Allen Matkins - City of Calabasas

Transcription

Allen Matkins
Memorandum
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
www.allenmatkins.com
To: The New Home Company
From: William R. Devine
Date: May 2, 2016
Telephone: 949.851.5412
E-mail: [email protected]
File Number: 372182-00005/OC1108135.01
Subject:
Applicability of City of Calabasas Open Space Measure to the Proposed New
Home Company Project
Question Presented: Does the currently proposed development plan for the Canyon Oaks project
require approval of a General Plan Amendment ("GPA") that triggers the City's open space measure
which requires that any GPA approved by the City which redesignates land from open-space to a
non-open space use be subject to approval by two thirds of the voters of those casting votes on the
question?
Answer: No.
Background
The New Home Company ("TNHC") is proposing a development on 16 acres ("Proposed
Project") within a 77.3 acre property (the "Property") that it owns in the City of Calabasas ("City")
near the intersection of Agoura Road and Los Virgenes Road. The Proposed Project includes a 120
room four-story hotel, a 71 home subdivision, and 61 acres of open space. The current General Plan
land use designation on approximately 10 of the 16 acres for which development is allowed under the
General Plan, is Planned Development ("PD"). The remaining 6 acres of development is designated
as Residential Multiple-Family 20 units per acre ("R-MF-20"). There is an additional 61 acres within
the Property that has a General Plan land use designation of Open-Space Resource Protection ("OSRP"). The Proposed Project will require a GPA and accompanying Zoning Amendment ("ZA") to
change the General Plan land use designation to Commercial Retail ("CR") over an approximate 3
acre portion of the property, which currently has the PD designation, to allow for the proposed hotel.
The remaining 13 acres of development will have a General Plan land use designation of R-MF-20.
Finally, the GPA will provide for Development Plan overlay zoning for the commercial and
Los Angeles | Orange County | San Diego | Century City | San Francisco
1900 Main Street, 5th Floor | Irvine, CA 92614-7321 | Telephone: 949.553.1313 | Facsimile: 949.553.8354
Date: May 2, 2016
Page 2
residential components of the Property. The area outside of the Proposed Project's development
footprint, approximately 61 acres, will retain the General Plan land use designation of OS-RP.
In the most recent City Council hearing regarding the Proposed Project a number of
opponents argued that the GPA must also include a redesignation of some of the OS-RP land to a
non-open space use and, thus, be subject to voter approval pursuant to Section No. 17.16.030 of the
City municipal code. The referenced section states that: "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 No. 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." The opponents appear
to be basing their position on the fact that the final development footprint for the Proposed Project
does not match precisely with the lines on the General Plan Land Use Map contained in the City
General Plan. For all the reasons noted below this argument is not supported by either the law or the
facts.
General Legal Analysis
A.
California State Planning and Zoning Statutory Provisions. In describing the seven
mandated elements in a general plan, California Government Code Section 65302 states the
following: "The general plan shall consist of a statement of development policies and shall include a
diagram or diagrams and text setting forth objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals."
That section then goes on to list the various elements required in a general plan and says the
following: "A land use element that designates the proposed general distribution and general
location and extent of the uses of the land for housing, business, industry, open-space including
agriculture, natural resources, recreation, and enjoyment of scenic beauty, education, public buildings
and grounds, solid and liquid waste disposal facilities, and other categories of public and private uses
of land." [Emphasis added]
From the above we learn two important aspects relevant to a general plan's land use map.
First, the state legislation uses the term diagram rather than the term map. The reason for this is
discussed in more detail below in a California Attorney General Opinion. In summary, the use of the
word diagram rather than the word map was intended to reflect the legislative intent that such land
use diagrams or maps, as they are often referred to in general plans, are just diagrams and are not
intended to be or capable of being precision instruments. The second related point is the use of the
terms general distribution and general location. This language is consistent with a diagram and
again indicates the legislative intent that the location of various uses within a general plan land use
map was to be general and not precise. This is perfectly understandable since diagrams and even
maps are symbolic representations and are inherently inaccurate based on numerous factors including
scale, topographic issues, variations in tools used, and human error.
1108135.01/OC
372182-00005/5-6-16/wrd/wrd
Date: May 2, 2016
Page 3
Finally, California Government Code Section 65300.5 establishes the requirement that a
general plan be internally consistent. This means that all elements of a general plan must be
consistent with one another and a general plan's text and its accompanying diagrams must be in
agreement. This is discussed in more detail when summarizing the Office of Planning and Research
General Plan Guideline below.
B.
California Attorney General Opinion No. 83-804 ("AG Opinion or Opinion"). In
California Attorney General Opinion No. 83-804 (67 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 75) the Attorney General
("AG") was asked whether a parcel specific map was required for the land use element of a general
plan adopted by city or county. The attorney general concluded that a parcel specific map is not
required for the land use element of the general plan adopted by city or county based on the analysis
and conclusions summarized below.
The AG first referenced California Government Code Section 65302, discussed above, and
concluded that this statutory language makes it clear that a parcel specific map is not required but
rather, a diagram of general locations illustrating the policies of the plan is sufficient. The Opinion
goes on to apply several principles of statutory construction to determine legislative intent regarding
the statutory provision referenced. The AG first notes that prior to 1965 the statutory requirements
for general plans used the term "map" but in 1965 replaced that term with the term "diagram." The
Opinion concludes that this change was clearly made to ensure that the legislative intent was clear
that a general plan was to indicate general locations rather than to be considered a precise delineation.
The Opinion notes the advantage of the "policy plan" approach over a detailed map approach which
allows a plan to integrate and coordinate activities to avoid waste, ineffectiveness and
maladjustments.
The Opinion also references the California Office of Planning and Research ("OPR") which
has the mandate to develop and adopt guidelines for the preparation and content of the mandatory
elements required in general plans. In formulating its opinion the AG consulted with the Director of
OPR who said the following: "In the past, many local governments consider the land use map a
'blueprint' of the jurisdictions' future development. As a result, in practice the land use map was often
the only portion of the general plan used. This planning approach presented many problems. For
example, the map did not make logical connections between the various land use designations and the
community's goals and database, thereby making the maps designations appear arbitrary and
susceptible to numerous amendments; because of its blueprint nature, the map hindered flexibility in
the use of common sense in reviewing development proposals; the map was regarded as a 'second
zoning map' and was not perceived as necessary by a large segment of the community; and the map
generally precluded addressing the concept of phasing or timing of growth. This overt emphasis on
the map may have led the Legislature to eliminate the term 'map' so in order to deemphasize the map
in relation to the text."
1108135.01/OC
372182-00005/5-6-16/wrd/wrd
Date: May 2, 2016
Page 4
The Opinion goes on to state that, in summary, a general plan normally is not specific enough
in detail to affect individual parcels, but rather indicates general locations. It consists of diagrams,
general locations, and a statement of objectives, principles, and standards. While the diagram
locations are general, the policies set forth in the plan should be detailed enough to identify possible
uses at any particular time. Of particular relevance to this matter, the Opinion goes on to state that
"the detail necessary for a parcel specific map may be developed at a later stage in the land use
regulatory process. Specific plans and zoning ordinances may be adopted and subdivision maps
approved that will provide the requisite specificity when more information becomes available." At
the general plan stage, on the other hand, the legislature has given to cities and counties great
flexibility in dealing with their potential growth and development.
Finally, the Opinion notes that "planning is at best an inexact science. General plans or policy
statements are often semantical exercises which require considerable interpretation on the part of
persons charged with implementing them." The Opinion goes on to conclude that "a parcel specific
map is not required for the land use element of a general plan adopted by the city or county; a
diagram of general locations illustrating the policies of the plan is sufficient."
C.
California General Plan Guidelines 2003, Governor's Office Of Planning and
Research. The most recent version of General Plan Guidelines ("Guidelines") from OPR, includes a
few relevant guidelines and comments regarding the issues being addressed. First, the Guidelines
reference California Government Code Section 65300.5, discussed above, as establishing the
requirement that a general plan maintain internal consistency. This means that all elements of a
general plan, whether mandatory or optional, must be consistent with one another and, a general
plan's text and its accompanying diagrams are integral parts of the plan and, therefore, must be in
agreement. Second, the Guidelines refer to diagrams as being a graphic representation or expression
of a general plan's development policies and that such diagrams must be consistent with the general
plan text. The Guidelines also reference the AG Opinion discussed above and include a quote from
that opinion which reads as follows: "When the legislature has used the term 'map,' it has required
preciseness, exact location, and detailed boundaries, as in the case of the Subdivision Map Act. No
such precision is required of a general plan diagram. The Guidelines go on to state that a diagram or
