zoning boundaries on the property to build on land that is currently designated Development Restricted Open Space (OS-RP). Measure O requires 2/3 voter approval before any land in Calabasas zoned as restricted open space can be rezoned for other uses.
#2. Please oppose ALL zoning changes for the Canyon Oaks property. This property is NOT zoned for a hotel. The developer is requesting a zoning change to build a hotel and to allow the building of large homes on small lots.
#3. Please oppose the impact on the views. Excess dirt from grading should be removed and not used to build up the height of the building pads for the houses. Building must conform to the natural terrain.
#4. The proposed development does not serve the local community as envisioned in the General Plan. Other than a small bistro in the hotel, all access from Las Virgenes Road to the property will be cut off. This includes public access to the scenic fire road known as the DeAnza Calabash Trail.
#5. The development should fit the land, not the other way around! It should serve the greater Community and instead of a hotel, provide a community gathering area sufficient for retail and entertainment for children and adults. Make this a destination location with parking for equestrians, bikers, and hikers. Provide access to the backcountry with its scenic beauty via the fire road. Let this be the scenic gateway to Calabasas and the Santa Monica Mountains, a world class destination.
From: mark green [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 7:23 AM To: info Subject: to city couccil and mayor
Dear city council and mayor, I am writing to oppose the canyon oaks development on the west side of calabasas. It is in violation of proposition O which stipulates that there should be a general election to vote on the re zoning of open space. Also the area is not zoned for a hotel in the general plan. The founding fathers also stipulated in the general plan that re zoning or projects should not be put in place to chase tax revenue. The buding on this site should fit the land. The proposed elevation of the land will affect views forever and destroy the natural rolling hills in favor of man made grading in this picturesque valley.
Thanks for your consideration
Mark grueninger, homeowner on parkmor rd.
From: Tim Oswald [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 8:43 AM To: info Subject: To: City Council and Mayor
We write to express our strong opposition to what appears to be a rushed approval of the proposed Canyon Oaks development at Las Virgenes & Agoura Roads.
Given the size, scope and disruptive nature of this development, in addition to the requirements of Measure O with respect to rezoning, this development should be put to a vote of the electorate.
This property is not zoned for a hotel and the entire nature of it violates the spirit – if not the letter – of the City’s General Plan. Even worse, this is directly adjacent to another planned 4 story hotel. Dramatic and irreversible changes of this magnitude and density to dedicated open space and requests for ordinance waivers should be subject to a citizen vote. In view of Measure O and the commitments you have made to the voters, the City Council simply does not have the authority or the mandate to permit massive urban development on these parcels by way of a simple majority vote.
We urge you to reject this unwarranted development and oppose all zoning changes for the proposed project.
Thank you.
Tim & Christie Oswald 26838 Alsace Drive. Calabasas
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 9:19 PM To: info Subject: To: City Counsel and Mayor
As a 41 year resident of Calabasas, now designated West Calabasas, we are disappointed in our city leadership as it relates to the lack of oversight on the current proposed developments on Las Virgenes Rd., Brent's Junction. Please DO NOT ALLOW the changes to the CURRENT General Plan. Building height and preventing access to our open space are concerns, along with increased traffic and a greater burden on our only elementary school, Lupin Hill.Measure O was overwhelmingly passed by our citizens so that our open space can be protected and enjoyed for future generations. Please enforce the will of the people. Sincerely,Maureen Todd
From: Anita McQuillan [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 10:54 PM To: info Subject: City Council & Mayor
The Canyon Oaks proposed Development Dear City Council & Mayor, I am opposed to the Canyon Oaks proposed development because:#1. We should be voting on this! The City should enforce Measure O, the protect Open Space ordinance that many voted for this past November. The developer requires changing zoning boundaries on the property to build on land that is currently designated Development Restricted Open Space (OS-RP). Measure O requires 2/3 voter approval before any land in Calabasas zoned as restricted open space can be rezoned for other uses.#2. Please oppose ALL zoning changes for the Canyon Oaks property. This property is NOT zoned for a hotel. The developer is requesting a zoning change to build a hotel and to allow the building of large homes on small lots.#3. Please oppose the impact on the views. Excess dirt from grading should be removed and not used to build up the height of the building pads for the houses. Building must conform to the natural terrain.#4. The proposed development does not serve the local community as envisioned in the General Plan. Other than a small bistro in the hotel, all access from Las Virgenes Road to the property will be cut off. This includes public access to the scenic fire road known as the DeAnza Calabash Trail.#5. The development should fit the land, not the other way around! It should serve the greater Community and instead of a hotel, provide a community gathering area sufficient for retail and entertainment forchildren and adults. Make this a destination location with parking for equestrians, bikers, and hikers. Provide access to the backcountry with its scenic beauty via the fire road. Let this be the scenic gateway to Calabasas and the Santa Monica Mountains, a world class destination. Anita McQuillan
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 8:51 PM To: info Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: To Calabasas City Council & Mayor
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
I have lived in the Deer Springs development since 1995. I supported the City Councils and adjoining neighborhoods in preserving our community's natural resources by opposing the Ahmanson Ranch development, Home Depot, the water park, the strip mall & cinema along with other projects that are now history. I was grateful that my City Council members and Mayor abided by jurisprudence and did not allow shortcuts to be taken in favor of those projects. I was grateful that my City Council members and Mayor listened to the longtime residents who wanted to preserve our community for all the residents to enjoy and benefit and rejected all those projects.
Therefore, I oppose the Canyon Oaks proposed development. I hope that the City Council members and Mayor will do the right thing, listen to the long time residents and reject the Canyon Oaks proposed development.
Sincerely,
Byron Chee
From: Hurry Harry [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 5:46 PM To: info Subject: City Council and the Mayor
The Canyon Oaks development is going against the laws of the city. We should be voting on this! The City should enforce Measure O, the protect Open Space ordinance that we voted for this past November. This is zoned for open space and not voting on this is breaking the law. This should go to the vote of the people. This is why we have elections to vote on what goes on in our community. There should be no building at all.I am opposed to ALL zoning changes for the Canyon Oaks property. This property is NOT zoned for a hotel. I am opposed to the impact on the views.The proposed development is a tragedy. Based on Greed. This is the scenic gateway to the mountains and ocean and a home to our wild life. Once the property is destroyed you can never get it back. Rutgers University did a study and communities with open space have higher tax revenues. I would think you would have learned your lesson with the shopping center on Maddy's property. Not only is it an eye sore it has bad energy. The center is a loss. This should go to the vote of the people. Stop the development of open space land. Stop all the development in Calabasas. You are ruining every square inch of beautiful land. The grading makes me sick everyday when I go out my door.Harriette Huron
From: Cindy Roth [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 3:15 PM To: info Subject: The Planning Commission, City Council and the Mayor
My family and I are opposed to the Canyon Oaks proposed development and you should reject this project in its entirety AND require a Public Workshop before making any decisions. Canyon Oaks does not adhere the General Plan and does not incorporate public health, safety, and "quality of life" into land use determinations. We should be voting on this! The City should be enforcing Measure O, the protect Open Space Ordinance that was passed by voters this past November. This property is NOT zoned for a hotel and the entire proposal violates the General Plan. The grading and removal of the hillside will have an enormous impact on our community. The dirt movement in Cubic yards for the Canyon Oaks project is outrageous. The height from the street level will block the views and disrupt the natural beauty of the area FOREVER. The natural beauty of this area is what has drawn my family and many of neighbors to this wonderful community and inspired us to call it home. Taking this away is just heart wrenching to watch. Please save the community we fell in love with. Please reject the proposed Canyon Oaks development.
Cindy Roth, Calabasas resident
From: David Anderson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 2:11 PM To: info Subject: City Council and Mayor
Want to recorded my no vote for new hotel in Calabasas. Area already over developed (in my opinion). Make area more difficult to traverse and uglify the area.
David Anderson 5912 Ruthwood Dr Calabasas, Ca 91302
From: MM MM [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 2:09 PM To: info Subject: city council and mayor- oppose to canyon oaks project
We oppose to the Canyon Oaks Development.
Do not make zoning change.
The council members voted for open space and we need it for the quality life in west side of Calabasas as well as East side of Calabasas. Do not use the power to change our community. Already we are losing more open space.
From: Dana Sharon [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 1:32 PM To: info Subject: Opposition to Canyon Oaks Developement
My husband and I oppose the entire Canyon Oaks proposed development.
The property is not zoned for a hotel and the entire proposal violates the General plan.
The planning commission should reject this project in its entirely. We the citizens of Calabasas should have our opinions heard. You, as the commission should have our side on these kinds of decisions and not the developers.
Wishing you good health,
Dana Sharon RGEB Employee Benefits 21515 Vanowen St. Ste 200 Canoga Park, CA 91303
818-444-7722 phone 818-444-7727 fax
From: Jack Hurley [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 1:27 PMTo: infoSubject: To City Council and Mayor re. the Canyon Oaks proposed zoning change
This is a letter in very strong opposition the proposed rezoning to accommodate the Canyon Oaksdevelopment. As a long time resident of Calabasas I find that this development is totally unfit for it'splanned location in Calabasas and is direct opposition to the sense of the Open Space ordinanceMeasure O that the city passed in November. The requested rezoning is wrong for Calabasas and theproposed location of this entire development is wrong for the scenic beauty of the foothills of the SantaMonica Mountains. The story poles that have been put in place on the site certainly tell " the story." Thedestruction of sight lines and the obvious requirement for gouging out major portions of the hillsidesalong Las Virgenes Road is in direct opposition to the desires AND the needs of our community. Neitherthe hotel or the proposed oversized homes are worth the loss of open space that would result from thiszoning change and subsequent development.
Please do not approve the proposed zoning change I add my voice to what I am sure would be a largefraction of Calabasas voters who will vote against such a change. This project's development must notgo forward.
Thank you for your attention,
John. W Hurley, Jr27072 Esward Dr.Saratoga Hills
From: Karen Tiffany [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 1:16 PM To: info Subject: To Mayor and City Council
This is to go on record as our opposition to the Canyon Oaks proposal. Here are some of the reasons:
We should be voting on this. The City should be enforcing Measure O. We oppose all zoning changes for this property. Excess dirt should be exported from the property, not used to create a 30 foot platform. Building and development should conform to the natural terrain. The project should benefit the community, not the developer.
