Space Battle : Developer Moves Closer to Victory in Whittier Dispute

The wilderness area at the end of Canyon Drive, behind the Whittier College football stadium, is full of brush, pepper trees and rabbits. Worsham Creek trickles through the property, which is covered with litter and animal tracks.

In the morning, joggers pass through and sniff the murky air. At night, nearby residents listen to the canyon’s crickets.

For the last five years, this serene spot has been at the center of a battle between Whittier residents and developers. Residents see the 18-acre parcel as one of Whittier’s last stands of wilderness--and say that it must be preserved. The developer, Nottingham Ltd., sees it as a prime site for a community of 58 homes, called Arroyo Vista.

The developer recently edged closer to victory when the Whittier Planning Commission disregarded a staff recommendation to reject the project. Instead, commissioners asked for more information on how the development would route its traffic and on how builders plan to develop lots on the canyon’s steep hillsides. The commission voted to delay a decision until Tuesday.

Both supporters and foes predict that the commissioners will endorse the project and send it to the City Council, which will make the final decision.

As described by Nottingham, Arroyo Vista would one day consist mostly of two-story homes featuring the Craftsman look, with wood siding and chimneys of simulated “river rock.” Most of the homes, costing $400,000 to $500,000 each, would be built on 7,000-square-foot lots on the floor or lower slopes of the canyon. But about eight of the homes would be built on the sides of the canyons.

More than 200 residents turned out for a recent public hearing on the project. Only a few spoke in favor. Some opponents complained that the development would strain the city’s schools, traffic and sewer systems. People who live around the canyon, which is ringed on three sides by homes, argued that the development’s high-density scheme would not blend in well with the large lots of nearby neighborhoods.

Members of the Whittier Conservancy complained that an environmental impact report on the project, done by a city consultant, was inadequate and contained erroneous information. Critics also complained that homes would destroy the canyon’s wetlands. But their biggest lament was that the city would be losing its last natural refuge.

“We walk with our children and grandchildren back there,” said Jack Matson, who lives on Canyon Drive next to the canyon. “There are hawks and coyotes and deer. We need to save these places before they are lost.” Matson and his wife, Vaunceil, said skunks from the canyon steal their cat’s food, and that deer ate their tomato crop recently. They have been distributing flyers opposing the project ever since Whittier College sold most of the property to a developer for $970,000 in 1984. When the original developer defaulted on a loan, Nottingham took over the project, according to college officials.

Opponents got a boost a couple of weeks ago when a city Planning Department report contended that the project violated the General Plan, the city’s blueprint for land use. Planners said the development would destroy the unique look and character of the canyon hillsides and bury the creek under about 15 feet of landfill, and that valuable natural features of the canyon such as the pepper trees and open space would be lost.

“This is one of the very few remaining areas of open space that are within the city boundaries,” explained Art Bashmakian, the city planner who spent hours tromping through the canyon to prepare the report. “The idea is to preserve as much of those areas as we can.”

Bashmakian pointed out that the Planning Department was opposing only Nottingham’s proposal, rather than all development. He said that if the developer made several changes, including elimination of the eight hillside lots, the staff would probably support the project.

But Nottingham already has made as many concessions as it can, including reducing the number of homes to 58 from the 73 first proposed in 1989, said Jonathan Webb, senior project manager. The developer also agreed to increase the size of the lots for each home, Webb said, and to replace an exterior design of stucco and red-tile roofs with touches of wood and rock.

The developer’s proposal in 1989 triggered sharp protests. City Hall was picketed by Whittier College students carrying signs that accused developers of attempting to “rape” the land.

Developers said they had been assured by city officials that their revised proposal was acceptable.

Jeff Rupp, chief operating officer for Nottingham Ltd., said at the hearing that the Planning Department was executing flip-flops in rejecting the project. Rupp claimed that he had personally been told by city officials that the project was consistent with the General Plan. Planning Director Elvin Porter said after the meeting that city planners, in fact, “had indicated some concerns, and (the developers) did not change” their plan.

Planning Commission Chairman Larry Haendiges said he and some of the other four commissioners believe that the project complies with the General Plan. “We can’t get caught up in the emotions of this,” Haendiges said. “We have to go along according to our city’s laws and policies.”