diagrams and text should be general enough to allow a degree of flexibility in decision-making as
times change. The Guidelines also note that a plan's diagram or diagrams and the zoning map are not
required to be identical. Finally, the Guidelines again refer to the above referenced AG Opinion for
the proposition that a parcel specific map is not required for the land use element of a general plan
and that the detail necessary for a parcel specific map may be developed at a later stage in the land
use process.
D.
City of Calabasas General Plan. Provided below are some relevant references from
the Calabasas General Plan.
1108135.01/OC
372182-00005/5-6-16/wrd/wrd
Date: May 2, 2016
Page 5
•
"The land use element designates the general distribution and intensity of uses of land
for housing, business, industry, open-space, education, public buildings and grounds,
waste disposal facilities, and other categories of public and private use." CGP page I6.
•
"All general plan elements must be consistent with one another" and "because general
plan text and diagrams are both integral parts of the general plan, they must be
consistent with each other." CGP page 1-7.
•
"It is the goal of the land use element to: direct the amount and location of land uses
in conformance with environmental carrying capacities and the other goals of the
general plan. Within the constraints of these carrying capacities, provide a distribution
of land uses that maintains, it also enhances the environmental, social, physical, and
economic well-being of Calabasas." CGP page II-1.
•
CGP page II-9 includes a list of guidelines for clustered development. Since the
Proposed Project is a clustered project, these guidelines are relevant to the
establishment of the development footprint for the project. The application of many of
these guidelines to the proposed project was one of the driving forces determining its
ultimate footprint.
•
CGP page IV-7 includes a number of policies regarding the preservation of biological
resources. Compliance with most all of these policies was a significant factor in
determining the ultimate location of the development footprint for the Proposed
Project.
•
CGP page V-6 includes Table V-2 which is labeled Vacant Residential Sites
Inventory. In that table is the zoning category PD/RM (20) which includes 16 acres
and a total unit potential of 180 residential units. This is a specific reference to the
Proposed Project site.
•
CGP page V-7 describes the Property which is referred to in the general plan as the
Las Virgenes Site. The text notes that the site consists of two large hillside parcels
totaling over 70 gross acres under single ownership. It goes on to state that the general
plan designates 6 acres of the sites buildable area as Residential Multiple-Family (RM
20), providing for up to one 120 multi-family units, and an additional 10 acres
designated Planned Development (PD), to accommodate a mix of residential, retail
and office uses.
1108135.01/OC
372182-00005/5-6-16/wrd/wrd
•
Date: May 2, 2016
Page 6
CGP page XIII-14 includes a section labeled Interpretation of the General Plan Land
Use Map and indicates that where uncertainty exists regarding the location of
boundaries of any land use category the referenced procedures are to be used to
resolve such uncertainty. The section goes on to note nine different methodologies for
determining boundaries, none of which apply to establishing the boundary between the
development area and the open space area on the Property.
E.
City Municipal Code. Pursuant to Section No. 17.03.010A of the City Municipal
Code the Community Development Director is assigned the responsibility and authority to interpret
the requirements of the development code. The development code over which the community
development director has responsibility and authority to interpret includes Section No. 17.16.030
relating to applicability of the of the city voting requirement regarding redesignation of open-space
land.
Application to Proposed Project
A.
The Calabasas General Plan Land Use Map Does Not Create Nor Was It Intended To
Create A Precise Demarcation Line Between The Development Area And The Open Space Area On
the Canyon Oaks Property. As noted above, diagrams and even maps are symbolic representations
and are inherently inaccurate based on numerous factors including scale, topographic issues,
variations in tools used, and human error. All of these were relevant factors with regard to the
placement of the Country Oaks 77 acre site on the city's General Plan Land Use Map in 2008. The
original shape of the map began with a concept plan generally drawn on paper but without any
technical analysis of on the ground issues such as biological impacts, soil concerns, landslide issues
or any of the other factors that go into determining the best location for a development footprint.
otherwise. The shape of the concept plan generally reflected the shape of the Valley within which the
Proposed Project is located but everyone recognized that the ultimate development footprint would be
determined once all the necessary technical studies were performed and all appropriate issues
addressed. The proposed project is an excellent example of why California Government Code
Section 65302 uses the term diagram rather than map and why the AG Opinion concluded that a
parcel specific map is not required for the land use element of a general plan, that a diagram of
general locations is sufficient and that the detail necessary for parcel specific plan map may be
developed at a later stage in the land use regulatory process, such as is happening for the Proposed
Project. For all the reasons noted above, the ultimate development footprint for a project, such as the
one at issue here, does not need to precisely match up with the general plan land use map as long as it
is approximately in the same general location and the development authorized is consistent with the
general plan. In this case the Proposed Project meets both requirements.
B.
The Development Footprint of the Proposed Project Is Consistent with the General
Plan. The one clear constant in the General Plan from the very beginning was that development
1108135.01/OC
372182-00005/5-6-16/wrd/wrd
Date: May 2, 2016
Page 7
would occur on a 16 acre portion of the 77 acre Property, generally within the Valley area, and the
remainder of the 77 acres would be open-space. After months of detailed technical studies and
review by city staff and the planning commission, an appropriate development footprint of 16 acres
was finalized and is now before the City Council. The remaining 61 acres will stay as open-space per
the terms of the General Plan. The legal requirement of internal consistency between diagrams and
text makes it clear that the development footprint is to be 16 acres and that the ultimate development
footprint must take into account all other general plan policies in order to maintain internal
consistency as is required under state law. The development footprint of the Proposed Project is
consistent with the City General Plan as is the 61 acres of open space.
C.
Approval f the Proposed Project Will Not Result in a Redesignation of Open-Space to
Non-Open-Space Use. As noted above, for many reasons, there is no clear demarcation between the
development portion of the Canyon Oaks Property and the open-space portion. The General Plan
land use map provides general locations but has no precision. Thus, the actual locations of the openspace area and the development area are only general until a final precise development plan is
approved. Once approved, the only question is whether there will be less open-space and more
development area under the approved plan than is allowed pursuant to the City General Plan. As
noted above, the City General Plan clearly indicates that 16 acres of the site is intended for
development. The approximate location of that 16 acres is depicted on the General Plan land use
map. With approval of the Proposed Project the exact location of that 16 acres will be finalized.
Upon final approval the General Plan land use map can be modified to reflect the now more accurate
location of the development footprint. However, the amount of open space acreage, 61 acres, will not
change as a result of these approvals and, thus, there will not be any redesignation of open-space
property to a non-open-space use.
D.
Approval of the Proposed Project Does Not Trigger City Code Section 17.16.030.
City Code Section 17.16.030 only applies if the City is proposing to adopt a GPA that will result in a
redesignation of land from an open space use to a non-open space use. Since (i) the demarcation line
between the development area and the open space area within the Canyon Oaks Property is not
precise and is only general, (ii) the currently proposed development footprint is consistent with the
specific requirements of the General Plan providing for 16 acres of development and 61 acres of open
space and is in the general location indicated on the General Plan land use map, and, is thus, is
consistent with the General Plan, and (iii) there will be no redesignation of open space since amount
of open space, 61 acres, will not change, the referenced open space code provision does not apply. If
the facts presented a need for an interpretation of Code Section 17.16.030 or any other development
code section in order to determine whether it applied in a given situation, then, pursuant to Section
No. 17.03.010A of the City Code, the Community Development Director is assigned the
responsibility and authority to interpret whether or not a particular development code section applies.
In this case, there is no need for such an interpretation as the code section at issue clearly does not
apply.
1108135.01/OC
372182-00005/5-6-16/wrd/wrd
Date: May 2, 2016
Page 8
Conclusion
For all the reasons noted above, approval of the Proposed Project by the City based on the
proposed entitlements and proposed development footprint does not trigger the application of City
Code Section 17.16.030. In fact, to subject the Proposed Project to the requirements of such code
section would be a violation of the City's own laws and policies and could subject the City to legal
liability to the owner of the Property.
1108135.01/OC
372182-00005/5-6-16/wrd/wrd
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Leroy Williams [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 9:44 AM To: info Subject: To City Council & Mayor I request my opinion no on the proposed Canyon Oaks Development become public record. Thank you, LeRoy O. Williams, Jr. From: Arti [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 9:07 AM
To: info
Subject: To City Council & Mayor
To City Council & Mayor, I am sending this email to express that my disagreement with the proposed Canyon Oaks development near Las Virgenes Road. My work hours do not allow me to be present at the City Council meeting, therefore I am sending this email to voice my opinion against this development that is being planned in my neighborhood. Arti Khanijau 26046 Redbluff Drive, Calabasas, CA From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
To: info
Subject: to city council and mayor