We also fully support the presentation which will be made by the Calabasas Coalition at the April 13th hearing and presents the above points as well as others.
Karen Tiffany Bob Robbins
From: RichB [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 1:06 PM To: info Subject: City Council & Mayor (new development on Las Virgines)
Let me begin by saying very disappointed with the City of Calabasas for building the Shopping Center on corner of Lost Hills and Agoura Road. The shopping center is an eye sore and apparently majority of businesses have folded or having problems with momentum of business.
City of Agoura and WLV understand how to build a Shopping Center, they are easy on the eyes and inviting to shop. Bottom Line is to increase taxes to the City. Apparently this shopping center has failed you have not learned your lesson. Need to fire approval committee would best solution.
Next subject, the premise for new hotel will only compliment the disaster you allowed to built on Lost Hills and Agoura. If you allow this land to be built on, can easily tie in the landscaping of hills as a Village for shopping with cool theme stores nestled into hills side. Allowing this land to be Zoned for hotel which will be another huge mistake. Could only assume the decision makers do not live this area, just imagine living nearby looking out the window with that view.
Not sure what is decision criteria is used and/or what drives you to cont'd to allow this Hotel to be built, but will say "shame on you". Your have been a disgrace to community for allowing this type of construction to ruin this community.
From: Louis, Tami [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 1:02 PM To: info Subject: City Council/ Mayer Importance: High
For the record I am against the building on Las Virginias for the proposed Homes and Hotels. It is ridiculous how the City has destroyed the Landscape on Las Virginias. Please find your inner conscience. Once gone the hills will never return. It is on your watch. It is clear the City will keep building to pay the large salaries for staff.
This is wrong… Plus the City Council favors the DEVELOPERS as they are on the Council and this is also wrong. Can’t wait to vote again. DO THE RIGHT THING by the tax payers of your City.. the RED TAIL HAWK is our symbol. Maybe you should change that to a building.It is very stressful living on this road with all of the construction. There is dirt, dust and TRAFFIC and it is Dangerous with all the cones and equipment everywhere. LISTEN!!!!!
Tami Louis20 year resident
From: Myrna Rose [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 12:38 PM To: info Subject: NO,, NO, NO, NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PLEASE !!!!! No developments on our beautiful, clean land!!!! We moved here to get away from congestion and traffic. You will be adding to that with your awful idea!!!!PLEASE!!!!!NO, NO,NO !!!!! Myrna R. resident of Calabasas
From: Nagwa [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 10:22 AM To: info Subject: To City council and Mayor
I am writing to protest the rushing of the development located at the intersection of Agouraand Las Vergenes roads. This matter should be put to a vote by the people of community. Thisdevelopment will destroy the natural beauty of the area and shatter its tranquility. I urge theCity Council to seriously consider our objections and not to rush its decision.
Nagwa Sadek
From: macbird8974 [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 12:29 PM To: info Subject: OPPOSE Canyon Oaks
This letter is to serve as my documented position on the New Homes Canyon Oaks Development. I am strongly opposed to this project.
New Homes has not reached out to me and my neighbors about what is going up on that land. I recall something in February 2015 but that was over a year ago and I only heard something through a neighbor.
What happened to the idea of holding public workshops? The Planning Commission failed to give serious consideration to the requests of residents. Please do not follow that lead as Council Members.
I am very disappointed that a project with so many negative impacts on the community has somehow found itself at a hearing. This project is not in any condition to be approved - there are so many issues still not addressed.
Vote NO on Canyon Oaks on April 13.
John Aldridge Longtime resident Saratoga Hills
From: Dorothy McKeown [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 12:24 PM To: info Subject: Fwd: Canyon Oaks
To Whom It May Concern,
I oppose the Canyon Oaks Project. Whoever is promising New Homes free reign on our precious land and sightlines should be removed from any affiliation with the City of Calabasas. How is it that the same developer of Avanti has come back again to build a monstrosity and this is being entertained by the City Council?
Respect your constituents and vote No on Canyon Oaks tomorrow.
Dorothy---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dorothy McKeown <[email protected]>Date: Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 1:00 PM Subject: Canyon Oaks To: [email protected]
To Whom It May Concern,
I oppose the Canyon Oaks hotel. I do not wish to see the hillsides and valley destroyed by a developer. The Avanti complex is a terrible example of what this developer has already done to destroy my city.
Vote No on this development at the meeting tonight.
Dorothy
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 10:04 AM To: info Subject: City Council & Mayor
To the Honorable Lucy Martin and esteemed Council Members of The City of Calabasas,
As a resident who will be impacted by the proposed Canyon Oaks development, I must speak.
My husband and I are in the entertainment industry and have moved around quite a bit. I for one was notenthusiastic about moving out to “the middle of nowhere” (my words), but since I’ve been here, I have beenthe happiest I’ve ever been in my life. I love having the beautiful open space. The hills are wonderful and Iam saddened to see that change for ANOTHER gated community of million dollar homes and a hotel that wedon’t need. This action will cut off the scenic fire road trail.
We are a sleepy bedroom community and what I see in our future is clogged roads that are already impactingthe free flow of traffic. The space designated for this development is right at the entrance to the 101 andsince I’ve been here that area has been getting more and more congested. I live just off Las Virgenes andMureau Road. I’ve seen what happens when the 101 is backed up. What is going to happen for the nextthree to four years while this development levels our beautiful hills? Traffic is also backed up due to thecurrent construction on Las Virgenes less than a half mile from this proposed development.
I am a book Narrator working from my home studio. Noise pollution is already a big problem with planesoverhead and traffic and leaf blowers. What happens to my livelihood when my microphone picks up theconstruction noise from this project? I’ll tell you. I’m out of business. If working at night is my only option,my family suffers.
We already have a coyote problem. When those hills are destroyed the coyotes will have nowhere togo. Right now, I am able to let my pets roam my backyard without too much worry. With those hills gone,that will change.
We are already water restricted. With seventy two more LARGE homes and a hotel that is taller than theordinance allows, we will have even more restrictions.
I’m begging you to reconsider this project. We already have a hotel less than a half mile away. As for moremansions...we have plenty.
This land has been designated Open Space for a reason and Perpetuity means: the state or quality oflasting forever.
Why are you going against the will of the residents to overturn an ordinance they put in place?
Why? For more money? For only 180 permanent jobs? Calabasas is one of the wealthiest communities inthe area.
HOWMANY ORDINANCES WILL BE CHANGED JUST FOR THIS PROJECT? ORDINANCES THAT WERE PUT INPLACE BY THE RESIDENTS. This land depends on us to preserve it. We can’t allow it to be bulldozed andpaved over. We will lose what’s beautiful and special about this amazing place. The Calabasas websitespeaks about our city’s dedication the environmental preservation. Let this project be the example of thatdedication.
WEMUST PRESERVE OPEN SPACE FOR OUR WELL BEING. FOR OUR CHILDREN.
Will we take all of our hills down for one more gated community?
Respectfully Concerned and Opposed,
Toni Tergesen5420 Parkmor RoadCalabasas, CA 91302
From: Hayden Miller [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 10:59 AM To: info Subject: To City Council & Mayor
Hello,
I am a 23 year old resident of Calabasas and I strongly disagree with the Canyon Oaks development project. I can not believe you are not allowing the residents to vote on the project. Also, in no way does the proposed development serve the community as intended in the city's general plan. Although I wish nothing would be built there at all so that we can preserve wildlife, I am sure there is a way to decrease the massive project. Please listen to your community. No one wants this project except developers and outsiders. STOP the Canyon Oaks Project.
Concerned Citizen
PS- you shouldn't build hotels either, they are completely unnecessary
From: Gregory Higa [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 10:56 AM To: info Subject: City Council and Mayor
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
I have lived in the Deer Springs development since 1995. I supported the City Councils and adjoining neighborhoods in preserving our community's natural resources by opposing the Ahmanson Ranch development, Home Depot, the water park, the strip mall & cinema along with other projects that are now history. I was grateful that my City Council members and Mayor abided by jurisprudence and did not allow shortcuts to be taken in favor of those projects. I was grateful that my City Council members and Mayor listened to the longtime residents who wanted to preserve our community for all the residents to enjoy and benefit and rejected all those projects.
Therefore, I oppose the Canyon Oaks proposed development. I hope that the City Council members and Mayor will do the right thing, listen to the long time residents and reject the Canyon Oaks proposed development.
Sincerely,
Greg
Gregory A. HigaSr. Thought Leader Liaison - OphthalmologyGenentech(O/C) - 818-426-4274(F) - [email protected]
From: Tim Nguyen [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 3:13 PM To: Talyn Mirzakhanian Subject: Re: Canyon Oaks - please support
Hi Talyn and the City Council,
I support this project - see below.
-- sent from the GS 6 --
On Mar 16, 2016 10:07 AM, "Tim Nguyen" <[email protected]> wrote: Dear City Council,
I am writing to you as a taxpayer, community advocate, and a person with business interests in the West Valley and Ventura County.
I urge the City Council to approve this project. First and foremost, we are in a housing crisis in SoCal, and more housing is generally needed.
Our communities are at times faced with accepting projects that does not add value to our neighborhoods and at times could be detrimental to our neighborhoods. HOWEVER, this project looks to be very high-quality, from a reputable local firm, and being proposed in the right part of town.
Additionally, the Canyon Oaks project will add jobs and bring should bring positive economic and fiscal impact to the city. Please approve this project.
Feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions.
Thank you.
Regards,
Tim
[Type here]
Glynn & Kathryn Palmer 26816 Cold Springs Street
Calabasas, California 91301
April 12, 2016
City Council, City of Calabasas
100 Civic Center Way
Calabasas, California 91302
Canyon Oaks Proposed Development
Honorable Council Members:
We have lived in the City of Calabasas since 1999 and have owned our home since 2004. We were drawn to this area because of the open space and numerous parks surrounding our home here in Deer Springs. Living within walking distance of Juan Batista Park with its trailhead leading to Malibu Creek State Park and the National Park Service’s Cheseboro with its majestic trails, views, and tranquility enhance our lives beyond words.
