County bending over backward for Colton-Lee Knolls development

I am outraged with the way the proposed Colton-Lee Development on the site of the former Knolls Horse Ranch (the current proposal is for a 100-unit manufactured home "park") is being handled.

Certain Ventura County agencies are bending over backwards to accommodate a developer whose project is clearly fatally flawed, is in direct violation of the General Plan and is completely inappropriate for the rural Susana Knolls.

It appears the county is giving the developer a green light to proceed . . . all with dire consequences for the Knolls community- the property owners and residents of the Knolls, who choose to live in a rural-zoned neighborhood.

Our property rights and safety are being severely compromised by this proposal.

Here are some examples:

The Ventura County Fire Department has apparently given its blessing to a nonexistent secondary access- widening Katherine Road- which does not solve the bottleneck problem of a massive development at the railroad crossing. All the residents of the proposed clustered development would still bottleneck onto Katherine Road in order to evacuate. Imagine the panic.

After Colton-Lee complained about the first existing density study, which was based on real facts and actual density, the Planning Department created a new study to favor the developer's higher density employing fantasy (what could be subdivided) over fact (the true density) in order to raise the density to the developer's satisfaction.

This is prejudicial and a slap in the face to all the Knolls residents who moved here for the low-density, rural zoning; they are not here to create condo complexes on their properties. In essence, the developer's tantrum over his development's density has outweighed our property rights. And this is wrong.

Why should one nonresident property owner be allowed to spot zone in a rural neighborhood? I would not be allowed to change a residentially zoned home to rural zoned, so why hasn't this developer been told to simply develop his property according to the existing rural zoning? Does the developer believe that his development is "in the bag"?

There is absolutely no reason why this developer can't make a hefty profit while building to the current rural zoning. I fear that the further Colton-Lee proceeds, the more likely a lawsuit will result if the county votes no on this terrible proposal.

Gary Gorian is already hitting the press with carefully crafted, well-spun quotes about the project: ". . . staff recommended the density not to exceed eight units per acre, and at this point, we are far below that."

ColtonLee was actually instructed to match the character and existing density of the Knolls. How does a manufactured home park fit into a rural neighborhood with horses and peacocks?

I was pleased that Peter Foy visited the Knolls in June. However, when Supervisor Foy was asked how he would feel if a similar development were proposed next to his ranch, Foy smiled and said that his land was "zoned for 40 acres."

Distressing. If ColtonLee is allowed to proceed in the rural-zoned Knolls, what is to stop another developer from using Colton-Lee as a precedent and asking for rezoning and high density in a 40acrezoned area? Perhaps next door to Supervisor Foy?

The repercussions of this inappropriate development are farreaching for this county.

Will all of our agricultural land soon be rezoned for apartments and condos and manufactured home parks? Will we soon see concrete in place of produce in our beautiful county? Susan L. Wells Susana Knolls