Good day folks,
As a resident of Calabasas for 15 years I am writing to you to VOTE NO on the proposed
Canyon Oaks DEVELOPMENT!
Its a shame how our little quaint city has lost its way and has become an overbuilt congested
little city.
The destruction of our precious scarce land is a SHAME and has to be stopped! The people who
you represent have voiced their opinions have loudly said ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
Lets return to the days of HUMBLE and KIND instead of HURRY UP and WAIT!
Thank you for hearing me.
Bruce Auerbach
From: nataliya bulba [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 8:12 AM To: info Subject: TO CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR Hello ALL, This letter is the express my family’s plea to stop killing the nature and preserve our landscape. We though we were electing honest people to serve our community at the City Hall but all our hopes are being crashed these days due to unwise decisions you have been making. Your actions are endengering natural landscape and nature around Calabasas. STOP overdeveloping the city and ruining our beautiful slope hills ! We will NOT allow for the hotel at Las Virgenes and Agoura Rds. Take the developer’s greedy hands off our beautiful Las Virgenes community. If you let the developers to kill our nature, you should be out of your office immediately, and we will strongly vote for your impeachment. We will fight and not let you approve the dangerous project of building the hotel which will bring strangers to our community. We will not allow you to overbuild our city and kill the nature. Hope you still have some feelings left for nature and the greed for money did not completely steel your sole. Think of your kids, what will be left for them to see in the future around the city: cold grey concrete or beautiful natural landscape with flora and fauna?…. Nataliya Bulba and Family, Las Virgenes Resident From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
To: info
Subject: To city council & mayor
I would like to register my opposition to Canyon Oaks if it requires changing zoning boundaries to build. This is absolutely not right. It is not zoned for a hotel. Period. The impacted views of homeowners should not occur. Please make your decisions to conform to the master plane that serves our community. We the residents, need you to guard and uphold our city for we the people. Sally gessford 26824 cold springs st Calabasas From: Kellie Lowry [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 7:15 AM To: info Subject: Vote No on Canyon Oaks Development If City Council votes to approve this, you Are NOT voting in the best interest of the community and Calabasas residents and to disregard the existing general plan, which has been laid out to protect our community, is an abuse of power. Please remember your constituents and vote NO on this development as well as the Rondell development. Thank you Kellie Lowry From: Jon [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016 10:57 PM To: info Subject: To City Council & Mayor I am opposed to the Canyon Oaks Proposed Development. Jon Eoyang 5563 Ruthwood Dr. From: Kimia [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016 9:35 PM To: info Subject: To City Council and Mayor Hello, I live at 5015 Ambridge dr. Calabasas ca 91301 and I would not like the canyon oaks project to be approved by the city. I would like the city to preserve this area and I feel as though they have not taken the communities concerns in consideration before trying to get the city to approve this. To be clear, I am against the canyon oaks project. Thank you, Kimia Karami 310.666.8263 From: Natalia Rudiak [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016 10:37 PM
To: info
Dear Calabasas City Council and Mayor, Per the information provided to us from the Calabasas Coalition we are voicing our official opinion here in this email. #1) Concerning Rondell Oasis 4‐Story Hotel Proposal, by no means do we agree to gifting our precious land for free to any developer, let alone have any development of hotels, residential dwellings or commercial buildings on this land "Las Virgenes Rd & Rondell St (immediately north of the Mobil Station)". #2) Canyon Oaks Hotel, 71 Residential Unit Proposal: We absolutely do not approve of re‐zoning this site for a hotel nor do we approve any re‐zoning for residential or commercial buildings on this site. The thought of looking at a ridiculous number of homes, that would replace the beautiful hillside and add to our already congested traffic, on teeny tiny lots is already giving us a headache. An obvious numbers game for the developer: squeeze as many homes as possible, with little to no backyard, and pocket more cash. How does this benefit the existing Calabasas community in any way?! How would a hotel benefit the existing Calabasas residents in any way?! We are 100% against this. We miss the beautiful sheep that used to graze here, but even in their absence the land is still so picturesque. It's why we moved here over 13 years ago to purchase our first home. We wanted to get away from the urban sprawl and we want to see Calabasas remain true to its natural beauty that drew us here to begin with. We do not need to be an extension of Woodland Hills. God forbid! May our voices be heard and respected per Measure O. Jeff Rodgers & Natalia Rodgers (Rudiak) From: Zara Karamy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016 8:26 PM To: info Subject: To City Council & Mayor Hello, I live at 5015 Ambridge dr. Calabasas ca 91301 and I would not like the canyon oaks project to be approved by the city. I would like the city to preserve this area and I feel as though they have not taken the communities concerns in consideration before trying to get the city to approve this. To be clear, I am against the canyon oaks project. Thank you, Zara Karamy 818.219.2582 From: Nancy Goldsen [mailto:[email protected]]
To: info
Subject: To: City Council & Mayor
We have opposed the development of a 4 story hotel or a 3 story hotel for that matter.
We continue to insist that the site be developed within the guidelines of the City’s General
Plan.
Specifically to develop : “serving first and foremost area residents and employees.”
The proposed hotel does NOT fit that guideline nor does it respect the preservation of the
natural surroundings it will be set into.
Which is what all of us “bought” when we purchased our homes in this area.
We could’ve picked EAST Calabasas...more developed, but we did NOT!
WE support respecting our natural environment and all the flora and fauna it supports
without CONDITIONS!
Since it is what makes “Calabasas” a community ALL who live here desire..it is incumbent
upon you to protect and preserve it.
Please govern yourselves accordingly...
Nancy Goldsen
owner
5484 Parkmor Rd
From: Myrna Rose [mailto:[email protected]]
To: info
Subject: To city Council & Mayor
Have written over and over about how very horrible it would be to spoil our beautiful
land with an ugly hotel!!!!
This is not the place for it!!!
It would add congestion, crime, and spoil the beauty of Calabasas.
PLEASE!!!! Do not build here!!!!!!
Myrna Rose
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 4:32 PM To: info Subject: To City Council & Mayor PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE THE CANYON OAKS DEVELOPMENT ON MAY 25th. We have lived in Calabasas for 40 years and we love this beautiful area. This is why we live in Calabasas.....open space, natural landscape and a City Council who will make the right decision and make us proud to live here. Thank you. Helen H. From: Martin Weiss [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 7:24 PM
To: info
Subject: Proposed Canyon Oaks Development
I have been a resident of Calabasas for 13 years. Please do not change the zoning to allow for higher buildings and development of the hills anymore that had been done this past year. Not only are you taking away the serenity and beauty of the views but your are creating more congestion for the area. Sincerely, Martin Weiss Martin Weiss, CPA
Weiss CPA Group, LLP
2535 Townsgate Rd. Suite 100
Westlake Village, California 91361
Ph: 310-943-8574 Fax:805-855-7031
[email protected]
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016 7:32 AM
To: info
Subject: Canyon Oaks
Calabasas Mayor and City Council: As a long time resident of Calabasas (34 years), I strongly oppose the proposed developer changes of
the Canyon Oaks project based on the facts below:
#1. The developer requires changing zoning boundaries on the property to build on land
that is currently designated Development Restricted Open Space (OS-RP) according to
maps presented by city staff. Measure O requires 2/3 voter approval before any land in
Calabasas zoned as restricted open space can be rezoned for other uses.
#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. Views will be impacted. There are no plans to export excess dirt from grading,
resulting in 30-foot higher building pads for the houses. The city’s Land Use and
Development Code states 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.” (17.20.150.B3, p.158)
#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 City’s General Plan describes part of the site’s use as “accommodating a mix of
residential, retail and office uses, with the goal of creating a ‘village center’ along Las
Virgenes Road.” (pg. V-7) The Las Virgenes Gateway Master Plan cites that “…it is the
community’s intent to establish the area as a “village center,” serving first and foremost
area residents and employees, and secondly, visitors to the area and region…” (pg. 7:4,
Section 3)
PLEASE do not approve the zoning changes.
Best regards,
Jim Boschee
26059 Adamor Road
Calabasas, CA 91302-1002
.818.516.5977
From: Vijay Mony [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 8:37 AM
To: info
Hello: I would like to voice my concern over the Canyon Oaks proposed development. My choice to move to Calabasas was primarily driven by the beautiful, natural landscape that surrounds the city. I do not support this proposed development as it deteriorates our beautiful landscape. I ask the city council and mayor that represent me, to vote against the Canyon Oaks project. Thank you, Vijay Mony 5255 Cangas Drive Calabasas, CA 91301 310‐882‐9390 ‐‐ Vijay K Mony (917) 293‐6194 [email protected] From: Hurry Harry [mailto:[email protected]]
To: info
Subject: Mayor and City Council
I am opposed to the Canyon Oaks Development. This is a tragedy. We are being bombarded by
unwanted development. Calabasas has now lost all of its charm and its prestige. It is looking
like any city in the valley. Shame on you. Harriett
From: Ardito, Steven E [mailto:[email protected]]
To: info
Cc: Calabasas Coalition
Subject: To City Council and Mayor
I don’t know why Calabasas and Conejo Valley residents have to continually engage to combat the ever‐