Whenever we drive home from the San Fernando Valley, the views at the top of the Calabasas Grade from the 101 Freeway never fail to elicit a sigh of relief that we are nearly home; away from the congestion and traffic of the majority of Los Angeles County.
The proposed development near the intersection of Las Virgenes Road and the 101 Freeway is in no way within the spirit of our community. The City’s own general plan does not allow for such development and the City Council should reject the request for a variance. Open Space here within the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area is a fundamental part of our wonderful quality of life.As it is, we residents suffer the burden of commuter traffic, inadequate infrastructure and congested roads unable to handle the amount of traffic already here.
City Council, City of CalabasasApril 12, 2016
Page 2
For example, the intersection of Agoura Road and Lost Hills Road where the entrance to the 101 Freeway is located is a virtual nightmare between the hours of 4:00 and 6:00 Monday through Friday. The Calabasas incline between Las Virgenes and Parkway Calabasas is a parking lot every afternoon making it very frustrating to even get our son to his swimming class at the Calabasas Tennis and Swim Center by 4:15 on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
There already exists a glut of vacant commercial space along Agoura Road. The shopping center at the corner of Agoura and Lost Hills Roads have had tenants close up shop and leave the area (Wolf Creek Restraint, the yogurt shop, and the previous health food market to name a few.)
The only additional development desperately needed by the City of Calabasas is affordable housing for all of the people who make our community safe, clean, and well educated. Folks like firemen, teachers, retail and restaurant workers, administrative assistants, etc. Calabasas-or any city-would not be able to function without such fine people. Yet the City has failed to insist that developers build such housing along with failing to have developers-who profit so handsomely from the expensive properties they build-provide road, parking and other necessary infrastructure improvements, the critical things required to support a city into the future. Not to mention adequate water!
Our home did not grow here with the trees. In fact, we remember when the property our neighborhood occupies was open space. Be that as it may, we paid a lot of money for our home which is within the smallest foot-print possible for single family homes. It is the City Council’s business to enact laws and approve development that is in the best interest of the citizens who voted you into office.You are our representatives notwithstanding the often outrageous attempts by city staff to manipulate the process such as when staff attempted to push through the development of a water park, commercial space and parking at Juan Batista Park a few years ago.
You have a sacred duty to protect our city and represent the residents who elected you into office. You must expand the public’s participation in the planning process for our city. Deviations from the general plan such as the proposed Canyon Oaks development should be decided by the residents whose lives will be significantly affected.
City Council, City of CalabasasApril 12, 2016
Page 3
Please keep the political process transparent and open to the participation of the people who live here. Let the rest of America see that democracy is alive and well in the City of Calabasas.
Thank you for your consideration
Glynn & Kathryn Palmer
Cc: Agoura Acorn
Las Virgenes Enterprise
April 12, 2016
Calabasas City Hall100 Civic Center WayCalabasas, CA. 91302
Dear Mayor Bozajian and City Councilmembers:
I am deeply concerned about the current proposal for Canyon Oaks. I oppose any zoning change forthis property. A hotel will most likely be built just 120 yards from the Canyon Oaks site (on the Rondellproperty). The Rondell site is zoned for a hotel; Canyon Oaks is not. We do not need two hotels nextto each other.
The current proposal for Canyon Oaks does little to serve the community, with the exception of a smalltapas bistro. The courtyard for cocktail parties or “farm to table dinner” parties, the business centerand boardroom are of little use to our community. The “recreational and social center of CanyonOaks” will not serve the public, as it will be for the gated community1. I do applaud New Homes,however, for including low income housing (but I believe that would probably be required in anydevelopment the City approves).
The General Plan envisioned a “village” concept for the Canyon Oaks site. A “gathering place” wouldserve the west side of Calabasas well – much more so than a hotel and yet another gated community.Many west side residents currently go to Agoura or the Commons to gather. Our community would bebetter served by having a village concept instead of a hotel. Because this is virtually the last“buildable” parcel in our area, we have this single opportunity to create something that will not onlyserve the community, but will also showcase the unique city that is Calabasas. We are fortunate tohave one of the most spectacular environments in Southern California. Let’s not squander it by fillingin the canyon and slapping a hotel and a gated community that will rise 70+ feet above the street.
The General Plan is clear in its intent regarding hillside development. It states its policy is to “minimizethe alteration of existing landforms and maintain the natural topographic characteristics of hillsideareas, allowing only the minimal disruption required to recognize basic property rights.”2 City codesalso require that “A development should preserve the hillside rather than alter it to fit thedevelopment” and “Structures shall be sited in a manner that will fit into hillside contours and the formof the terrain.”3 I would love to have someone with the City or the developer explain just how filling inthe canyon to create a 30 foot high pad for estate homes is “minimal disruption” of the area or “fitsinto hillside contours”. As currently proposed, Canyon Oaks flies in the face of the General Plan.
1 http://www.canyonoakscalabasas.com/land planning/canyon oaks amended plan/2 General Plan: Policies, III 123 City code 17.20.150 Hillside and Ridgeline development
Regarding the proposed zoning change: The developer is requesting to use the Residential Multifamily 20 zoning to build their homes. However, the RM 20 description allows “small, detached singlefamily homes”4. New Homes own website describes their homes as “single family estate residences”5
I contend that when using the description “small, detached single family homes” that the intent wasnot for large estate home to be crammed together on small lots. The developer claims that nodevelopment will be occurring on hillsides.6 That statement appears to be true – but only becausethere will be virtually no hillside left. The fill from the hotel excavation will be used to create a flat pad(30 feet high, thereby filling in the canyon and eliminating those pesky hillsides). I am quoting only acouple of passages from the General Plan for brevity, but there are many other passages that addressits vision for this parcel, as well as development in general.
In conclusion, we all know that this land will be developed. What I ask is that you:Please keep in mind what our City Founders had in mind when Calabasas incorporated.If it’s been a while since you’ve read the General Plan and its passages regarding development,take another look. It’s an amazing, astute document with a clear vision for Calabasas’ future.Re examine the current Canyon Oaks proposal and compare it to the above two requests.
I believe that if you look at the proposed project honestly and complete the above three requests, youwill agree that Canyon Oaks must be denied because it violates the General Plan and City Code.
Sincerely,
Frances AletCalabasas
4 City Code 17.13.010 Residential Districts B (Residential, Multifamily)5 http://www.canyonoakscalabasas.com/land planning/canyon oaks amended plan/6 http://www.canyonoakscalabasas.com/land planning/canyon oaks amended plan/
Williams Letter in Support of Canyon Oaks
1
Stephanie Williams 24932 Norman’s Way, Calabasas, CA 91302
818-312-0796
Updated Letter in Support of the Canyon Oaks Project April 13, 2016 Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council, and City Staff, As you know, I am a long-time Calabasas resident. I have lived here since 1997, and I’m an involved community member, serving as one of your Calabasas Traffic Commissioners, the Vice President of the CPHA Board, and the PFC President at A.C. Stelle. When the Canyon Oaks Project came before the Planning Commission, I submitted a letter in support, and attended part of the two-day session. Unfortunately, family obligations kept me from attending the entire public comment, although I was able to watch most of it on the CTV replay. Tonight, I will attend the Council meeting and will do my best to stay as long as needed so that I can speak in support of this project. I wanted to send you an updated letter as well, to be sure my comments can be made part of the record. Once again, I am writing in support of the Canyon Oaks Project before you tonight. My decision to support this project was not made lightly or quickly. Many factors went into my decision, and I believe this project is right for the site and for Calabasas for quite a few reasons. As explained below, the most important of those benefits are the desperately needed amenities and gathering spaces the project offers, along with important revenue and sidewalks/bike paths. Also, after watching almost the entire public comment and Planning Commission discussion from my home, I was more impressed than ever with the New Home Company’s willingness to be a truly good neighbor to Calabasas. When we look at this application at its simplest, this is an application by a private landowner who has rights under the General Plan to build an enormous development. However, out of respect for our process and a desire to be successful (for itself, of course, but also for all of us), the landowner is willing to build significantly less and contribute in very large ways to our community. I believe it would be foolish for us to lose sight of this key posture as we consider the application. Once again, I want to assure you that I have spent a great deal of time over the last three years studying the Canyon Oaks proposal as it has evolved. The New Home Company asked for input from the community and then responded to that comment by changing its plans, and doing so three separate times. I believe that the design presented to you this evening is reflective of the many comments the applicant has received from its neighbors and other stakeholders. I was not shy in making my own comments about the design over the last three years, and I know that the New Home Company truly listened to me and my fellow residents, and did its best to incorporate our comments in good faith and as a good neighbor. Moreover, I recognize that neither this project, nor any project, will ever satisfy those who insist we build nothing in their part of town. Nonetheless, I know the Canyon Oaks Project is a proper choice for Calabasas environmentally and in terms of our Master Plan. Surely we cannot remain a leading City, with all the benefits our residents demand (a Senior Center, expensive Preschool, Transit Program, and more), and yet continue to fight the reasonable and proper development that keeps us on the leading edge. Additionally, there was a full Environmental Impact Report created for Canyon Oaks, and the results assure us the project is positive. The Canyon Oaks Draft EIR now in front of you found no project alternative to be
Williams Letter in Support of Canyon Oaks
2
environmentally superior over the proposed plan when the project objectives were considered as required by CEQA. In fact, nine of the ten resource areas of environmental impact studied did not require mitigation or feasibly can be reduced to “Less Than Significant” levels with the implementation of recommended mitigation. More specifically, an impressive 42 of 43 subissues did not require mitigation or feasibly can be reduced to “Less Than Significant” levels with the implementation of recommended mitigation. This plan mitigates its impacts in a very comprehensive manner, and in a way that makes me comfortable supporting it. Finally, after all of my review, including of the materials at the Planning Commission, I have a very long list of specific, updated reasons I believe this project is right for Calabasas: (1) Canyon Oaks will fund the addition of sidewalks, bike lanes, and a new landscaped median. Thus, in addition to providing an internal walkway system, this project will create a network of sidewalks and paths that will finally provide safe passage along Las Virgenes Road to the existing trails surrounding the site. My boys and I love hiking these trails and we know first-hand how much the Canyon Oaks improvements will help our residents. (2) Canyon Oaks will provide funding to help with the widening of the Las Virgenes Rd./Agoura Road intersection, which we all know is desperately needed. The project will also lead to the fewest car trips on Las Virgenes we could possibly expect given the right the owner has to develop this land in significant ways. (3) The New Home Company will be responsible for providing funding for an extension to the City’s $4.3 million Las Virgenes Scenic Improvement Plan, specific to that area fronting Canyon Oaks. (4) This project will add much-needed revenue to the City’s budget. Calabasas has now agreed to spend more than budgeted on the Senior Center and to continue operating a declining preschool that runs as a huge loss. And, in recent months we have lost $650,000 a year in tax income from Spirent and Acura. In other words, the City desperately needs the tax revenue this project will generate, especially the TOT from a four-star boutique hotel. (4) The project includes a high end hotel and dining space for Calabasas, which we desperately need. It’s time for our guests to be able to stay in Calabasas and not spend their visits with family traveling on the 101 to hotels in Westlake or Warner Center. (5) Finally, I am tired of watching the flight of our young families to Agoura and of leaving Calabasas myself for amenities just not offered here. It is time to make Calabasas about all of our residents. We need to be more open to new things in Calabasas, or we will continue to lose young families and thriving businesses to Agoura. This project presents a great opportunity to make sure that what happens on the Canyon Oaks site is complementary to what is already around the site, in contrast to what is allowed under the General Plan. As I have said in the past, I do not want to deny a good project, and thereby revert to something over which we have less control. I like the revisions made to this project, and would much rather we work with the applicant, who has tried very hard to be a good neighbor here, than deny this and start over with another larger project. For all of these reasons, I urge you to approve the Canyon Oaks Project. Thank you, Stephanie Stephanie Williams
From: Edd Hanzelik [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 2:02 PM To: info Subject: City Council and Mayor
I am writing to express my concern regarding the proposed Canyon Oaks development. From what I understand this project has the potential to adversely affect the long-range vision we have for the community of Calabasas.I do not feel the community has been given adequate time to consider this proposal to see if it is in the best interests of Calabasas. My understanding is that the people of Calabasas voted in measure O to protect open spaces and that a two thirds approval is needed from us before land can be rezoned from restricted open space to other purposes. Doesn't that apply here? My request is that this process be opened up so the residents can better understand what is proposed and can decide if we give this our support.
