Your recent article on the Wiley Canyon Project by Tom Clark of Royal Clark Development quoted city Community Development Director Jason Crawford as saying the California Housing Accountability Act limits the ability of cities to deny compliant housing projects.
What was not mentioned is that California law also requires every city to adopt and follow a General Plan — its guiding constitution for land use. Santa Clarita’s own General Plan designates Wiley Canyon Road as a four-lane arterial west of the creek, specifically to manage future traffic and protect public safety. That feasible route was never presented by city staff or the developer, who instead pursued an east-of-creek alignment where only about 53 feet of width exists — far less than the 84 feet required for four lanes.
The California Supreme Court made clear in Lesher Communications v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) that any local action inconsistent with a general plan is invalid from inception. Our city therefore not only may, but also must, deny projects that violate its adopted plan.
The Planning Commission’s approval — granted the same night a new commissioner was seated — ignored these facts and residents’ formal objections.
Unfortunately, The Signal’s article echoed city talking points while omitting these critical legal and factual issues. Readers deserve full context when decisions will permanently affect Santa Clarita’s traffic, safety and quality of life.
Robert Monroe
Valencia