present threat of over‐development. I have been a resident of Calabasas for over 20 years, and the quality of life I moved here for has been in a steady state of decline. Primarily because there have been many instances where ill‐advised development was approved by our local Government. Promises made during campaign season abound with commitments to support our environment, preserve open space, and be dependable stewards of the Conejo Valley lifestyle. In practice, this seems to rarely happen. I am frustrated that the Calabasas City Council and Mayor are even considering a development proposal on property designated as restricted open space, in our scenic Malibu corridor no less. I am an avid user of our beautiful Santa Monica Mountains and it saddens me to see the prolific development on one of the State’s most precious resources; the gorgeous Malibu Canyon corridor. This latest proposal (Canyon Oaks) is inexcusable in its impact to one of the prettiest views in the canyon, and restricting access to trail heads (DeAnza Calabash Trail). The idea of another hotel (which we certainly don’t need) or a self‐storage facility sickens me. This was designated open space for a reason; it is precious and irreplaceable from a land management perspective. Please do the right thing and kill this development proposal. The support and petitions I have observed indicate that Conejo Valley residents don’t want this, and it appears technically illegal as the Calabasas Coalition has pointed out that Measure O requires 2/3 voter approval before any land in Calabasas zoned as restricted open space can be rezoned for other uses. It would appear to be your obligation to uphold this tenet. Please give us confidence that our legislature is doing the right thing for the Community and future generations, not exploiting our precious resources and lifestyle for their own gain. If the direction is otherwise, I am sure you will be hearing from many of us again and again. Thanks for your attention. Steven Ardito From: Joel Fajnor [mailto:[email protected]]
To: info
Subject: Canyon Oaks Development
Members of the Council and Mayor:
I want to voice my strong opposition to the Canyon Oaks project proposed for Las Virgenes Road. I am
asking you to vote this down for a number reasons, but first and foremost is its size and location. This
property is not zoned for a hotel - much less a four story one - and at least part of this proposal is on land
designated as restricted open space. According to Measure O, which I voted for, a 2/3 voter approval is
needed to grant approval for a zoning change. Further, I would like to see the city's Land Use and
Development Code followed to the letter.
There are much more appropriate uses for this site that will benefit the residents of the area in a better
way. Please follow the guidelines as written in the City's General Plan and stop this project as it is now
presented.
Thank you,
Joel Fajnor
4043 Cottonwood Grove Trail
Calabasas
From: Tamiko [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 9:57 PM To: info Subject: Attention: City Council > Please let it be recorded that I strongly oppose the 4 story hotel planned for Canyon Oaks and Rondell Oasis on Las Virgenes Rd. The cumulative effects of the 3 planned developments on our traffic and environment both temporary and permanent will destroy the view sheds and hill views forever. This environmentally sensitive corridor should be carefully planned with sensitivity to the residents who call it their home. Th residential part of the design should not be situated on top of a hill, which further disrupts and infringes upon the pastoral hillside views. The argument from the developer to heighten the ridge line with displaced earth further deprecates the views. Could they not build housing pads on the East side of the hill so that the housing is not visible from Las Virgenes? > Please deny Canyon Oaks approval of their plans for a 4 story hotel,housing on top of the ridge and heightening the ridge to accommodate dirt. > Tamiko Fuote From: Simon Halpern [mailto:[email protected]]
To: info
Cc: Agatha Diaz Halpern
Subject: Opposition to Rondell Oasis Hotel Project
City of Calabasas, My name is Simon Halpern, and I'm a resident of Calabasas, residing in the Steeplechase living complex on Lost Hills Rd. On behalf of myself and my family, I'm writing to state our opposition to the Rondell Oasis Hotel project that threatens the natural landscape of our city. Calabasas is beautiful for the splendid terrain it possesses. Forgoing large‐scale project development on and at the bases of our hills is the one thing that we, as a community, can do to preserve the recreational and pastoral qualities of our living space ‐ not just for ourselves, but for our future generations. Development projects like the Rondell Oasis Hotel, while having the obvious potential to generate revenue, permanently damage the rural landscape that I, my wife and my children enjoy and respect as our home. With this letter, we wish to state that we're opposed to the Rondell Oasis Hotel. Please, let's preserve the landscape by standing against large‐scale development. Thank you for your time, Simon and Agatha Halpern 4240 Lost Hills Rd (Unit 3202), Calabasas, CA 91301 From: Shannon Foley [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 3:13 PM
To: info
Subject: City council & mayor
Hi, I VOTE NO on the Rondell Oasis 4‐story hotel! Preserve our beautiful hills and community! From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 2:47 PM
To: info
Subject: OPPOSITION-- Rondell Oasis
To Whom it may concern:
Please accept this email to record my STRONG OPPOSITION, along with that of my neighbors, to the
proosed developmment of the Rondell Oasis Hotel complex. After careful study of the project, we believe
that such a development is in direct conflict to the environment and ambiance of Calabasas. That serene
and uncongested atmosphere is precisely why I, along with so many others, moved to Calabasas from
the "city" in the first place.
Please, we urge you, NOT to allow the destruction of the intimate and unmolested, natural atmosphere
that characterizes our beloved city.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.of this very important matter
Best Regards,
Mark Hestrin
310-903-1980
5925 Normandy Drive
Calabasas, 91302
From: Kiana Key [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 6:16 PM
To: info
Subject: Please VOTE NO on the Rondell Oasis
Dear Sir or Madam, I have lived in this neighborhood for 24 years. I grew up in a modest house up close to Lupin Hill Middle school, and when I saved up to purchase my first home, there was no question I would stay. When people ask me where I'm from I am proud to tell them I'm from Las Virgines, and that some would describe it as the "last o the old west." Over the years the last of it has been diminishin, with more and more buildings and less and less of nature, and beauty. Please do not build a hotel or anything on that hill, Please do not destroy the last of the old West. I strongly oppose this development and urge you to please consider what we will be loosing that will never come back. Sincerely, Kiana Keyvanjah PharmD. 26017 Alizia Canyon DR. #B Calabassas, CA 91302 From: Bob Conlee [mailto:[email protected]]
To: info
Subject: To City Council and Mayor
I cannot be at the May 25th meeting due to work, but I oppose the Canyon Oaks project in all it's
forms.
Calabasas did not need another hotel, as we already have several. We do not need another
storage facility. We already have one.
The best option is to preserve what open space we have left to preserve our semi-rural way of
life. "Last of the Old West," should be a promise of preservation.
Please do not allow Western Calabasas to be the dumping ground for everything the rich folks in
Eastern/Southern Calabasas wouldn't tolerate in their neighborhood.
Robert Conlee
Calabasas homeowner and resident 23 years
Kathryn E. Palmer
26816 Cold Springs Street
Calabasas, California 91301
May 5, 2016
City Council, City of Calabasas
100 Civic Center Way
Calabasas, California 91302
Canyon Oaks Proposed Development
Honorable Council Members:
I attended the Calabasas City Council meeting on May 3, 2016 to comment on the proposed four
story hotel at the Las Virgenes/101 Freeway intersection. I had previously submitted a letter to
the council voicing my concerns with the proposal but because of the scale and impact of the
project on our city I felt I needed to make my opinions known in person.
I have had very little involvement with local politics; much to my shame. Like so many other
citizens, my life is complicated, over scheduled, and most of the time stressful due to all of the
obligations I have to my family, our business, and everything involved with trying to create a
comfortable home. While I always take the time to vote, I rarely pay attention to development
projects and other issues that have important influence over the quality of life enjoyed by
Calabasas residents.
I would like to note that the only reason I found out about the proposed development was due to
several flyers left at my home by the Calabasas Coalition. I realize that it is my responsibility to
seek out council agendas for review of potential serious matters. However, I also believe it is the
responsibility of government to make it easy for people to do the right thing. For example, the
fact that we have curbside recycling through our waste management company greatly increases
recycling and the reduction of waste placed in our landfills.
Because I had my young son with me at the May 3rd meeting, I had to leave prior to the end. I
did however watch the rest of the meeting online up to the final break taken by the council. I
must say I was extremely impressed and gratified by the detailed questioning of city staff about
their reports supporting the project. In particular, I was impressed by Major Bozajian’s line of
questions about the existing surrounding development and whether or not such development had
taken place or been approved prior to Calabasas cityhood. The staff report states that the
existence of fast-food restaurants, certain buildings on Mureau Road across the 101 Freeway,
and the gas stations at the intersection of Las Virgenes and the freeway support the addition of a
four-story hotel.
One of the most disturbing elements, to me, of the entire proposal is the gift of Rondell Street to
the hotel developer. The addition of the square footage of the gift is being used to calculate the
maximum square footage of development. In my opinion this is an outrageous suggestion. The
property purchased by the developer has numerous natural constraints (sheer hillsides, flood
plans, etc.) which limit the size of whatever will be built on the property. Why would the city
enable a private citizen to increase his profits?
Additionally, the line of argument about the type of hotel, the “brand,” and whether or not the
project “pencils” is of absolutely no concern to the city or its residents. It is not the role of
government to help someone make money on vacant land that was purchased with full
knowledge of existing constraints, zoning, etc.
I must say that I was impressed by the attitude of the applicant when questioned about existing
trail access. He unequivocally stated that he would not block access to the trail notwithstanding
the council’s decision to have applicant go back to the drawing table and submit a proposal that
fits within the existing zoning and other constraints.