Sincerely, Edward Hanzelik MD 8188808067
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 2:07 PM To: info Subject: Objection!!!
Please sign me for any petition AGAINST this construction!!! SAVE OUR HILLS AND PRIVACY AND SAFETY!!!
Warmest Regards,
Cami Rhodes
Cell: 818-370-9301BRE# 01970925NMLS# 1170901
From: Dan Weiner [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 11:19 AM To: Bob Burris; Rachel Biety; Deborah Steller Subject: "NO on Canyon Oaks Development!"
As an original homeowner in Mont Calabasas and a former HOA Board member, I am speaking for myself and family (5 adults total) in strongly opposing this development on Las Virgenes Road.
The traffic I experience on my daily commute, even at 5:30am when I leave for the office, is unacceptable as is and this construction and added building will only exacerbate the issue. Where is the research that shows the business need for not only one but two additional hotels? This feels like a very greedy and self motivated effort to benefit individuals and not the community at large. More insulting, frankly, is the obvious conflict of interest with certain city council member’s professional and city council duties — a fact that recusing oneself from meetings, will still not solve for. How is this even being allowed outside of a Hollywood script? If revenue is the only reason the city council is considering pushing this through, then shame on them. This is a city whose fiscal responsibility and proud statements of being “in the black” was a large piece of what the city council’s personal report card. Nothing has happened in the last 5 years to warrant such a desperate “money grab”.
We moved here just under 15 years ago specifically because of the beautiful hillsides, open space and lack of congestion from where we came from. If Measure O was just approved last November to preserve this open space, then why are we not being given an opportunity to vote again on a project I'm sure the majority of Calabasas and surrounding areas would oppose. If you disagree, then put this to the ballot and let’s see for ourselves. Calabasas voted in to "cityhood" 25 years ago to protect our open space – what is happening now is in direct violation of that founding principle.
With a General Reserve Fund of $14 million and the city of Calabasas running a budget "Surplus", why is this project so important to push through without hearing from the people? If certain local business want to support this as a means of fueling their own cash registers, they should be equally focused on delivering a quality product or service- there are enough people who live in the area who want better from them and the city council.
Thank you for reading this at the City Council Meeting on 4/13/16.
Dan Weiner | Vice President, West | Pandora3000 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 3050, Santa Monica CA 90405 w 424-653-6806 | m 310-463-9772 | AIM:danpandora | [email protected]
From: John Suwara [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 4:04 PM To: Cityofcalabasas Info Subject: City Council re Canyon Oaks Project April 13, 2016
Dear Honorable City Council Member:Attached is the Calabasas Coalition Citizens Report. It represents the view of residents from both the east and west side of Calabasas. It was a collaborative effort with inputs from many. The information in this report nets out the concerns regarding the Canyon Oaks Project, the effects on our neighborhood and alternatives that we believe will work for our community.
In addition to the thousands of pages of information presented in staff reports and the EIR and its appendices, we also reviewed the Las Virgenes Gateway Master Plan, the 2030 General Plan , and the Land Use and Development Guide. It was a massive and detailed effort. From this effort we gathered a great deal of information that we netted out in this report. We believe this can help you reach a decision to not approve this project as it is currently proposed.
Thank you for your consideration.John Suwara for the Calabasas Coalition.
1 15 Calabasas Coalition Citizens Report – Canyon OaksApril 13, 2016 City Council Meeting
CALABASAS COALITION CITIZENS REPORTCANYON OAKS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Thank You for the opportunity to present this report. We appreciate the time you dedicate to make Calabasas a better city. We also realize that many of the issues you deal with are controversial and that you work hard to arrive at your decisions.
We particularly want to thank Mayor Bozajian for sponsoring and the City Council supporting Measure O. It was not obvious to us at first, but it now appears that the proposed Canyon Oaks Development infringes on protected open space. We ask you to seriously investigate this issue since it seems to have been lost in previous hearings.
1. About the Coalition
The Calabasas Coalition is a community group dedicated to the residents of Calabasas who want to maintain the unique, rural quality of this beautiful city. The group was formed in November 2015 by neighbors connected over a social media site.
Our purpose is to provide a resource for residents of Calabasas to communicate regarding potential policy changes within the City, proposed development projects that may alter our way of life, and other matters that arise that warrant input from the community. The Calabasas Coalition aims to inform the community and encourage civic engagement by providing residents with information as to how they can become more involved in their local community.
The Calabasas Coalition is formed as a project of Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs (SEE) a non-profit public charity exempt from federal income tax under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The Calabasas Coalition intends to form a separate 501(c)(4) entity as well in 2016.
2. Executive Summary
The Proposed Canyon Oaks Project is sited in one of the world’s most coveted destinations. It is in a scenic corridor sweeping from the valley to the ocean. An historic area with a nationally recognized trail and ancient Chumash Indian connections, it is achingly beautiful whether it is burned brown by the summer sun or drenched in green by the winter rains. It is visible from miles away. The largest part of this parcel, 61 of the 77 acres was long ago zoned as Open Space, the most cherished and protected zoning we have. In fact members of this council and the present Planning Commission signed the argument for passing Measure “O” last fall. This is the measure that removed the sunset clause in Measure “D” which set into stone the importance of preserving our Open Space.
2 15 Calabasas Coalition Citizens Report – Canyon OaksApril 13, 2016 City Council Meeting
In fact, our City was founded in order to stop rampant overdevelopment by the County. Founding City Councilmember Karyn Foley commented on this just a few weeks ago, in the March 31, 2016 Acorn. She said the driving force behind incorporation was residents wanting a say in the development of their community. Now that we have just commemorated the 25th Anniversary of our rural and beautiful city, we ask you to remember Ms. Foley’s comment and the spirit of our City. Please consider the following facts about the proposed Canyon Oaks development in your deliberations.
Section 1: Municipal and Zoning Ordinances concerns: 1. Building in Development Restricted Open Space Code (17.16.030) which
requires 2/3 voter approval. 2. Lot line adjustment procedures (Code 17.10.040). 3. The hillside and ridgeline development code (Code 17.20.150). 4. Design Considerations Section (Code 17.29.070) 5. Development Plan Overlay process Municipal Code Sections (17.18.010) and
(17.18.030) are being misused. 6. Impact on the viewshed cannot be mitigated.
Section 2: General Plan and Las Virgenes Gateway Master Plan: The spirit and the letter of the General Plan and Las Virgenes Gateway Master Plan are not being followed.
Section 3: CEQA: The proposed project is not in compliance with CEQA. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is NOT supported by substantial evidence, as required by law,
Section 4: Geology: There are questions regarding the geology reports and the findings.
Section 5: Development Alternative: A gateway to the Santa Monica Mountains: The Staff Report dismisses the General Plan vision of a village-like atmosphere with a mix of retail and office as too dense and replaces it with a proposal for a hotel and housing. This hotel is proposed for land not zoned for a hotel and the housing will rise over 80 feet above Las Virgenes Road on pads higher than 55 feet. Views will be forever impacted by the excessive height of the houses. A second hotel, the Rondell Oasis, is proposed less than 120 yards north of the Canyon Oaks Hotel on land that is zoned for a hotel.
The Calabasas Coalition proposes that pads for the housing be lowered to the existing terrain, the fill be exported, and the hotel be replaced by a small village that is community oriented with restaurants, retail and entertainment for adults and children to gather. A destination location with parking for equestrians, bikers, and hikers, that provides access to the backcountry with its scenic beauty. Let this be the scenic Gateway to Calabasas and the Santa Monica Mountains!
