Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

Whoa, haven’t I just written a series of blogs opposing Stonehaven? You bet I have. It’s time to clear the air and make perfectly clear exactly what Yucca residents and I oppose.

The original plan for Stonehaven was approved by the Glendale City Council in April of 2016…a scant 14 months ago. Below is the approved plan for Stonehaven ( I have tried to make it as large as possible. If you would like an 8 ½ X 11 please email clarkjv@aol.com with the subject line of Stonehaven maps and I will send them to you as a pdf attachment):

Stonehaven Plan
Approved
April, 2016

The Stonehaven proponents have been selling their revised plan changes in terms of the multi-million dollar investment in Glendale; the taxes generated over 7 to 10 years; the completition of Bethany Home Road; and the fact that it’s a master planned community. All of these concepts remain true with the original plan. The dollar numbers would change and diminish slightly by retaining the original plan but their arguments for the development of Stonehaven remain. We welcome the development of Stonehaven. We do not welcome the increased density created by cramming in as many 4,000 SF and 4,500 SF lots as humanly possible. You will notice in their campaign to garner support for Stonehaven not once have they publicized the core changes they seek. There is no mention of 4,000 SF and 4,500 SF lots. There is no mention of increased traffic on local streets or the inevitable overcrowding of local schools.

It’s not that the Yucca district residents don’t want Stonehaven. We know progress is inevitable. While we did not view the original plan as ideal and had hoped for 10,000 SF lots in the northeast corner abutting the Missouri Ranch subdivision (which is comprised of 10,000 SF lots), there was no major pushback from us. We accepted the plan as it was originally approved in April of 2016.

Our objection is strictly to the changes proposed to the originally approved plan. Our objection is to the massive reduction in lot sizes increasing the density of the project from 1,161 homes to 1,392 homes. Below is the map with the proposed changes sought by the John F. Long Trust and Pulte Homes:

Stonehaven Plan
Proposed changes
June, 2017

Technically the Stonehaven proponents’ changes to the originally approved plan (these changes are called GPA 17-01 and ZON 17-01) are a “Minor General Plan Amendment.” We fail to see what is “minor” about the changes they seek. The differences in the two plans are dramatic and quite stark.

Pulte uses the ultimate threat if they are not granted the changes they want…they will go away. That’s OK. If council approves these draconian changes they will have demonstrated that threats work…and the entire development community will sit up and take notice. It will create a mindset that all a developer has to do is threaten to walk away and its demands will be granted.

There will be another residential developer who will view the original plan as an opportunity. They will make it work because they may be smarter, more efficient and more effective. There will be a Stonehaven. The critical question to be asked is, what kind of neighborhood will it be, not just now but 20 years from now. Stonehaven should be built as originally approved and we will welcome it to our part of greater Glendale.

Yucca citizens are hoping that our decision makers, the Glendale City Council, will consider the long term consequences of this new proposal or will they listen to the siren song of representations for this new proposal even though they are exactly the same as for the original plan? 

© Joyce Clark, 2017               

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.