I believe our city council should be paid appropriately and provided with budgets for their own
staff. Currently, the major’s compensation is $18,051 while other council members receive
$31,285 including health insurance, pension contributions and car allowances. The city
manager, by contrast, is compensated at the amount of $239,544 per year. I think it is clear that
the city staff, people who are not elected and do not have direct accountability to the citizens of
Calabasas, have far too much power and influence over the legislative process. Calabasas
deserves to have representation that has the ability to dedicate the time, effort, and resources
required to run the city and make the hard decisions. Part-time legislating is not in the best
interest of any of us.
Thank you for your consideration
Glynn & Kathryn Palmer
Cc:
Agoura Acorn
Las Virgenes Enterprise
From: Mary Wayne [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 5:59 PM
To: info
I know this email is late but I realize now I will not be able to make it to the city council meeting
on Wednesday and want to express my opinion of the Canyon Oaks Development proposal.
I own a condo at 4201 Las Virgenes Rd and have only lived here for two years But in that time I
have truly appreciated the open spaces in this canyon.
I think this development will make traffic conditions unbearable and permanently take away the
sense of rustic beauty from this out edge of the city of Calabasas.
Taking away the hillside is completely wrong. Please reconsider this proposal and do not give
the zoning changes
Yours truly,
Mary Wayne
From: John Suwara [mailto:[email protected]]
To: info
Subject: Re: Canyon Oaks Project :City Council Members Mayor Bozajian, Mayor Pro-Tem Maurer,
Councilmember Weintraub, Councilmember Shapiro and Councilmember Gaines.
Thank you for the opportunity to write this email regarding the Canyon Oaks Project which is being proposed by New Homes Company. It represents overcrowding similar to what we are seeing with the New Homes Company Avanti Development on the east side. During the recent campaign all the candidates said the Avanti was a mistake. It is too high and too dense. For Canyon Oaks we are seeing another New Homes Company development proposed that is too high and too dense. They are proposing large homes on small lots with reduced setbacks that will tower over 80 feet higher than Las Virgenes Road. That is even higher than the height of the Avanti over Park Sorrento.
Do not grant New Homes Company a Development Plan Overlay. A Development Plan Overlay is a permit to build a dense development that does not conform to the General Plan. This is not a superior project that justifies a Development Plan Overlay. If New Homes must build homes let them construct homes within the entitlements that come with the land. Follow the General Plan and build conforming to the existing terrain.
If you haven’t, I hope you visit the site and see up close what is proposed. Look up at the story poles. The unpainted portion of the story poles, up to the red paint, is the height of the fill, 30 feet in many places. Above that, the red paint is the height of the houses up to the eaves. It is 5 feet shorter than the actual height of the house. The fill will destroy sensitive habitat, wildlife areas, natural seeps, sensitive biological areas, wetlands and riparian forest amongst other things. It is the enormous destruction of sensitive open space. Also the homes are being pushed back into the Canyon to accommodate the fill. It is preferable that the homes be pushed forward towards Las Virgenes Road and that the wetlands and riparian woodlands not be damaged.
The open space and the shifting zoning boundaries are a question. From meeting to meeting the zoning boundaries change. Why weren’t the boundaries surveyed when a Planning Commissioner asked staff about it in the 2010 Planning Commission meeting? In 2012 the City Council voted to fix the boundaries to match the General Plan, as requested by the Planning Department. However, boundaries shifted once again between the March 16th and 17th Planning Commission meetings when the public raised questions about encroachment on Open Space. It appears that the zoning boundaries are a moving target.
New Homes Company is proposing a hotel for the site. The New Homes Company representative assured us that he had never been asked to build a hotel by the city. However, in his December 19, 2013 presentation to the Planning Commission, the Mayor, at the time, mentioned that it was suggested to the developer that they build a hotel. Did we or did we not ask the developer to build a hotel?
The hotel is a big box. It does not match the neighborhood. The property is also not zoned for a hotel. This is to suggest that the property be built out per the entitlements. This permits the building of the West Calabasas Village envisioned by many members of the community. It is debatable whether that build out is more dense than an 120 room hotel, but it is something we want. We are not afraid of what we wish for!
We envision a community gathering place per the Las Virgenes Gateway Master Plan that consists of low rise one and two story buildings with establishments for food and other refreshments. Water features similar to those at the Commons that children, their parents and grandparents can enjoy with fish, frogs and turtles. Extend the trail from the West Calabasas Village to the fire‐road at the east end of the property. That trail connecting with other trails in the hills makes this a destination for hikers, bikers and equestrians to access the back country. The village, located on a main road to and from the beach and the Santa Monica Mountains will also attract people traveling to and from those destinations. Thank you for your consideration and hopefully you will vote to deny this project in its current form. From: Darling Interiors [mailto:[email protected]]
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Fred Gaines;
[email protected]
Cc: info
Subject: Canyon Oaks development proposal
Dear Mayor Bozajian and Council Members,
Our city was founded on the notion of responsible development. Through the years plans and
ordinances were voted on and put in place to assure responsible development. Members of this
council included this concept in their campaigns.
Another hotel and 71 large homes on small lots, perched atop 55 feet of fill dirt scraped from the
surrounding hillsides is not responsible development. It goes against the vision of the General
Plan and the Las Virgenes Gateway Master Plan. These were put in place by the residents and
the city to ensure that oversized, irresponsible developments like this one will not happen. They
were put in place to preserve the special hillside landscape for our future generations to
enjoy. Special consideration needs to be taken for this particular area, it is the gateway to a
beautiful State Park and the Pacific Ocean, the views are spectacular and must be
respected. Please use your very influential positions to ensure that present as well as future
citizens (living in the city and passing through) will have the privilege of enjoying the views.
Please do not fear the threat of what might be built on this property if what is currently proposed
doesn’t pass. Refer to the Las Virgenes Gateway Master Plan and envision what is proposed: A
village concept to be enjoyed by residents and visitors alike.
Please also read the Citizen’s Report submitted by the Calabasas Coalition, written by citizen
volunteers who care deeply about preserving our very special community. Many hours were
spent researching and writing this very informative document.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Kelly Spadoni
From: Clark Canfield [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 5:00 PM To: info Subject: Acorn Submission for Alicia Weintraub for Calabasas City Council Dear Councilmembers: Those citizens of Calabasas who recently voted for Alicia Weintraub and are in support of preserving our open space, protecting against over‐development, maintaining our quality of life, honoring our City's general plan and against more Hotels, have to be very pleased with Councilmember Weintraub's campaign promises, which she wrote about to the Acorn Newspaper on Oct 29th, 2015. Attached is a copy of Councilmember Weintraub Acorn campaign promises and what she stood for as a candidate and hopefully still stands for now, as elected City Councilmember. Much to her credit, Councilmember Weintraub was clearly in tune with the pulse of the majority of the citizens of Calabasas, both then and presumably still now. Her vision and position then, regarding the currently proposed Hotel and housing developments being considered for the Westside, should be reflected in her upcoming vote(s), as her campaign promises indicated. Clark Canfield From: Jennifer Hoffman [mailto:[email protected]]
To: info
Subject: Canyon Oaks
I would like to state that I still oppose the Canyon Oaks project in its current state. Whoever
keeps promising New Homes these ridiculous development plans should be investigated. It
makes no sense why the same developer that created the mess of Avanti is back again trying to
shove an inappropriate development into our neighborhood.
Please vote NO.
Thank you,
Jennifer Hoffman Alvarado
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
To: info
Subject: To Mayor Bozajian, City Council, City Managers RE: Ordinance No. 2016-333 and adoption of
Resolution No. 2016-1507
Dear Mayor Bozajian, City Council members, City Managers,
This is my 4th letter on Canyon Oaks to the City Council and staff members of our City who are paid a
salary to work for our City, citizens and community. My first letter was on 3/9 and my second on 3/15,
both to the Planning Commission and my third was to you the Council and City Managers on 4/13. I have
also spoken several times at related City Council meetings and the Planning Commission hearings. I'm
asking you again to VOTE NO on the Canyon Oaks project as proposed that you are considering on May
25th as Agenda item #4, Ordinance No. 2016-333 and adoption of Resolution No. 2016-1507.
First, I would like to thank you for your opinions rendered on 5/3 for the Rondell Oasis proposed hotel
development. Requiring the developer to follow the rules and build to their entitlements is a strong
statement to all developers who wish to develop their property in this city. As for Canyon Oaks, the
developer should submit a development proposal that fits the land, not the other way around! No proposal
should receive City support unless it adheres to the factors below at the very minimum:
1. No development at all in designated Open Space. Adhere to Measure D & the measure that
made it "forever" Measure O.
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 Hotel proposed should be rejected as the zoning in place does not allow for it.
6. The development must serve the greater community as a priority with a development such as one
that follows the Village concept that is outlined in our General Plan.
What happened to adhering to our General Plan and focusing on a Village concept? Councilwoman