3 15 Calabasas Coalition Citizens Report – Canyon OaksApril 13, 2016 City Council Meeting
3. Conclusion
After significant review of the documentation provided, which is comprised of thousands of pages of documents, we’ve concluded that the proposal submitted by the Applicant is inadequate and does not meet, and specifically violates existing City codes and ordinances, the General Plan, the Las Virgenes Gateway Master Plan and CEQA. Geology reports and other conclusions are inadequate and the project does not benefit the community. The following are some of the concerns about the project:
1. Rezoning violations of the Open Space Ordinance. 2. Developer unwilling to lower the building pads and terrace to conform to the
terrain to have less impact on the viewshed. 3. Large houses are too close together on small lots. 4. Major scarring of the hills on the north and south side of the property. 5. A community gathering place is not provided except for a bistro in the hotel. A
bistro is not a place that most people would bring their family to as a neighborhood gathering place. Instead of a hotel, as envisioned in the General Plan, build a smaller version, of the West Calabasas Village, with perhaps an “Old West” theme using Old Town Calabasas as an inspiration.
6. Access to fire road/trail at eastern end of housing development is cutoff.7. Excess fill not exported from site when landslide is remediated. 8. Geology incomplete for both the northern and southern slopes.
The Calabasas Coalition is therefore opposed to Ordinance No. 2016-333 and Resolution No. 2016-1507 and request that all permits and provisions for The General Plan Amendment, Development Plan Overlay and Zoning Map Amendments be denied. We also respectfully request that you cast a no vote on Ordinance No. 2016-333 and Resolution No. 2016-1507.
Section 1: Existing Municipal and Zoning Ordinances
1. Building in Development Restricted Open Space (Code 17.16.030)
The developer is asking for zoning changes to develop a portion of their 71housing units and hotel on land that is currently zoned Open Space- Development Restricted (OS-DR). This has an allowable Land Use of Open Space-Resource Protection (OS-RP) per Table 2-1 in the Land Use and Development Code. Because the developer is asking for open space to be rezoned, Code 17.16.030 is triggered requiring a 2/3 approval vote by voters voting on the rezoning request.
The largest part of this parcel, 61 of the 77 acres was, long ago, zoned as Open Space, the most cherished and protected zoning we have. In fact members of this council and the present Planning Commission signed the argument for passing Measure “O” last fall. This is the measure that removed the sunset clause setting into stone Municipal
4 15 Calabasas Coalition Citizens Report – Canyon OaksApril 13, 2016 City Council Meeting
Code 17.16.030 - Voter approval required for re-designation of open space for non-open space use.
Here are some of the words from the ballot initiative, Measure “O”, reminding us of what you supported and what we voted for last November:
Open space is irreplaceable. Once lost, it is gone forever; and once developed, the character of the land is forever altered. Approval of the 2015 Calabasas Open Space Initiative will help preserve existing areas of open space in our City in perpetuity.
The Open Space Initiative invests in the people the power to make important decisions regarding future growth. The Open Space Initiative requires a 2/3 vote of the electorate before any land in Calabasas zoned as open space in the General Plan can be re-zoned for other uses, thereby preventing a simple majority of the City Council from permitting urban development on these parcels.
Passage of the 2015 Open Space Initiative ("Measure O") will reflect our City's strong commitment to protect the natural resources, which enhance our quality of life in Calabasas. Please join us in voting "Yes!" on the Calabasas Open Space Initiative.
Measure “O”; the protect Open Space ordinance was voted on by the people in November 2015 and passed with a 97.6% yes vote. This now extends the protection of Open Space in our City into perpetuity. The code reads in part:
17.16.030 - Voter approval required for redesignation of open space for non-open space use.
A. Voter approval required as follows: 1. No amendment to the General Plan or any specific plan that would
redesignate for non-open space use of any property in the city designated OS-R or OS-RP by the Land Use Map of the Calabasas General Plan, adopted on December 10, 2008 by Resolution Number 2008-1159 shall be effective for any purpose until that amendment has been approved by two-thirds of the voters of the city casting votes on the question. Prior to the placement of such amendment on the ballot, the city shall follow the procedures required by local, state, and federal law, including the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. f. Such an amendment may take effect only upon two-thirds approval of those casting votes on the question.
This code has essentially been on the books since 2005 and the Land Use Map referred to is from 2008. The open space ordinance was originally passed in 2005, years before this developer invested in this property. Being an NYSE company, it can only be assumed that the developer, New Homes Company, researched the property’s history including the maps, geology, existing zoning and the open space ordinance. Any
5 15 Calabasas Coalition Citizens Report – Canyon OaksApril 13, 2016 City Council Meeting
investment is a gamble and a return on the investment is not guaranteed, certainly not by the city.
To see the Open Space in the Canyon Oaks Property we downloaded this land use map that shows the two parcels that make up the Canyon Oaks property. The green is the area zoned for open space and you see the development trapezoid consisting of the PD and RM zones. If you look closely you can see the zoning codes.At the first night of the Planning Commission meeting on March 16, 2016 a member of the public showed a primitive diagram of an overlay of the houses on the zoning map. That overlay showed the boundary of the housing development and hotel extending into the green open space.
The next evening, March 17,, 2016, the Planning Commission again met about Canyon Oaks. At that meeting planning staff discussed having discovered new errors in the 2012 map that required adding three acres to the map. The green boundary shown on the left is the original diagram for the area zoned for development. It wasn’t clear if the errors had been discovered earlier that day or were left over from some other time. In any event, staff added the 3 acres and that is depicted by the red and aqua lines extending to the south.
The new map was presented with the 3 acres added and the housing and hotel development portrayed on that map. Even on the new map with the additional 3 acres the development extends into open space. The hotel is on the lower left of the map shown extending into open space and the houses are on the right side or southern portion of the property extending into open space.
6 15 Calabasas Coalition Citizens Report – Canyon OaksApril 13, 2016 City Council Meeting
Taking the new map and flipping it horizontally, the light green is the open space and you can clearly see the encroachment on open space.
As we started to look into the zone changes and maps for Canyon Oaks we came upon a letter to the city from a resident regarding the zoning map of the Messenger property. It appears that this issue has been going on for years. Here is a link to that material.
http://www.cityofcalabasas.com/pdf/agendas/council/2012/052312/item2-correspondence-received.pdf
This documentation goes back to 2010 and from that we learned that there was a Planning Commission meeting on October 21, 2010 that included correcting the
boundary of the PD and RM zones of the former Messenger Property, now Canyon Oaks. A screen shot of the Land Use Map of the old “Existing” map and “Corrected” map that were presented by staff is shown to the left. The corrections appear to have been detailed based on the differences between the “Existing” and “Corrected” maps.
On May 9, 2012 the City Council met to approve the corrections and the vote was 5-0 for approval. But, as we found out on March 17th it still wasn’t correct. It was 3 acres short. That raises some concerns.
OpenSpace
Encroachmnet
Open SpaceEncroachment
7 15 Calabasas Coalition Citizens Report – Canyon OaksApril 13, 2016 City Council Meeting
2. Lot line adjustment procedures (17.10.040)
This proposal enacts zoning district regulation, 17.10.040 D. Single Parcel in Two Zoning Districts.“In the event two or more parcels are consolidated through the approval of a lot line
adjustment, parcel or tentative map in compliance with Article IV such that a single parcel is covered by two or more zoning districts, the consolidated parcel shall be rezoned to a single zoning district.”
“In the event that, an existing parcel is covered by two or more zoning districts, the location of the main structure shall determine which zoning district standards shall apply to the project. In cases where the proposed main structure would straddle a zone district boundary line, the most restrictive zoning district standards shall apply.”
The proposed amendment of the Zoning Map must be denied. The following findings and conclusions will show this amendment is not consistent with the goals, policies and actions of the Calabasas 2030 General Plan and with the Las Virgenes Gateway Master Plan.
Applicant wants to merge two parcels, one zoned Planned Development and the other zoned Residential Multi family 20 units per acre. They want to rezone a major portion of the Planned Development parcel across a lot line and join it with the other parcel’s zone of Residential Multi family 20 units per acre and build large single-family houses using the Residential Multi Family density. The RM zoning allows “small, detached single-family homes”; however, New Homes own website describes their proposed homes as “single-family estate residences.” Some of the houses also encroach on land that is zoned for open space that would need to be rezoned. That should trigger the vote per the open space code 17.16.030.
3. The hillside and ridgeline development code (17.20.150)
Prior to the 2008 General Plan, the Canyon Oaks property was referred to as “Las Virgenes 2”. The 2008 General Plan EIR describes the property as “This site consists of two hillside parcels measuring approximately 77 acres.” As proposed the buildable area of the “Las Virgenes 2” site would be reduced from approximately 77 acres to about 16 acres.• City code section 17.20.150 Hillside and ridgeline development requires that “Overall
project design and layout shall adapt to the natural hillside topography and maximize view opportunities to and from a development.”
• “A development should preserve the hillside rather than alter it to fit the development.”
• “Grading plans should allow for different lot shapes and sizes based primarily on the natural terrain. Encourage split pads in large developments.”
• “Structures shall be sited in a manner that will fit into hillside contours and the form of the terrain.”
8 15 Calabasas Coalition Citizens Report – Canyon OaksApril 13, 2016 City Council Meeting
• “Retain outward views from the maximum number of units and maintain the natural character of the hillside; and preserve natural hillside areas and ridgelines views from the public right-of-way.”
Under its section “Hillside Management”, the General Plan states its policy is to “minimize the alteration of existing landforms and maintain the natural topographic characteristics of hillside areas, allowing only the minimal disruption required to recognize basic property rights.” (Policies, III-12)
The current proposal violates all of the above requirements. Virtually filling in the canyon as is proposed does not “adapt to the natural hillside topography”, nor does it “preserve the hillside rather than alter it to fit the development.” Grading is certainly not “based primarily on the natural terrain” nor will the structures “fit into hillside contours and the form of the terrain.” Instead of preserving “natural hillside areas and ridgelines views from the public right-of-way”, it decimates them.
4. Design Considerations Section (17.29.070)
• “The size, height, bulk, and location of buildings are to be managed in relation to the size of the parcel and overall site design to avoid a crowded appearance, preserve a visual appearance of openness, and to maintain the existing low-rise character of Calabasas. “
• “New development within the freeway corridor shall comply with following urban design guidelines:
• Buildings should maintain a low profile and be visually integrated with the natural terrain to the greatest extent possible.”
As proposed, nothing in this project is in keeping with the “existing low-rise character of Calabasas”. The four-story hotel is not in keeping with this, nor are the homes – which will rise over 80 feet above Las Virgenes Road.
The project violates Design Considerations section 17.29.070.
