The latest chapter in the 300-acre development story in the Verdugo Mountains revolves around surveillance cameras and native bumblebees. The developer is suing the protesters for trespassing on the property in an attempt to gather evidence of why the land should be preserved.
Nevada-based development company Whitebird has a grand vision for the luxury complex known as Canyon Hills. The project will transform a rugged hillside above the Sunland Tujunga neighborhood, which has largely escaped development, into a thriving community of 221 homes.
The development was approved by the Los Angeles City Council in 2005 and has a 20-year timeline for completion, ending in October 2026.
In the 20 years since then, multiple groups have protested the project. Local residents feared this would lead to overpopulation and traffic congestion in rural areas. Environmentalists argued that homes were not safe on the fire-prone mountain.
As a result, Whitebird suppressed its range, reduced its footprint from 900 acres to 300 acres, and donated the remaining 600 acres to be preserved as open space. But activists argue that 300 acres of development is still too much.
White Bird’s Canyon Hills project now plans 221 homes on 300 acres after setting aside 600 acres of the 900-acre development as green space. But activists say that’s still too much.
(White Bird Co., Ltd.)
The latest protest group, No Canyon Hills, was formed in spring 2023 as a collection of artists, designers, and amateur botanists who argue that the region’s native plants and wildlife are worth protecting.
Now, as the 20-year completion period nears its end, White Bird is suing.
The developer filed a lawsuit against No Canyon Hills on Dec. 10, alleging group members sneaked onto the property, disobeyed posted “No Trespassing” signs and secretly installed cameras and other surveillance equipment. He was sued for doing so. They also accuse the group of bragging about the alleged trespassing and posting evidence on social media and in communications with government officials.
As a result, White Bird claimed that the activists damaged its reputation, interfered with its enjoyment of the land, and increased the cost of complying with its contractual obligations.
“The Canyon Hills property is private property, not public open space,” said Christopher Frost, an attorney representing Whitebird. “Like all property owners in California, our clients have the right to exclusive use of the land they have owned for more than 20 years, ensuring their privacy is uninterrupted. The trespass and unauthorized surveillance we describe in our lawsuit is in violation of those rights.
The lawsuit also claimed that the protests delayed development. That may be correct.
In addition to a public support campaign, including a petition that garnered more than 177,000 signatures, No Canyon Hills has raised its concerns with local government agencies.
The rare Davidson’s mallow is found only on California’s Central Coast and in the foothills around Tujunga, which includes land planned for high-end housing development.
(Mel Melcon/Los Angeles Times)
On Sept. 11, Doug Carstens, an attorney representing No Canyon Hills, issued a memo outlining concerns about the development’s impact on local wildlife, particularly two protected species: mountain lions and black-capped bumble bees. was sent to the LA Planning Department. The complaint included multiple time-stamped photos of mountain lions that were on the property.
Two days later, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) issued a letter to Whitebird to help developers build homes in areas that are home to protected species such as the black-capped bumble bee. A notice was sent stating the application for an incidental acquisition permit, which is a measure. —It was incomplete.
“Canyon Hills did not submit the photos to the public authorities, but then the public authorities became legitimately concerned,” Carsten said. “You can’t start clearing land without considering the wildlife recorded on site.”
The project’s first environmental impact report, completed in 2004, found no evidence of mountain lions or protected honey bees. But as No Canyon Hills co-founder Emma Kemp said, a lot can change in 20 years.
“Some elements of the original impact report conducted 20 years ago do not reflect the current status of the land,” Kemp said. “Our goal is to encourage city and state agencies to conduct updated environmental reviews.”
For now, the project is waiting for the Whitebird to receive ancillary filming permits related to the Black-capped Bumblebee. Once that is issued, the company says it intends to resume development and seek grading permits from the city.
Opponents of development in Canyon Hills are concerned about how the development will affect the native black-capped bumblebee, a protected species.
(Krystle Hickman)
It’s a race against time. Although the closing date is less than two years away, Frost said the company could develop the site by October 2026. It’s unclear what stage the project needs to reach by the deadline for the city’s approval to remain in effect. But Jack Rubens, a land use attorney with White Bird, said he expects grading for the project to begin long before then.
Kemp has no confidence.
“They’re not getting permits every month. We’re getting closer to the 2026 deadline, and that’s partly because of the advocacy work we’ve been doing,” she said.
Frost said Whitebird is willing to sell the land to a conservation-minded buyer at a reasonable price.
No Canyon Hills has not had any discussions with Whitebird about a potential sale in the past year, Kemp said, with a post on its website titled “Can we crowdfund the mountain?” They even used the catchphrase to raise funds. absolutely. “
The fundraising goal is $12 million, but Frost said that’s far from a fair price for the land.
The Canyon Hills project will transform a rugged hillside above the Sunland Tujunga neighborhood into a thriving community of 221 homes.
(Mel Melcon/Los Angeles Times)
Whether or not a deal was on the table, both parties were discussing a potential conservation acquisition deal earlier this year with the Trust for Public Land, a nonprofit that creates parks and public facilities. Kemp was surprised by the aggressiveness of the lawsuit. land.
“Their litigation team has slogans on their website about being warriors and being ‘unapologetically aggressive,'” she said. “It seems a little hostile to a lot of kids who care about bumblebees.”
Carstens, who is not representing No Canyon Hills in this case but frequently handles land use issues, said the lawsuit appears to be an attempt to intimidate activists.
“Many developers go through this process without suing the activists,” he said. “If a developer wants to negotiate the sale of a property in good faith, I don’t think filing a lawsuit against an activist is the best course of action.”
Carstens said the lawsuit could backfire. In return for White Bird’s relief in the form of damages, it could increase interest and attention to the group’s cause.
Despite the lawsuit, No Canyon Hills remains interested in purchasing and preserving the land, but the logistics have become a little more difficult as they now need to raise money to have an attorney represent them in court. are.
“Ultimately, we believe that land conservation is more important than banning Canyon Hills or whitebirds,” she said.
She said the most rewarding part of the role is seeing young people excited about protecting the land and landscape they live on.
“I feel like no matter what happens here, it’s still something to be proud of,” she said. “On the other hand, you could end up going bankrupt.”