Maurer asked this very question at the end of the April 13th meeting. What is proposed does not meet the
standards set forth and violates a number of zoning and municipal codes in place today and it doesn't
support the Village concept. The points below, directly from the General Plan, are just a few that relate
directly to this undeveloped land and what it was intended for:
IX-17 Provide a mix of uses that creates a destination area where people can come and stay – live, shop,
relax, play.
IX-18 Facilitate the development of more amenities in western Calabasas, such as shopping, pedestrian
facilities, and gathering places.
Your NO VOTE on this project as proposed is within your power and will serve the greater good of the
community. My community has sent 100's of communications and spoken over dozens of hours to the
City regarding our opposition to the Canyon Oaks proposed development. So it's clear it is strongly
opposed by the community. The developer is a powerful corporation with much experience in handling
City government to meet their development needs. Please enlighten them with your NO VOTE that what
matters to the community and follows the rules in place, outweighs their needs.
I'm committed to my opposition to the Canyon Oaks proposed development and I sincerely appreciate
your NO VOTE on Ordinance No. 2016-333 and adoption of Resolution No. 2016-1507.
Jacy Shillan
President, Stone Creek HOA
Member Calabasas Coalition
Long time resident of Calabasas, Voter for City hood in 1991
From: Valerie Woodard [mailto:[email protected]]
To: info
Subject: Canyon Oaks Proposal
I am a resident of Calabasas for over 20 years and I am writing to ask you to rethink this project.
What you are doing to the hillsides and to our canyon is terrible. The hillsides need to be free of
more houses and hotels. Las Virgenes is already terrible with the traffic. Today it took me three
times as long as it used to . The last thing we need is another hotel and more traffic. We do not
need to rezone in order for another hotel to come. Leave apart of this beautiful area alone to
remain beautiful. We do not need to put peopleand houses on every inch of this earth. Leave our
Las Virgenes alone and decline this project for the earth, the animals and the residents. Valerie
Woodard
Thank you,
Valerie Woodard
Kindergarten Teacher
St. Martin of Tours School ✝
11955 Sunset Boulevard ⋄ Los Angeles, CA 90049
310.472.7419 TELEPHONE ⋄ 310.440.2298 FACSIMILE
[email protected]
From: elise dragu [mailto:[email protected]]
To: info
Subject: Canyon Oaks Project
Dear Council:
The Proposed Canyon Oaks Project is sited in one of the world’s most coveted
destinations in a scenic corridor sweeping from the valley to the ocean. It is visible from
miles away….for the moment. This project will be like a hand in front of your
face. Blocking the view of all but the 55 foot tall pad of rearranged dirt and 27 foot tall
houses perched on top of it. All behind a tall fence and , of course, a gate. The
adjacent multi storied, over height code hotel will loom taller than every other structure
in the entire corridor. All this and no community space, unless of course you are in the
tiny, privileged community that lives behind the gates.
An appropriate alternative to consider is a communal area fashioned after the old town
area. Low slung 1 & 2 story buildings with upper level porches and lofts and retail
below resembling the Leonis Adobe rather than the faux “Monterrey” style littering the
landscapes of Southern California. Open air, small local businesses, nature and
landscape intermingled, and duplexes with front porches. Multi Family and Mixed use
buildings have much more opportunity for shared outdoor space, Sooo California! All
built on the existing pad with No Hotel and the natural hillsides in tact. This idea is
supported wholeheartedly by the General Plan the Gateway Master Plan and Municipal
Codes. Instead of the out of towners we may or may not get to stay at the hotel, we
would be creating a destination for the people going through to visit the beaches and
mountains as well as the residents of West Calabasas that currently go to Agoura for so
many reasons.
If Calabasas could realize just how privileged we are, and with that privilege comes
capability. The capability to set trends and break out of stale, selfish cul de sac
mentalities. We can show other communities how to have it all. Multi income, multi
use, community gathering centers that prosper. Everyone prospers, not just the
developer. We are a young city, let’s act like it. Let’s move towards innovation and
away from the suburban cliché. When we raise expectations, all boats rise.
The questions and issues surrounding this project regarding zoning and community
compatibility, environmental, General Plan compliance etc etc. could actually be seen
as a gift. It is the gift of a second chance to review what is truly appropriate and fair to
all concerned. To realign ourselves with moving our city in the direction we started 25
years ago. To be a community that respects and protects the incredible place we live. A
city that will continue to inspire everyone.
Just say No to the project as is.
Elise Dragu
From: jose pasillas [mailto:[email protected]]
To: info
Subject: Opposition to Canyon Oaks Proposed Development
Dear Calabasas City Council and Mayor. My name is Jose Pasillas and I've lived in Calabasas
for 31 years. I will not be able to attend the May 25 City Council meeting, therefore, this letter is
to vehemently oppose giving a zoning variance to the developers of the Canyon Oaks project
which includes a 4-story hotel, 67 homes and 2 duplex units at the intersection of Las Virgenes
and Agoura Roads. This project also encroaches into Restricted Open Space and also will
forever block the beautiful views due to the excessive 55' (above Las Virgenes Road) height of
the entire project. The developers bought the property knowing full well what the limitations,
zoning restrictions and city codes were. This area is not zoned for a hotel! Let them meet
existing regulations. I'm all for private property rights but this four story hotel and homes will
also greatly add to the already excessive traffic in the area. I understand that the City Council
wants this development to generate revenue but that is not a good enough reason to approve this
project. The only reason you need more money is because you're over-spending. Please stick to
the "Calabasas City General Plan" which envisions a mix of residential, retail and office uses to
create a "village center". Protecting open space from runaway development and limiting the
blockage of views is the reason the city residents voted for Cityhood 25 years ago. During all
my years living here I've had the utmost faith and confidence in the City's ability to manage its
finances and growth plans. However, since approximately three years too many developments
that do not fit our city plan have been approved. Please DO NOT approve a the proposed project
as it stands.
Respectfully;
Jose Pasillas
From: Karen Tiffany [mailto:[email protected]]
To: info
Subject: REVISED - please replace with previously sent letter to City Council re Canyon Oaks
Dear Mayor Bozajian and City Council members:
You have before you a very tough decision to make regarding the Canyon Oaks proposal. We all recognize that. Your
decision is to either do the right thing and abide by the General Plan and the will of your constituents or to give in to overdevelopment. Yes Canyon Oaks is less than what the developer is allowed to build but does that make it right? No.
What happened to the Last of the Old West? I bought that license plate frame because I believed in it and was proud to be
a part of it. We are losing our identity.
The west side seems to be a dumping ground. We can see that by the way the Las Virgenes freeway on and off ramps
were cemented over. We can see it by the way the grass in the center median on Las Virgenes has lain dead for months.
We feel like we are being disrespected. Some gateway to the Scenic Corridor.
Yes the west side is littered with gas stations and liquor stores. Fast food places and a strip mall. Those were outside of
our control. This is within your control.
We told you what our vision is. We agreed on what our vision is as a city.
It's time to make us proud to come home once again. Give us what we agreed on; what we asked for. Remember?
A mixed use project with two stories maximum nestled in the canyon. I see several wine tasting stores with outdoor
seating. Those may not compete with the local restaurants. Why should Malibu have the only local wine tasting
venues? Live music by local musicians playing in the background. Meandering sidewalks. A small area for kids to play.
Sprinkle in some affordable housing units. Water features and streams like the Commons. They have live turtles - why
can't we? What better setting for that? Can't you see this?
This is the Calabasas we envisioned. We need something the community can enjoy and use. Not just the lucky 71 who
are able to buy the homes New Homes is proposing. Not a hotel that 99% of the residents will never use.
Remember, it's not always just about money. It's about home. It's about accentuating the positives, our natural resources,
the beauty that is Calabasas. Other cities can only dream of having what we have and what they will never have.
It's about doing the the right thing.
Karen Tiffany
City Council May 25, 20016 Item #4
Canyon Oaks
Preserve the hillside per the directives of the General Plan. Reject this project.
Is a public vote necessary and can the developer build something worse?
If the project is not approved the answer to both is no. The City General Plan and Las
Virgenes Gateway Master Plan were specifically developed to be applied in a manner to
protect against harmful unwanted development. Something worse cannot be built if the City
codes are fairly applied as intended. If this occurs the community will eventually obtain a
Village Center that will be of immense benefit to the area and spark the revitalizes the whole
area, benefiting everyone, as was ably pointed out as being needed by Councilwomen
Weintraub.
If the project is approved the answer to both is yes. In that case the City General Plan and
Las Virgenes Gateway Master Plan will not protect us for they are being applied in an
improper harmful manner. There will be no Village Center and the area will fail to improve.
Since the project plans to grade and expand into an extensive area of the hillsides, which is
open space development restricted, a 2/3 vote of approval will be required to proceed.
In an attempt to prevent this from happening the Developers attorney has provided a written
public comment critical of and claiming the city used illegal procedures. In response, may we
point out; the city has put a lot of effort into making sure the demarcation of the open space
was accurate. On multiple occasions they have assured us that seeking that accuracy is the
reason for the boundary changes that have taken place.
Mr.Bartlett in discussing the following 2010-2012 map boundary changes
1
assured us of that when he said “What is important to point out in these two figures is the
area devoted to the two land uses and the total area is the same so the acreage numbers don’t