Development Plan Overlay process Municipal Code Sections 17.18.010 and 17.18.030 are being misused
The proposed Development Plan overlay must be denied. The following findings and conclusions will show the proposed amendment will be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the city.
The Planning Department staff has said that “In a Development Plan the standards are the project, it’s Planned Unit Development type zoning if you will, it becomes tailored to the project.”
It appears that Planning Department staff are saying that a Development Plan Overlay provides permission to do away with the rules. In other words the staff makes the decision, the codes and General Plan maps are disregarded. This is a gross
9 15 Calabasas Coalition Citizens Report – Canyon OaksApril 13, 2016 City Council Meeting
misinterpretation of the Development Plan purpose and applicability of the codes as explained in Section 17.18.010:
• “The overlay zoning districts established by this chapter provide guidance for development and land uses in addition to the standards and regulations of the zoning districts, where important site, neighborhood, or area characteristics require particular attention in project planning.”
Furthermore, Code 17.18.030 is specific in stating that a Development Plan is applied to conform with the codes, not avoid them.• “A DP overlay district may be considered only when the resultant development
pattern (when compared to that which would otherwise be accomplished without the overlay) will be more conformant with the policies of the General Plan and more effective in implementation of applicable General Plan policies.”
The City Codes are the tools created to implement the General Plan and make sure it is followed.
The DP overlay only allows modification of 7 items, however, it is imperative to remember the original purpose of the DP: to make the resultant development more conformant with the policies of the General Plan. (17.18.030 E)• “Development Standards. Approval of a development plan within the -DP overlay
district may include specific modifications to any of the city's adopted street standards, and/or the following development standards which are set forth in this article and Article III: minimum lot area, setbacks, site coverage, floor area ratio, height limits, landscaping or parking.
The intent of the codes are clear: Staff assignment of a DP zone doesn’t give them the power to allow this project to avoid and not comply with any city codes.
Impact on the Viewshed cannot be Mitigated.The size and scope of the proposed development will disrupt the natural landscape and open space. This development will result in the massive destruction of
the natural hillside on both sides of the canyon with over 4 million cubic yards of dirt moved. The brown represents the height of the fill and the red is the height of the houses. This will block the view of the ridgelines from Las Virgenes Road.Excess dirt will be moved to the base of the canyon creating a dirt pad that will elevate the existing pad at least 30 feet above
10 15 Calabasas Coalition Citizens Report – Canyon OaksApril 13, 2016 City Council Meeting
the existing terrain and 55 feet above Las Virgenes road. On top of that will be the closely packed large homes on small pads looming at least another 25 feet high for a total height of more than 80 feet above Las Virgenes Road.
A preferred alternative is to lower the pads at the front of the development to the height of the existing terrain. Thus far the developer has said no to that suggestion. Should
they decide to lower the pad and remove excess fill from the site, the impact on the view is much less and you will be able to see the ridgelines from Las Virgenes Road.
This massive amount of dirt should be exported and not used to increase the height of the pad by 30 feet. This is necessary to preserve the view of the ridgelines and natural beauty of the area forever.
Section 2. The General Plan.
The spirit and the letter of the General Plan are being violated. The proposed General Plan Amendment must be denied. In view of all of the evidence presented, the findings and conclusions confirm that it is not adequate and does not conform to existing goals policies and actions of the General Plan.
Acceptance of this General Plan Amendment would be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the City. To quote from the 2030 General Plan the city “will not sacrifice the area’s natural environment or its resident’s quality of life in the pursuit of municipal income.”
•Chapter 17.76 - GENERAL PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS“The following provisions allow for the amendment of the General Plan, the official zoning map, or this development code whenever required by public necessity and general welfare. “Rezoning of this project is not a public necessity and not in the general welfare of the residents of Calabasas, quite the opposite. It is only in the welfare of the Developer and City and that welfare is economic.
11 15 Calabasas Coalition Citizens Report – Canyon OaksApril 13, 2016 City Council Meeting
Section 3. CEQA. The proposed project is not in compliance with CEQA. 1. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is NOT supported by substantial
evidence, as required by law,
The project has more than a significant impact on the viewshed. The EIR states that it is not feasible to mitigate these impacts.
The staff has written a Statement of Overriding Consideration as per CEQA requirements -” When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The staff statement of overriding considerations must be supported by substantial evidence in the record”
Staff’s claim does not comply with The California State Supreme Court rulings. “CEQA does not authorize an agency to proceed with a project that will have significant, unmitigated effects on the environment, based simply on a weighing of those effects against the project's benefits, unless the measures necessary to mitigate those effect are truly infeasible.”
Mitigation is feasible.
The EIR presents many alternative projects that mitigate the environmental impact but are rejected for economic reasons, without including the data to support that conclusion as required.
Because mitigation adversely affects the developer's return on investment does not make mitigation infeasible.
A claim of economic infeasibility must be based upon substantial evidence in the record. In this case, there is none.
2. Do the benefits outweigh the damage done to the environment?
The Supreme Court of California case “City of San Diego v. Board of Trustees of the California State University” ruling on 8/3/15 states in part: “When made in accordance with CEQA, “an agency’s decision that the specific benefits a project offers outweigh any environmental effects that cannot feasibly be mitigated is what lies at the core of the lead agency’s discretionary responsibility under CEQA. However, “CEQA does not authorize an agency to proceed with a project that will have significant, unmitigated effects on the environment, based simply on a weighing of those effects against the project’s benefits, unless the measures necessary to mitigate those effects are truly infeasible.”
12 15 Calabasas Coalition Citizens Report – Canyon OaksApril 13, 2016 City Council Meeting
On pages 66-67 of the Planning Commission Staff Report, the contention is that these so-called benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects as per CEQA Guidelines Section 15093. The City states that these adverse effects are therefore considered “acceptable”. The benefits do not outweigh the adverse environmental effects and despite whatever spin the City wants to put on it the environment and the community are the losers and this is NOT acceptable.
The report also states that mitigation measures beyond the proposed design features intended to minimize the project's visual impact are not available. What mitigation measures are being referred to as “not available”? What about minimizing grading and exporting dirt to lower pads? That is certainly feasible. It may be more expensive, but it can be done. The result would be a project that "lets the land dictate the use”. This was so brilliantly stated by former Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky and paraphrases the intent and spirit of the Calabasas 2030 General Plan..
The most significant benefit of this project, that is often cited, is the density of both the residential and commercial components being far below the density allowed by the General Plan. However, the challenge of building so much on so little buildable land proved to be impossible. If it could have been done, it would have been developed.
Just because it is less than the General Plan originally allowed does not automatically qualify it as a superior project. It still contains densely packed residential dwellings (10 to the acre) on small lots and a hotel where no hotel was zoned…..a 4-story hotel that violates City Code height restrictions.
In the past the City has ‘re-envisioned” the General Plan to accommodate projects that would otherwise not have passed muster. This is the last large parcel of land slated for development. This time let’s not “re-envision” the Plan to allow destruction of the environment and alter the signature hillsides forever. It is time to go back to our roots and uphold the vision put forth in the General Plan.
3. Financial Considerations
EIR alternatives 1-5 would be “less than what a prudent investor would accept” Why do we care what is financially prudent for the developer?
The economic benefit --- increased revenue from the Transit Occupancy Tax --- “an economic benefit that merits consideration when opting to override an unavoidable visual impact” is not substantial enough. First of all the visual impact IS avoidable – and – this bears repeating --- THE GENERAL PLAN SAYS THAT THE CITY “WILL NOT SACRIFICE THE AREA’S NATURAL ENVIRONMENT OR ITS RESIDENT’S QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE PURSUIT OF MUNICIPAL INCOME.”
All alternatives were deemed infeasible for economic reasons. Because mitigation adversely affects the developer’s return on his investment does not make mitigation infeasible. The Staff Report for the Planning Commission determined that Alternatives
13 15 Calabasas Coalition Citizens Report – Canyon OaksApril 13, 2016 City Council Meeting
1-6 would be infeasible based on what a prudent investor would accept for these types of projects. Some of the alternatives ARE feasible from an aesthetic and environmental viewpoint and to eliminate them from consideration solely on the basis of how it affects the developer's bottom line is a disgrace.
We would contend that everyone here has made investments in the past….real estate….stocks…. There are no “sure bets”. Hopefully you come out positive at the end of the day, but sometimes, even with the best research and due diligence, an investment does not pan out. Perhaps New Homes’ purchase of the Canyon Oaks property is one of these investments. It is not the City’s responsibility to make a successful project for them and their shareholders. They may have just bought a pig in a poke --- it’s not our job to help them make that silk purse out of the sow’s ear.
It is the City’s job to decide on the merits of the project from an environmental standpoint and a community standpoint. There is no benefit to the community! There is no benefit to the environment! Once the hillsides are destroyed and the viewshed forever scarred you can never go back. Now is the time to get it right!
CASE LAW CITING USE OF ECONOMIC INFEASIBILITY
The following California case cites use of economic infeasibility and was written by Beth Colllins-Burgard, Deputy City Attorney of Carpenteria for the League of California Cities 2013 Spring Conference: “CEQA’s Substantive Mandate: When is it Defensible to Find Mitigation or Alternatives Infeasible?”.
Findings of economic infeasibility reviewed under substantial evidence test, but with skepticism. When reviewing a finding of economic infeasibility, courts apply the “substantial evidence” test, but courts are skeptical when the agency’s finding is based largely on statements or information provided by the applicant. (Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 587, 598; Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Inyo (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1437, 1461; Preservation Action Council v. City of San Jose (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1336, 1456.); (See also CEB, California Municipal Law Handbook §11.51.)“Practice Tip: These cases suggest that, if a city wishes to reject a mitigation measure or alternative despite its environmental advantages, the city should cite competing policy concerns in support of that decision. If the city wishes to cite economic reasons in support of its finding, the record should reflect that the city has independently investigated the economic feasibility of the environmentally superior alternative. If the city wishes to cite legal reasons in support of its finding, the city should be confident that its legal analysis is correct. Whenever possible and appropriate, the city should cite multiple independent bases for rejecting the mitigation measure or alternative.” (Id.)
