Letter on behalf of VHOA: Canyon Hills/Whitebird Project

On behalf of the VHOA membership, I wish to state our opposition to the project as currently proposed.

I wish to state the main reasons we oppose it:

1. The General Plan and the Community Plans do not need to be amended for RE-40 and much other higher density zoning as well. The current zoning allows even higher density than that. The limiting factor that this developer wishes to bypass is the Slope Density Ordinance that Plan amendments would circumvent. We wish to preserve our hillsides.

2. The area in question is one of few Riparian areas left like it in the world, like the Mediterranean Coasts. We believe value should be given to rare ecological treasures.

3. We are very concerned about even more development as the availability or resources such as water, and electricity decline and gridlock increases. We feel very strongly that community quality of life wishes and concerns should be respected as we have been the caretakers of our community and have made it what it is. It is a very unique area that includes open space, recreation and agricultural uses in a very unique and rich life style.

4. We disagree with arguments about the need for housing. We believe the City should be focusing on urban revitalization and re-developing inner city neighborhoods especially where there are abandoned buildings, or very bad gang problems. These areas can withstand higher density developments especially when they are usually near job centers and transit corridors.

5. We believe that all future developments should incorporate trails and recreation infrastructures -- some of you may have heard me describe my ideas. It is my conclusion and insight after living and participating in equestrian communities -- they are low crime, pleasant places for people to raise their children. The only main difference is the built in recreational infrastructures and space.

6. This developer has not met one of the many community’s requests for a trail infrastructure through his project that would connect to existing very old trails. Thus the benefits of his offer to include an equestrian arena are thus cancelled out as it would be too isolated and not connected.

7. We would like to see the south side of the property preserved, as it is very wild land, which includes a wetland. The north side is adjacent to many other communities.

8. We do not agree with developing very close to the freeway and to the planned sound walls with picture windows. We object to such blight along the Scenic Corridor. Currently sound walls are planned along the entire project and we believe stipulations in the Scenic Corridor protect it against such affronts! The development should be configured so that these are not necessary,

Thank you very much for you attention to this very important matter.

Carol Locus Ford, President, Valley Horse Owners Association, www.vhoa.org