The latest chapter in the saga of a 300-acre development in the Verdugo Mountains revolves around surveillance cameras and native bumblebees. The developer is suing protesters for trespassing onto the property in attempts to gather evidence for why the land should be preserved.
Nevada-based developer Whitebird Inc. has grandiose visions for the luxury complex known as Canyon Hills. The project would transform the rugged hillside above the Sunland-Tujunga neighborhood, which has largely been spared from development, into a tony community with 221 homes.
The development was approved by the Los Angeles City Council in 2005 with a 20-year window of completion running through October 2026.
Multiple groups have protested the project in the two decades since. Locals worried it would bring overpopulation and traffic to the rural community. Environmentalists claimed the homes would be unsafe in the fire-prone mountains.
Whitebird reined in the scope as a result, bringing the footprint from 900 acres down to 300 and donating the remaining 600 acres to be preserved as open space. But activists argue that 300 acres of development is still too much.
The latest group to protest, No Canyon Hills, formed in spring 2023 as a collection of artists, designers and amateur botanists who say the area’s native flora and wildlife are worth protecting.
Now, with the closing of the 20-year completion window on the horizon, Whitebird is suing.
The developer filed suit against No Canyon Hills on Dec. 10, accusing group members of sneaking onto the property and secretly installing cameras and other surveillance equipment, disobeying posted “No Trespassing” signs. It also accuses the group of boasting about the alleged trespasses, posting proof on social media and in correspondence with government officials.
As a result, Whitebird claimed the activists damaged its reputation, disrupted its enjoyment of the land and increased costs to comply with contractual obligations.
“The Canyon Hills site is private property, not public open space,” said Christopher Frost, an attorney representing Whitebird. “Like all property owners in California, our client has the exclusive right to the use of the land it has owned for over two decades and an expectation of privacy on that land without disruption. The trespassing and unauthorized surveillance we describe in the lawsuit are taking place in violation of those rights.”
The suit also claimed that the protesting efforts delayed the development. It might be right.
In addition to public outreach campaigns, including a petition that has racked up more than 177,000 signatures, No Canyon Hills has brought its concerns to local governmental agencies.
On Sept. 11, Doug Carstens, an attorney who has represented No Canyon Hills, sent the L.A. Planning Department a note outlining its fears about the development’s effect on local wildlife, specifically two protected species: mountain lions and Crotch’s bumblebees. The complaint included multiple time-stamped pictures of a puma on the property.
Two days later, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) sent Whitebird a notice saying its application for an incidental take permit — a necessary step that lets the developer build homes in an area that is home to protected species, such as Crotch’s bumblebee — was incomplete.
“No Canyon Hills submitted photos to public agencies, then those public agencies became rightfully concerned,” Carsten said. “You can’t just start grading land without accounting for wildlife that’s been documented on-site.”
The project’s original environmental impact report, which was finalized in 2004, found no evidence of mountain lions or protected bees. But as No Canyon Hills co-founder Emma Kemp said, a lot can change in 20 years.
“Certain components of the original impact report, which was conducted 20 years ago, don’t reflect the current status of the land,” Kemp said. “Our goal is to encourage city officials and state agencies to conduct an updated environmental review.”
For now, the project is waiting for Whitebird to receive the incidental take permit related to the Crotch’s bumblebees. Once that’s issued, the company says it will resume development and seek a grading permit from the city.
It’s a race against time. The window of completion closes in less than two years, but Frost said the company will be able to develop the lots by October 2026. It’s unclear what phase the project has to be in by the deadline in order for the city approval to remain valid, but Jack Rubens, Whitebird’s land use attorney, said he expects earth grading for the project to begin long before then.
Kemp isn’t so sure.
“Every month they don’t have the permit, we’re moving closer to the 2026 deadline, and that’s partly because of the advocacy work we’ve been doing,” she said.
Frost said Whitebird is also open to selling the land to a conservation-minded buyer — for the right price.
No Canyon Hills has been in discussion with Whitebird for the past year about a potential sale, according to Kemp, even fundraising on its website with the tagline, “Can we crowd-fund a mountain? Absolutely.”
The fundraising goal is $12 million, but Frost said that’s nowhere near the appropriate value of the land.
Whether a deal was ever on the table, Kemp was surprised at the aggressiveness of the lawsuit, given that earlier this year the two parties had been discussing a potential conservation acquisition deal alongside the Trust for Public Land, a nonprofit organization that creates parks and public land.
“Their litigation team has all these slogans on its website of being fighters and ‘unapologetically aggressive,’” she said. “It just seems a bit hostile to a bunch of kids that care about bumblebees.”
Carstens, who isn’t representing No Canyon Hills in the lawsuit but deals with land use issues frequently, said the suit seems like an attempt to intimidate the activists.
“Lots of developers work through these processes without suing the activists,” he said. “If the developer wanted to negotiate selling the property in good faith, filing a lawsuit against an activist doesn’t seem like the best course of doing that.”
Carstens said the suit could backfire. Instead of getting Whitebird relief in the form of damages, it could bring more interest and attention to the group’s cause.
Despite the lawsuit, No Canyon Hills is still interested in buying and conserving the land, though the logistics become a bit tougher now that they have to fundraise for a defense attorney to represent them in court.
“Ultimately, we believe that the conservation of land is bigger than No Canyon Hills or Whitebird,” she said.
She said the most rewarding part of the mission has been seeing younger people get excited about protecting the land and landscape they live in.
“Irrespective of what happens here, that still feels like something to be proud of,” she said. “On the other end, we could end up bankrupt.”