(e) Case examples re finding economic infeasibility and rejecting alternatives for failure to meet most of the project objectives:
1. (i) Preservation Action Council v. City of San Jose (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1336. Lowe’s proposed demolition of historic IBM Building. Court found analysis of
14 15 Calabasas Coalition Citizens Report – Canyon OaksApril 13, 2016 City Council Meeting
reduced-size alternative inadequate and rejection of reduced-size alternative (which was the environmentally superior alternative) was unsupported. 1. (1) Lowe’s claims smaller store would place it at a “competitive
disadvantage” in a “large market such as San Jose” due to its inability “to meet the demands and requirements of a large market store in terms of throughput and merchandise availability.” Record did not contain any data about the size of other home improvement warehouses in the area and not clear about size of reduced-size alternative as compared to Lowe’s small market prototype.
2. (2) No evidence that reduced-size alternative would be more expensive to build and stock or that the reduced-size alternative would be operationally infeasible. No meaningful detail or independent analysis of the validity of Lowe’s claim that the reduced-size alternative is infeasible. No findings validating claim. Merely being less profitable “does not itself render the alternative infeasible unless there is also evidence that the reduced profitability is ‘sufficiently severe as to render it impractical to proceed with the project.’”
Section 4: Geology
1. The studies are incomplete on the northern portion of the property.
The ridge behind the proposed Canyon Oaks Hotel is planned to be excavated to make room for the hotel structure. A maximum 30 foot-high retaining wall is also planned at the toe of this cut slope. The ridge feature that will be excavated represents the south portion of a larger unmapped landslide, the north portion of which extends behind the proposed Rondell Oasis Hotel. The bare area on the hillside located directly behind the Mobil Station is a scar in the hillside from more recent shallow movement of the older, deeper landslide. The previous geotechnical consultants have focused their exploration on the south portion of the property where a known landslide exists. None of the consultants have drilled deep borings or excavated test pits/trenches to evaluate the geology of a portion of the site where the tallest retaining wall in the entire development is planned. The geology of this portion of the site has not been adequately defined and the safety of the proposed development in this area has not been adequately assessed.
2. Deeper Borings are needed for the Southern Landslide
Many of the consultants working in the property disagree about the depth of the southern landslide complex. Some believe that the landslide is significantly deeper than that indicated by RJR Consultants. Most of the large diameter borings used to characterize the slide have penetrated to depths of approximately 75 feet. Deeper borings are needed to determine whether a deeper landslide plane is present. Borings on the order of 125 to 150 feet deep are needed to make this determination.
3. Shear Strength
15 15 Calabasas Coalition Citizens Report – Canyon OaksApril 13, 2016 City Council Meeting
Additionally, the shear strength parameter of Cohesion (C) that is used in the slope stability calculations and buttress design calculations is substantially higher than the values typically accepted by reviewing agencies. Acceptable values of Cohesion for landslide planes are typically 1/3 to 1/4 of this value. Additional testing should be performed to either support or refute the use of this strength in the buttress design.
It is recommended that the city be thorough and insist on the additional testing and analysis to determine whether it is safe to build in these hills. It could prevent injury, property damage and subsequent lawsuits involving the city.
Section 5: Development Suggestion – A World Class Gateway.
Las Virgenes Road is the gateway to the Santa Monica Mountains. As the gateway, it is proposed that the developer build a housing development that is less dense, conforms to the terrain, and does not encroach on open space. Excess fill should be removed and the houses built on terrain that fits the land and does not result in 30-foot high building pads that impact the viewshed.
Replace the hotel with a small retail center that also does not encroach on open space. There is also a hotel planned for the Rondell Oasis property on the other side of Mobil Station. The Rondell Oasis property is already zoned for a hotel. Two large hotels are not needed in such close proximity to one another.
The Retail Center should have restaurants and retail shops with a theme, such as the old west. Make it a community gathering area. Provide patio dining and sufficient area for entertainment for adults and children. Water features, trees and access to the riparian forest and creek to the east and to the west access to the Las Virgenes Creek restoration will make this center an attraction. To make this possible, provide sufficient parking for equestrians, bikers and hikers to enjoy the local attractions. For example, the fire road/DeAnza Calabash Canyon Loop Trail is a lovely trail with a vibrant riparian forest at the head of the canyon. Provide a trail through this woodland that protects it while allowing access so that visitors can enjoy the area’s scenic beauty.
The proposed development is not compatible with the character of the neighborhood and is in an area not appropriate for the intensive use proposed. We can’t make everyone 100% happy, but what we propose are ideas that can serve the community while allowing the applicant to build on the land he purchased -- with the entitlements that came with it.
This is a special and unique city with an exceptional natural landscape. It's important to uphold this as a top priority and at all costs. Remember the dream for our City and let’s get back to why we voted for Cityhood 25 years ago – to insure that we approve only responsible development that adds to the assets we have today and preserves them for the future.
From: Diane Kohl [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 4:11 PM To: info Subject: City Council & Mayor
I am opposed to the Canyon Oaks proposed development. I am a homeowner in Calabasas,raising my young family in a nice, quiet, small town. This development will have a negativeimpact on the area and make me question whether or not I want to continue to raise my familyin the city. Not only that, but we should be voting on this development as required by MeasureO. I am disgusted that you would allow this development to side step this voting requirement.Please opposed ALL zoning changes for the Canyon Oaks property. This property is NOT zonedfor a hotel. Lastly, this proposed development does not serve the local community asenvisioned in the General Plan, including taking away public access to the scenic fire roadknown as the DeAnza Calabash Trail.
Please do not let these developers ruin our small town and beautiful views. And please stopignoring the laws and policies in place that protect our community.
From: Peter Heumann [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 3:57 PM To: info Cc:
Subject: Oppose Canyon Oaks Project as presented at tonight's city council meeting
Dear Mayor & Councilmembers
I respectfully submit my letter in opposition to the Canyon Oaks project as proposed. It is truly a shame, if not criminal that it this project is coming before council at this time. I am truly angry at what city staff, manager and the planning commission have done the last six months to shove two major developments through the approval process. We deserve better.
If anyone wonders why Donald Trump is a frontrunner in our presidential election, the most often given reason is that so many people feel that their government has failed them. What is going on in Calabasas is no different…our government is failing the citizens. People are feeling largely disenfranchised by major development after major development being rushed through the process in short order, one on top of the other…with pre-determined outcomes dictating biased staff reports.
With regard to both Rondell and Canyon Oaks projects the planning commission was hijacked after unprecedented, consecutive two night marathon public meetings that were intended to wear out the public opposition to these poorly planned developments. It was even more obvious with regard to Canyon Oaks when several planning commissioners admitted to having not read through their packages on the project before voting to push it through to council.
In a system that is supposed to have checks and balances…the planning commission is the “check” for accuracy and compliance to the staff’s report and our city codes and plans. This project was kicked down the road by the planning commission…they shirked their responsibility to the city and to the citizens.
Canyon Oaks needs a zoning change, a general plan amendment, a Las Virgenes Gateway Plan amendment and variances to our municipal codes. The project is being built on land zoned open space…yet the staff keeps saying the maps are wrong?!
How could that be, we’ve been over the maps with several proposed developments on this site…and why is the city so willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the developer…and not the public. Open space is the one issue the entire city agrees on (passing the open space Measure O by over 94%), Canyon Oaks IS a Measure O issue and should be voted on by the people…this project qualifies under both the letter and certainly the spirit of Measure O. You are there to protect our interests and the interests of future generations of Calabasas residents.
Massive amounts of grading will make an elevated building site that is over 55’ above the road and then the houses will go on top of that…blocking views of mountains and ridgelines.
The general plan is clear on what should be built on the Canyon Oaks site…and that was put together after thousands of hours of staff and community time and over a million dollars of taxpayer money. The Canyon Oaks project before you looks NOTHING like what is in the general plan. This is yet another gated community and a hotel that the site is not even zoned for…both of which will soar well over twice the height limit that is set by our city codes. It is not pedestrian friendly, nor is it a gathering place for the westside of the city.
It’s time that the city start representing the interests of the community and following the rules that were put in place to protect us and our quality of life…and not the developers who build and then leave town. Shoving these developments through so quickly after a council election that was decided by less than 100 votes just shows how little respect staff and the city seem to have for the citizens. For some of us…it has not worn us out…only empowered us to work harder and louder to make sure the best interests of our city are heard.
Sincerely,Peter Heumann
From: Valerie Allen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 3:44 PM To: info Subject: STOP CANYON OAKES
WE DO NOT WANT A MASSIVE HOTEL RUNING OUR COMMUNITY AND THE NATURAL BEAUTY ALONG THE GATEWAY TO THE SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS. IT'S JUST PLAIN WRONG. IT'S AGAINST OUR CITY CHARTER/PLANNING AND TO SAY THERE WILL BE NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IS A JOKE. IT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED SO CLOSE TO A SCHOOL. THE PROJECT IS SHAMEFUL.
Valerie AllenCalabasas
From: Robert Rosenberg [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 3:43 PM To: info Subject: To: City Council and Mayor
I hope you will seriously consider the issues of this letter as they are meant to make Calabasas a more diversified city that addresses the issues and serves the needs of its people in a responsible way.
Why did we vote in favor of Measure O in November if the developer can override the wishes of the voter and make changes in the zoning restrictions? The density of this proposed development, and not in accordance with the General Plan, is WAY over the top AND in violation for a planned hotel. In no way does it promote a scenic drive to enjoy that has not only made Calabasas a special place in which to live, but also for those who drive through its corridor and down the canyon to Malibu. It has long been one of those drives that has put Calabasas on the map and one of which our Calabasas Council have been so proud to promote by preserving our open space.
Anyone who has taken the time while stopped at the traffic light at Agoura Road and Las Virgenes to look up into that valley knows that if that development proceeds as promoted the view will forever be all but gone!
As you are well aware, and we have been so diligent to protect, we are running out of opportunities to preserve what is left of what used to be rural Calabasas. Is this what we call progress or another way for paying for the not-well-thought-out plans of our fair city?
As an example, in the breakdown of population that appeared in a recent copy of the Acorn, I noticed that Calabasas is made up of around 12% seniors. Then I ask why was a senior facility built at this time to support such a development just for the use of those Calabasas residence and now how do you justify membership to those outside of Calabasas because of a lack of monies???? Just another example of poor planning and over spending. Not to mention the poor financial status and continued operation of the Calabasas Klubhouse Pre-School -- how much longer do you continue to support this losing business?