change Just the shape.” “what is really important is that the area doesn’t change” …”the total
area doesn’t change.”
In fact they have just recently rechecked the accuracy and are requesting a change that
happens to benefit the developer. One can see a lot of effort has gone into this between 2007
to 2016; there has been quite a bit of change all in the name of being accurate.
2007
2016
2
With that said, contrary to how the attorney thinks we feel, in this matter the accuracy doesn’t
matter; as the staff has said, the General Plan directs that the development must “preserve the
hillside” and be “nestled in the valley”. They opened their presentation of this project with
this statement "the proposed development is nestled in the valley, preserving the hillside per
the directives of the General Plan.”
Anyone with a naked eye can see, in their following two slides that the current development is
far from being contained in the valley as it should be, the developer even shows it deep into
the hillsides grading vast protected area that’s unquestionably OS-DP and requires a vote
under resolution D.
It has been said that the open space belongs to the developer so it doesn’t require a vote.
That’s not correct for the code is well written and specifically deals with that by including
“Any land.” designated OS-R, OS-RP or PF-R.
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
C. Any land designated OS-R, OS-RP or PF-R after July 20, 2005, shall become subject to the requirements of this
section upon such designation.
Also the land zoned as OS-DR is no longer under the control of the developer according to city
codes. That control was given away in the past when the land was rezoned OS-DR. Thus a vote
is required.
17.16.010 - Purpose.
D. OS-DR (Open Space-Development Restricted) District. The OS-DR zoning district is intended for areas of the city
with existing open space that have been development restricted through the use of deed restrictions, conservation
easements or dedications of common open space as part of an approved subdivision. The OS-DR zoning district will
also accommodate publicly owned open space land.
3
The developer’s attorney, in an attempt to avoid such a vote, if the project is approved, has created a
straw man saying “the Proposed Project does not match precisely with the lines on the General Plan
Land Use Map”. If he thought precision was so important then why didn’t the developer present a
proper survey with a relief map as required for under CSC 17.20.195 - Survey.
An application for a permit under this title for the construction or alteration of any structure to be located within ten (10) feet of a property
which is zoned Open-Space or Open-Space Development-Restricted, as identified in the City's zoning map, shall not be complete unless
accompanied by a survey prepared by a licensed land surveyor or another person authorized by law to conduct and prepare a survey.
This alone should be reason enough to not approve this project for he alone created this issue in an
attempt avoid the restraints contained in the General and Master City plans.
A very large number of the people, through their organizations, the Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation, the
Calabasas Commission, and in public comments, both written and oral, have told you how they want you to
vote on their behalf on this matter. In all they have spent hundreds if not thousands of hours seeking out and
analyzing all the facts to reach their conclusions. The majority of these residents are the ones who will be
most impacted by your decision.
They selected you to speak for them, you have a fiduciary duty to them, as such you fail them if you think you
have a right to decide for yourself, or act as some kind of judge weighing what staff says against what the
residents say to determine what is best for them. Recently the Mayor said it extremely well in another matter
that has come before you:
“The real key here in my view is the public and that’s why these public hearings are so helpful. There is no
question in my mind after going through this that the overwhelming majority of the public , the residents
people who live here and have to deal with this situation are making an informed decision that they do not
want the council to grant entitlements to the developer, more than what the developer is entitled to. And
weather I would do it or not, if it was a blank slate and it was my decision alone, is almost immaterial because,
really it should be the people who are impacted the most, the residents the constituents who are listened to.”
We have informed you of our exact desires and you need to pay attention and do as we decide not what you
think or desire as long as it is lawfull. Yes all the other residents of Calabasas are not here but that’s because it
is not important to them, if they don’t vote in an election their vote doesn’t count and likewise here. Do not
rezone this property and make sure this developer stays off the hillsides. If you are not up to that then let the
citizens decide, call for a vote.
Thank you,
Michel N Jacoby D.D.S.
4
From: Carl Ehrlich [mailto:[email protected]]
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Fred Gaines;
[email protected]
Cc: Maureen Tamuri
Subject: Supplemental Notes for the Canyon Oaks Hearing
Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am submitting for your consideration the attached Supplemental Notes to my earlier public statement
wrt the proposed Canyon Oaks project.
I will be unable to attend the meeting Wednesday evening as I have a "higher calling" to attend one of
my grand daughters' high school graduation up in the Sacramento area. That event naturally supersedes all other events.
Regards,
Carl Ehrlich 1 SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THE CALABASAS CITY COUNCIL
Canyon Oaks – April 25, 2016
Carl Ehrlich; 50+ Year Calabasas Resident
This submission captures the more significant items of my earlier notes; it adds some new items and
reemphasizes the others. However, I still see the Canyon Oaks proposal that’s before the Council has no
redeemable measures of merit.
Effective Heights of the Houses - The Final EIR report 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 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. 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 divergent needs. Those
residential units will have the effective height
Figure 1. The new residences will have the effective of 7-8 story buildings (Fig. 1), even though
height of 7‐ to 8‐story buildings as seen from Las Vir‐
they are legally within the height limits above
genes Road. They will obscure the eastward views for‐
their finished grade levels. That’s all due to the
ever. extreme height of the new residential mound.
Geologic Considerations and Lack Thereof (New Item) - This being a region of significant tectonic
plate interaction for some tens of millions of years, I’m wondering how the term “bedrock” even applies
here in this local area. I personally identify bedrock as being similar to the Manhattan schist (a granitelike material) that underlies New York City and gave rise to that city’s skyscrapers, but I don’t see the
equivalent of that here, especially as noted in the geologic appendix. This question arises in my mind as
there have been several folks testifying at the public hearings of both hotels as to the existence, or not, of
bedrock underlying the hotel sites. Both the Canyon Oaks and the Rondell Oasis sites share a common
hill that lies behind the Mobil station. There seems to have been little or no exploration of the geologic
structure underlying that hill for unknown reasons.
My understanding of the geology of this area is that that the Pacific tectonic plate has been “smooshing”
[my term] into the North American plate for some 10-20 million years in a substantially grazing movement. That collision has given rise to the Santa Monica Mountains and indeed to the entire Coastal
Range of mountains, plus the well-known San Andreas fault system. Consequently, what were former
sea bottoms have been upended almost vertically – one can easily see this result when driving through
Malibu Canyon. The subsurface apparently consists of the equally “smooshed” up but unweathered material that exists for tens to hundreds of feet, or even miles, below the surface. And this is exactly where
the definition of “bedrock” comes in to play – what is “bedrock” in this particular location? This defi2 nition, and its impact on the project as a whole, needs to be cleared up before any thoughts or considerations of approval.
In our upper end of the canyon, the upended layers on the surface have been weathered substantially,
forming our hills through ancient landslides, as Dave Brown pointed out years ago. The hills that we see
on the northern and southern sides of the site are examples
of those slides. The southern area of the project site, in
particular, has been noted as having an active slide area as
of 1969 (see the relevant portion of a map of the Central
and western Santa Monica Mountains prepared by the California Division of Mines and Geology in 1983; see Fig. 2).
Now, exploratory borings have been made at the southern
slopes of the site by the current and prior developers (e.g.,
Baldwin). These borings range up to nearly 300 feet deep
and ground water was found in many of them. The potential hazard of a future landslide here will be mitigated by
the developer.
On the other hand, there have been very, very few subsurface explorations have been made of the hill behind the
Mobil station, and those seem to have been very shallow.
And that raises a host of unanswered questions and innuendos on the table. These should be cleared up and extensively justified prior to any approvals by the Council.
Figure 2. The CA. Div. of Mines and Ge‐
ology noted a very recent landslide near the project area. Extreme Volumes of Earth Movement – I’ve noted earlier that the earth movements required for the
landslide mitigation and the on-site grading
will move more earth than the entire finished
volume of Boulder (aka Hoover) Dam! Locally, the earth movements would dwarf other
on-going or recent projects (Fig. 3). The prospect of retaining all of that material on site
gives rise to the misconceived mound noted
above. On top of that, the 8-month schedule
for moving all that material and giving time
for that material to settle properly before
building on it is decidedly questionable – no
justification has been presented for that schedule much less allowances for predictable deFigure 3. The Canyon Oaks project will be moving a huge lays such as rainfall. [well, we can always
amount of dirt back and forth. hope!]
3 Zoning Change - Part of the decision package before the Council is a revision of the zoning for the
Canyon Oaks project area. Currently, the zoning calls for a Planned Development (PD) and a MultiFamily (RM-20) area roughly triangular in shape – see Fig. 4. The proposed zoning is shown in Fig. 5
with a Business Retail (BR) zone and a Multi-Family (R-MF(20); aka RM-20) roughly conforming to
the planned residential and hotel areas. It will enable the permanent significant aesthetic impact of the
