From Our Readers
Peninsula News – Thursday, May 24, 2007

Plan contradicts city vision

 To the Editor:

        I was pleased to read in the Peninsula News on Thursday, May 10 that the Rolling Hills Estates City Council voted to look into alternatives to the Peninsula Village Plan. I moved to Rolling Hills Estates in 1960. As the first sentence on the city’s Web site says, "New citizens were united in their concern over maintaining its unique rural atmosphere characterized by rolling hills, vast open spaces and three-rail white fences."  The Planning Commission Web page says that it "strives to preserve and enhance the special rural character of the community." The general plan preamble is “preserve and enhance the rural character and single family nature of our community." However, the present City Council apparently has a different future in mind than that goal.

       The Peninsula Village Plan, a high-density residential area that greatly increases the city's population, has no benefit for the present residents of Rolling Hills Estates because it does nothing to "preserve and enhance the rural character” of the city. In fact, it is the opposite of the city's officially stated plan.

       I suggest that the City Council stick to its own script: "As in the past, today’s emphasis in managing the city is placed upon preserving its rural residential character and, at the same time, providing the best possible services to its citizens." Why would they think that “preserving its rural residential character" means "what we need here is a lot of people living in apartments and condominiums”?

       Rolling Hills Estates was established to be a small island of country living in a vast sea of urban development. For upscale, high-density housing, the choices are limitless; however, for those who wish to live in this type of environment, we have only one choice, which is right here. Urban development in the midst of our home can only detract from the unique character of our city.

       Urban does not equal rural. They are opposites, and “urban village” is an oxymoron. The proposed development is truly urban, and trying to soften it with the moniker “Village" doesn't change that fact. This project contradicts the general plan for the city. The council needs to stop this high-density urban encroachment and continue to preserve the rural character of our city.

Brad Brunskill
Rolling Hills Estates