I ask you, when ALL possibilities for building is gone, then how will you support the big ideas coming from our Council????
Calabasas needs to live within its means, just as you would manage your own home, and not continue to "borrow" on the income of others, but to downsize when necessary to grow a healthier city.
Most Sincerely,
Marilyn RosenbergResident of Malibu Canyon
From: Igor [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 3:37 PM To: info Subject: City Council and Mayor
I would like to express a strong opposition to the Canyon Oaks and the Rondell developments for the following reasons:
1. The views of the mountains would be significantly impacted forever;
2. The additional traffic would contribute to the already busy intersection of Agoura and Las Virgenes, and the on-ramp for 101 South;
3. The development does not serve the local community, rather would make the Western Calabasas look like Ventura Blvd. in the SF valley;
4. Both developments should fit the land without zoning changes and/or giving up the rights to the Rondell street in favor of the developer;
5. We do not need anymore hotels in Calabasas - there are plenty already;
Please vote NO on Canyon Oaks and Rondell developments.
Sincerely,
Igor Grekin
April 13, 2016 City Council City of Calabasas RE: Canyon Oaks Proposed Development 100 Civic Center Way Calabasas, CA 91302 Dear Mayor & City Council, I urge you to vote no on the proposed Canyon Oaks project. Founding City Councilmember Karyn Foley was quoted in the March 31, 2016 Acorn. She said the driving force behind incorporation was residents wanting a say in the development of their community. Never in our city’s history has that quote been more applicable than now and in regard to this development. There is no issue more important to Calabasas residents than the protection of Open Space. This development permanently destroys iconic viewsheds from miles away, obliterates views of distant ridgelines from the adjoining community and has a huge environmental impact with over 3 million cubic yards of grading. The manufactured slopes left by the massive amounts of grading and landslide mitigation will leave surrounding hillsides with manufactured slopes…much like the Calabasas landfill and “the pyramid” created by the grading of a beautiful hillside for the huge freeway offramp configuration at Lost Hills…permanently scarring our mountains and views. Unnatural manufactured hillsides are just that…they look manufactured and take away from the natural beauty of our surroundings. Current city maps show that both the hotel and the housing element infringe on Open Space zoned land. Staff has said the maps aren’t accurate, yet the maps changed (once again) overnight at the planning commission meeting in March. If the maps aren’t accurate, then why are we prematurely considering this project until we know the actual boundaries of our open space zoned land? Why is the city willing to err on the side of the developer and not on the side of the community for the one thing valued over more than any other by the residents of this community? This project should certainly qualify for a vote of the people under Measure O, if not under the actual (continually revised) boundaries of the zoning map, than the devastating grading that will be done on the hillsides and ridgelines surrounding this property that ARE definitely in open space. We the citizens should have a say in the approval of this project, as Measure O passed with more than a 94% margin of victory in November. If you think it does not qualify under the letter of the law (which it should), then it certainly qualifies under the spirit of the law. Staff brought forth a hotel, which is not an allowable use in the current zoning. The proposed development would need zoning changes, amendments to the general plan, variances from the Las Virgenes Gateway Plan and violates current Calabasas Municipal Building Codes. The only justification for all these changes is the Development Plan Overlay which is being used as a means to bypass all the measures that were set in place to protect the community from overdevelopments such as these.
Page Two April 13, 2016 Opppose Canyon Oaks
Income from transient occupancy tax is not sufficient justification for bypassing all these regulations, codes and plans. In fact, the general plan is quite clear in stating that…”the City will not sacrifice the area’s natural environment or its resident’s quality of life in the pursuit of municipal income”. In fact, the TOT is the only benefit from this development beyond the marginal increase in property tax revenue. That does not qualify this project for a development plan overlay. The project as proposed does not fit the land (which is also addressed in the general plan and CMC). Under the guise of landslide mitigation the developer is building a giant building pad that will soar to over 55’ above Las Virgenes and then add in two story homes with set-backs as small as 5’ that will ultimately be 80+ feet above Las Virgenes and create a giant wall that will block iconic views. The landslide is already at a safety factor of 1.0 according to the study and the only reason to bring it to a 1.5 is that is the minimum required to build on it. The landslide(s) have not moved in over 1,000 years and probably won’t move anytime soon…unless they are disturbed by this grading process…that is being used to build a 30’ high building pad for the homes. Mitigating the landslide is NOT a benefit to the community, it harms the views and only helps the builder with a larger pad site. The density of the homes violates Calabasas Municipal Codes, the developer is trying to apply multi-family density to Single Family Homes, when only 6 homes per acre are allowed according to table 11.1 in the general plan and our CMC. The General Plan is quite specific about what is envisioned for this site. The GPAC group spent over $1 million dollars and countless hours to come up with a vision for our city. Let’s not allow outside developers whose only motivation is maximizing profit to work with staff to “re-envision” what our community worked so hard to come up with for the long-term benefit and future generations of our city. The West Village concept envisioned a pedestrian friendly, mixed use gathering place for the west side. Many people worked long and hard to come up with that concept that would be a benefit to the community. Let’s focus on that vision, let’s stick to the rules, guidelines, and codes to make this the best possible development for the entire community. It is too important a location for our city. Staff has presented a biased and incomplete project report, with conclusions that support a pre-determined outcome, without adequate alternatives and the planning commission chose not to review this project. The process has failed thus far, we need council to take a strong stance and protect the community from overdevelopment. For the reasons presented above, and by the zoning codes, general plan, and the Las Virgenes Gateway plan you must vote no on this proposal. Sincerely, Peter Heumann
1
Maricela Hernandez
From: Amy Asher <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 7:19 PMTo: info; Maricela HernandezSubject: Deny Canyon Oaks Development Request
To the Calabasas City Council,
Please deny all proposals to develop the Canyon Oaks project at Agoura and Las Virgines Roads. I have been a Calabasas resident for 19 years. The development is inconsistent with the character of the community, mars the unique natural attractiveness of the area and will undermine the quality of life for residents by increasing traffic congestion.
Thank you.
Best,Amy Asher
From: Robert McFall [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 9:44 PM To: info Subject: city council- no to Canyon Oaks
Robert McFall
805-279-9059- cell 805-267-0115- work 818-880-2936
From: Constance Jimenez [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 9:39 PM To: info Subject: Re: Canyon Oaks- no- city council attention
Constance Jimenez
818-880-2936 818-687-5332 (cell)
From: Constance Jimenez <[email protected]>To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 9:38 PM Subject: Canyon Oaks- no
When we are no longer on the face of this earth- we you be proud that you voted on a hotel that did irreparable harm to the environment?
Constance Jimenez
818-880-2936
From: Amy Asher [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 7:19 PM To: info; Maricela Hernandez Subject: Deny Canyon Oaks Development Request
To the Calabasas City Council,
Please deny all proposals to develop the Canyon Oaks project at Agoura and Las Virgines Roads. I have been a Calabasas resident for 19 years. The development is inconsistent with the character of the community, mars the unique natural attractiveness of the area and will undermine the quality of life for residents by increasing traffic congestion.
Thank you.
Best,Amy Asher
From: Brandon Alvarado [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 6:57 PM To: info Subject: Canyon Oaks
Dear City Council Members,
I would like to state that I am opposed to the Canyon Oaks project. The project has several thingsabsolutely wrong with it, it exceeds the 4 story height limit, it cuts into protected land, the dirtshould be removed from the ancient landslide not built upon which makes the project evenhigher. The canyon oaks area should be developed as a community gathering area that serves thecitizens of Calabasas or if not, it should stay the way it is, a beautiful landscape that represents whatCalabasas is all about, beautiful open space and mountains. Please do not approve this project.
Sincerely,
Brandon Alvarado
From: Jennifer Hoffman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 6:03 PM To: info Subject: Canyon Oaks Project
Dear City Council Members,
I would like to state that I am opposed to the Canyon Oaks project. There are many issues with the development in its current state. These items are all outlined in the Calabasas Coalition Citizen Report submitted by John Suwara.
I ask that you please give the citizens of Calabasas consideration, particularly those that will be directly impacted by this project long after the developer makes his money and moves on to the next project.
I have heard many of the Council admit that Avanti is a case of a project that got out of control. It seems bizarre to me that this same developer is back again asking for another out of control plan to be approved and we are even in this position to ask that you vote no.
Citizens are very unhappy with the current state of affairs in Calabasas. I have been out tabling events and speaking with my neighbors. There is little faith in government right now. Perhaps that is what certain representatives want in order to push their agenda, but there is another impact from this current state of affairs. People are mobilizing and channeling their frustration into actions.
As a founding member of the Calabasas Coalition, I urge you to work with the citizens and take our concerns seriously.
This is a defining moment in our history to make the westside into a community gathering place rather than further push the image of a truck stop with motels we do not want or need.
Thank you for your consideration. I urge you to Vote NO on Canyon Oaks and work with the community on an acceptable compromise for that land.
Jennifer Hoffman
From: Arun Metre [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 5:52 PM To: info Subject: TO: CITY COUNCIL & MAYOR
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
CANYON OAKS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
As a citizen of Calabasas and resident of the western part of the city, I wish to share my opinionwith you concerning the above project that you will be discussing at your meeting today.
1. MEASURE O The City should enforce measure O. We should vote on the project.2. ZONING CHANGES There should be no zoning changes in connection with the project.3. CONFORM TO NATURAL TERRAIN I oppose the envisaged project for several reasonsincluding the impact on views. What has recently been done in destroying natural views alongthe east side of Las Virgenes Road is appalling and the proposed project is more of the sameand actually worse.4.GENERAL PLAN The proposed development does not serve the local community as requiredby the General Plan. Of particularly concern is the public access to the scenic area.5.DEVELOPMENT'S SUITABILITY FOR THE LAND The proposed development will totally changethe character of the area. A character that the General Plan amongst other provisions wasintended to protect.
Ideally the City Council should sit back before rushing with this project and ask "Is this whatour citizens foresaw when they voted for cityhood 25 years back ?".
Yours Sincerely,Arun Metre
