Developers of Whiteface Area Do an About-Face

Developers of the proposed Whiteface residential and golf course project have received permission to request an amendment to their original plan that would scale back the number of homes, add a resort hotel and virtually eliminate its donation of public open space.

The City Council on Monday agreed to allow the New Mexico-based developer, Big Sky Country Club, to file an amendment to its development plan that, if approved, would drastically change the face of the project.

Under the proposal approved by the City Council six years ago, Big Sky would build 364 homes and two golf courses on about 500 acres in Dry and Tapo canyons. The developer’s remaining 1,154 acres would be given to the public and maintained as permanent open space.

Big Sky’s latest plan, however, would cut the number of homes to 99, add a hotel and convention center on 18 acres and keep the acres of rugged canyon lands it had originally agreed to hand over to the public as a privately held open space preserve.

Although the amendment would trim the number of residences by more than two-thirds and lessen the impact on the surrounding environment, council members had reservations about changing the open-space agreement of the project, which will be built near the base of Whiteface--a towering wall of exposed, ivory-white diatomite north of the city.

“I don’t think the community could stand for someone owning Whiteface,” said Councilman Paul Miller. “Philosophically, there’s something wrong with that.”

Developers, however, maintain that keeping the land in the hands of individual property owners would go just as far toward protecting the land for unencumbered development.

“We’re as interested in saving the open space as anyone else,” said Michael Kerney, Big Sky’s executive vice president, “but the benefit here is that the public won’t have to pay to maintain it.

“Visually, there will be no difference and the land will remain protected and undeveloped.”

Under its proposed amendment, Big Sky would also give the Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District a 15-acre salt marsh as publicly held open space.

Of the 99 residences Big Sky now wants to build, 87 would be on 20,000-square-foot lots, and 12 units would sit on parcels ranging from 45 to 147 acres within the proposed open-space area.

Kerney said the changes are being proposed to limit the need for extensive infrastructure improvements, such as roads and sewers, while lessening the amount of grading needed at Dry and Tapo canyons.

“We’re committed to making every effort to have as little an impact on the surrounding environment as we possibly can,” Kerney said.

He said there will be a strong demand for the vacant land--even with the restriction that it remain open space--because large parcels of land are increasingly scarce in Southern California.

“There are a lot of people who would like to be able to say they own 100 acres in Southern California,” he said.

The proposed amendment has its detractors, who believe the developers are reneging on their promise of additional open space while leaving the gates open for future development of the picturesque canyons.

“It was because of these [open-space] commitments that the plan was adopted with so little discussion, and now that’s changed,” said Bonnie Carpenter of the park district. “This proposal would completely overturn the Whiteface specific plan. . . . And I think it will be very hard to guarantee that a privately held open space will be protected.”

Carpenter, who supported the original Whiteface plan, added that the proposed amendment invalidates the earlier environmental review of the project and poses a serious threat to wildlife in and around the chaparral-covered foothills of the Santa Susana Mountains.

Resident Tim Hodge, who lives near Whiteface, called the amendment “disingenuous.” Despite assurances from Big Sky that the land would remain open space, he said residents should expect future development.

“Why would someone buy 100 acres just to say they have it?” Hodge asked the council. “The reason is that it keeps the land open for development in the future.”

Although council members agreed to allow Big Sky to file an amendment, they said they wanted concrete assurances that the property would remain permanently undeveloped.

Councilwoman Sandi Webb said she fears that deed restrictions may not be enough to restrict future development of the open space.

“There has to be some compromise, some middle ground that we can all agree on,” she said.

Mayor Greg Stratton encourages compromise and said he was confident that if the amendment is approved, it will be because the concerns of developers, the park district, the city and residents have been met.

“I think there’s a solution in there someplace, and that’s really the key,” he said. “I’m confident we’ll be able to find that solution.”