proposed residential mound and homes, as noted earlier. But doesn’t Measure O and its predecessor
call for a public votes prior to any change in the OS zone?
Figure 4. Existing zoning for the project area as delineated in the General Plan. (Credit – John Suwara)
Figure 5. The proposed variances to the General Plan are keyed to this particular project. 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 ultimately approved by the
City Council, and it still can be approved, 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 contemplated is only a small local Southern California chain
(Ayres) with its inherently less wide-spread “draw.”
Oak Tree Mitigation Plan – The Oak Tree mitigation
plan raises more questions than it answers. Note that a
major portion of the replacement oak trees will be direct4 Figure 6. 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. ly above the landslide mitigation area, as seen in Fig. 6. The mitigation backfill will incorporate engineered fill, a dense compaction of various materials designed 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.
Development Plan Not Clearly Defined – The Plan, as denoted in the resolution 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 nor is the schedule for completion of
those conditions identified. So, that being said, just what is that Plan and when will it be presented
and reviewed?
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. Thus, the pedestrian crossings could
very well have a significant impact on traffic flow.
5 From: HAROLD ARKOFF [mailto:[email protected]]
To: Maricela Hernandez
Subject: Re: Canyon Oaks Letter
To Calabasas Mayor and City Council
Re: Canyon Oaks
I strongly object to the Canyon Oaks project for many reasons including the following:
1. The project is being fast tracked by the city staff without proper and, I think, legal
public hearings on the rezoning of the property, without proper hearings on the changes
in the general plan and against the wishes of the majority of the residents of
Calabasas.
2. As a 44 year resident of Calabasas and supporter of cityhood, I believe that building
a 4 story hotel on a scenic road goes against everything city hood would provide.
3. The city staff seems to be on a frantic fast track toward raising revenue at any
cost. It might be time to look at city expenditures, staff reductions, getting rid of the
"toonerville trolley", Closing for good the kiddies clubhouse (save $300,000 a year right
there). Changing some positions from employees to independent contractors.
4. Hotels could be built on other sites that are not as fragile as Las Virgines. Parkway
Calabasas in Auto row, The Raznick property, Even on the Countrywide property if
done without overcrowding the property and kept to 35 feet high with beautiful
grounds.
5, Vote in a business tax. The residents have been generous with a 5% Utility
tax which many cities don't have, a school parcel tax, private HOA properties and
gated areas where the city has very limited expenses, Land Maintenance Districts
which are supported by the residents and relieve the city of those costs.
Are all of the Council Members living up to their campaign promises? If you promised
to be against overdevelopment, protecting our beautiful open spaces, being on the side
of the residents in holding down traffic, NOW IS THE TIME TO SPEAK UP! These
will all be issues in next year's city elections.
I love living in Calabasas. I have always been constructive and progressive toward city
projects. Calabasas is at a crossroad. Lets not damage forever the beauty of
Calabasas and ease and comfort of living here with these projects like Canyon Oaks.
Respectfully,
Harold Arkoff
4430 Park Aurora
most other city wide organizations.
Club.
Founder Calabasa Park HOA. Member of
Former board member of Calabasas County
May 23, 2016
Calabasas City Council
Calabasas City Hall
100 Civic Center Way
Calabasas, CA 91302
RE: Canyon Oaks Project
Dear Mayor & Councilmembers,
Here we are again...another huge (in fact the largest yet) development coming before council because
the planning commission completely shirked their responsibilities and passed it on to you to decide upon.
A two night public hearing that was nothing more than political theatre then hijacked with little if any
respect or due diligence by the planning commissioners. Yet another biased staff report with misinformation based on a pre-determined outcome.
The Development Plan is once again being used (inappropriately) by staff to not only skirt the rules, but
completely change the intent of our General Plan and the Las Virgenes Gateway Master Plan. Over 625
page environmental review document…Who amongst you has read this document in its entirety and can
speak with confidence to all the issues addressed within this important environmental review?
We have Measure O (formerly Measure D) for exactly this purpose. Calabasas residents value open
space above all. Calabasas has a history of moving boundaries to maps to accommodate development
where open space may have created a problem for the developer, without due public process. This
needs to stop with this project.
There has been little if any public outreach and no community workshops on the Canyon Oaks Project.
This is a “Keystone” project that will sit at the major intersection in West Calabasas. We only get one
shot at this to make it right. The 2030 Calabasas General Plan envisioned a “Village Concept” retail
center and gathering place for the community. This is far from that. Why is staff continuing to reenvision our General Plan in ways that are not consistent with the current zoning, Calabasas Municipal
Codes and our quality of life?
There are several good reasons to deny this project:
1. The project intrudes on land that is zoned open space…this should absolutely trigger a vote of
the people of Calabasas; this is exactly what the measure was envisioned and overwhelmingly
approved for.
2. The project is not zoned for a hotel and in fact it encroaches on current open space zoned lands
that require a specific public process for changing that zoning.
3. The amount of grading is over 2 million cubic yards and the development will be built on fill, rather
than exporting the dirt and bringing the development down to street level. The mitigation of the
grading (to take care of mapped landslide areas) may in fact create new problems for a project
built on fill.
 Instead of the development being “nestled in the canyon and conforming to the contours
of the site topography…the beautiful canyon will be filled in to a height of 55’ like a
reservoir behind a dam…instead of water it will be dirt fill.
 Then houses will be built on top…another 28’ higher to complete the view blocking
process…creating a total eclipse of the hills and (even the houses in the Oaks on the
ridegeline behind.
 As a result hillsides will take on a manufactured, tiered slope appearance that is
inconsistent with the natural surroundings, forever altering the viewshed of the mountains
and ridgelines. Much like the Calabasas landfill or the massive grading that has occurred
in the Lost Hills Overpass construction…taking out a beautiful mountain to provide fill for
the cloverleaf.
Page two
Canyon Oaks Project
May 23, 2016
4. A development plan overlay is necessary to approve this project…again, another way of saying
waiver, conditional use or a work-around for a project does not comply with current guidelines or
codes. STOP THIS! Enough is enough…follow the rules, they were put in place for exactly to
stop this type of over development. The tiny four-plex of “moderate income” housing is hardly a
nexus for giving a developer another pass on following the rules.
5. The hotel will be the equivalent of a 6-story+ fortress looming over Las Virgenes, as its pad
elevation is over 17’ above Las Virgenes and then it goes up from there with a massive front
façade and a 70’ retaining wall necessary to hold back an unstable hillside behind.
6. The traffic analysis is based on flawed assumptions that were discussed at the traffic commission
level, and the Public Works director promised to make the corrections. None of those corrections
were ever made. This intersection is already impacted by commuter and school traffic, adding an
extra two elements (left turns & straight/right turns) will severely change the dynamics of this key
intersection.
 How can there be discrepancies between the Rondell Traffic report and the Canyon Oaks
Traffic Report when they are less than 1/8 mile apart?
7. Facing east from the intersection of Agoura Road & Las Virgenes the ridgeline and mountain
views will be hidden behind this development. This is perhaps the second most iconic view in all
of Calabasas (next to firehouse hill as you approach westbound down the hill on the 101), where
many of us fondly remember sheep grazing.
 From inside McDonalds where their walls are covered in images of Oak studded
hillsides the view will be totally blocked now by the berm and the hotel behind it.
Even McDonalds recognizes and celebrates the beauty of our hillsides!
8. There is no public access to the adjacent New Millennium trail allowed by this development and
the development’s grading will impact known wetlands without proper mitigation. What mitigation
is being done for the spring that was identified on the South side of the property?
Staff needs to be directed to be more objective in presenting these reports. It is not the responsibility of
staff to present only what is in the best interests of the developers. Above all staff should focus on
following the rules, plans and guidelines that were put in place for a good reason…to protect our city, our
citizens and our quality of life.
New Homes has already proven that they are interested only in maximizing their corporate profits and
not the best interests of the residents of Calabasas by increasing the density and the height of the Avanti
Project as it looms over Calabasas Lake. Let’s not make this same mistake twice with the same
developer. We do not want a hotel looming over Las Virgenes and a 55’ high plateau with yet another
gated development that creates a “total eclipse” of some of Calabasas’ most iconic mountains and
ridgelines.
You have a choice that will affect not only current residents but also future generations to come and
everyone who passes through Calabasas as a Gateway to the Santa Monica Mountains, the beach and
beyond…please deny the project as proposed by Canyon Oaks. Please do what you were elected to
do…and represent the best interests of the entire community.
Sincerely,
Peter Heumann

Allen Matkins - City of Calabasas

Transcription

Similar documents

Secondary Article Heading Calabasas Village HOME OWNERS

View Flyer - Tottenham Hotspur

1540 While searching for the fabled “golden” cities, Garcia Lopez de

2014 december - Calabasas Chamber of Commerce

From: Gabrielle Harradine [mailto:[email protected]

expose - Mallorca Immobilien 24

Potluck - mycalabasasvillage.com

Good Housekeeping - Sands Hotel Margate

I`m helping to end MS by participating in the 2016 Jayman BUILT MS

Brochure - Canyon Cruise

May 2013 - Calabasas Chamber of Commerce

Attachment D - City of Calabasas