Another Open Space Purchase

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

On the Agenda for the October 13 City Council meeting is a proposal to spend $615,000 of open space fund monies to purchase a 10 acre piece of land in…you guessed it…Placerita Canyon:

In August 2009, the City entered into negotiations to purchase approximately ten acres in Placerita/Quigley Canyon, Assessor’s Parcel 28434-023-014, and to obtain an access easement on a portion of Assessor’s Parcel 2834-024-005. The purchase of this property will enhance the City’s continuous efforts to preserve open space and improve connectivity with the existing 158 acres of City-owned open space. The subject parcel is considered an important component of the proposed Placerita Trails System. The purchase price of the property is $575,000. This acquisition is in compliance with Government Code Section 65402 regarding General Plan consistency and mission of the Open Space Preservation District.

Curious, I hopped on over to the County Assessor’s Website to see where this parcel is. It’s quite small at only 10 acres, but it’s in a pretty strategic spot.

Image not recoveredOpenSpace.jpg

The parcel is located at the end of Cleardale street, north of Master’s College and deep in Placerita Canyon. It sits behind a rather large house and near what looks like a stable and some small buildings. I’ve only been back in that part of P-Canyon a few times, so I’m not really familiar with it.

One interesting part of the agenda item stands out: “the subject parcel is considered an important component of the Placerita Trails System.”

I haven’t heard of the Placerita Trails System before but the general area is listed on both the City’s Parks map and on the City’s Open Space Website. It’s the part labeled “Quigley Canyon Open Space,” and if you look closely, it looks like the square above fits neatly into the square below.

Image not recoveredUntitled-picture.png

Is this a good purchase? It’s certainly not the pristine Oat Mountain wilderness I described last month in a blog post (selling for a cool $8 million but also listed within the City’s open space interest area) but we’ll have to see what they’re planning for it. At least this is close and accessible should it be built out with a trails system.

Comments (27)

cashOctober 8, 2009 at 6:44 pm

Well of course! Closed door meeting were held on this property last year, I believe, and about the same time the Sand Canyon area land was announced. It is no surprise that the first property was purchased in the Sand Canyon area and now this one. Announcing both at the same time would have really looked bad. About the only people that will benefit from this purchase are the Placerita Canyon residents. You know they will do everything they can to keep the common folks out of the area.

cashOctober 8, 2009 at 6:57 pm

January 8, 2008: CLOSED SESSION Carl Newton, City Attorney, advised of the need to conduct a Closed Session for the purpose of holding a: CONFERENCE WITH PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Government Code Section 54956.8 Location of Property: Assessor’s Parcel Nos.: 2833-024-038 and 2833-024-039 59.60 acres vacant land, Placerita & Quigley Canyons Property Owner: Ida Pryor Under Negotiation: Price and Terms

spineflower2October 8, 2009 at 8:05 pm

I thought the idea of the open space was to complete the rim-of-the-valley protection. This is smack dab in the middle, not the rim. Just more City enriching the GOBN.

Jim FarleyOctober 8, 2009 at 8:16 pm

So these 10 acres of land provide a ‘Special Benefit’ to the property owners in the city of Santa Clarita. Proposition 218 requires that assesments be proportional and provide a ‘special benefit’ to the property. These kind of taxes have been declared illegal by the CA Supreme Court. (See my web site). Laurene Weste has perpetuated an illegal tax assessment on the property owners in the city. If you, as a property owner in the city, think this purchase of land will enhance your life, and don’t care about the lies and underhanded means to get this tax, then celebrate. Otherwise you should grieve the lack of democracy that went into imposing the tax.

cashOctober 8, 2009 at 8:26 pm

This open space program looks like a fraud to me. At least until the council is done with the debt repayment. Or should I say quid pro quo! Remember Weste lives in Placerita Canyon and Bob Kellar lives in Sand Canyon. Kellar and Weste pushed the open space initiative. The first two properties that the city purchased with open space money benefited the residents of Sand Canyon and Placerita Canyon. Both Canyon associations supported the initiative. West and Kellar live within walking distance of the land that the city is buying. Stopping development of these properties is good for all of us, but this smells a little bit. Not an uncommon odor lately!

Jim FarleyOctober 8, 2009 at 8:42 pm

I know Laurene Weste is going to use her support of the Open Space measure as a big achievement on her behalf when she seriously campaigns. It’s critical that those of us who know hang this Open Space Tax as an albatross on her neck.

cashOctober 8, 2009 at 10:10 pm

One only needs to point out where she made the purchases to bring her credibility into question. That and how the votes were assessed and counted.

Need for Involved CitizenryOctober 9, 2009 at 6:56 am

The City withheld the release of the appraisal of the Placerita Opens space that was just purchased until after the property closed. As a matter of fact, the appraisal wasn’t finalized until February of this year (it has been in escrow for about two years). How’d the City know they got a fair price when they negotiated?

cashOctober 9, 2009 at 9:55 am

Were is our city insider when we need him or her. What value will this latest purchase offer to the residents of Santa Clarita. The home owners in Placerita Canyon will surely complain if there is an increase in traffic should the land become available for public use. I believe we are owed an explanation. Perhaps someone will be able to challenge Weste for an answer at the Council meeting. TimBen or David are you up for that opportuity?

navigatorOctober 9, 2009 at 11:04 am

The property under consideration is contiguous with property that the City already possesses so in that rspect it is an easy fit.

Petz2October 9, 2009 at 11:40 am

Property is owned by the legendary Phil Rawlins who has an interesting biography. http://pcpoa.com/placerita%20gold%202.htm

CastaicClayOctober 9, 2009 at 12:25 pm

Thanks for the correction Petz.

navigatorOctober 9, 2009 at 12:26 pm

I believe it’s the late Phil Rawlins

cashOctober 9, 2009 at 1:16 pm

navigator So why is it a fit? How will the land be used. The city owns lots of land but that does not mean buying adjacent land is an open space fit?

mikeOctober 9, 2009 at 1:27 pm

or, why buy the hole when you already own the donut? This is an area that is almost, quite literally, sealed off from the rest of the city, too. Benefits only some of the wealthiest residents.

cashOctober 9, 2009 at 1:28 pm

I guess Weste was able to fulfill Phil Rawlings dream for Placerita Canyon. This stinks to the high heaven’s! Weste should be run out of office! Weste had better advocate for public assess to the land or she should be subject to another challenge of impropriety. Did she have to pull this off to get Ben Curtis and her Placertia friends of off her back! You remember Ben, he is the guy that filed a formal complaint against Weste claiming she was using her office for personal gain. This in regards to Weste’s roll as a member of the OTN redevelopment agency and decisions that make her property more valuable. Come on Timben and David we need you guys!

cashOctober 9, 2009 at 1:31 pm

By Katherine Geyer Assistant City Editor kgeyer@the-signal.com Posted: Aug. 15, 2008 9:41 p.m. POSTED Oct. 17, 2008 5:03 a.m. A Placerita Canyon resident filed a complaint with a state commission Friday, alleging Councilwoman Laurene Weste’s involvement with Newhall redevelopment is a conflict of interest because she owns property in the north Newhall area. Weste said Friday, however, that she abides by all the rules and recuses herself from all votes relating to the north Newhall area, including the city’s North Newhall Specific Plan project. “I abide by all the city attorney’s advice and guidance on what I can and can’t vote on,” Weste said. “It makes my life a lot easier to get attorney advice and then abide by it.” Resident Ben Curtis said in a news release that he filed a complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission on Friday. The commission regulates financial conflicts of interest among elected officials. Curtis said that although Weste recuses herself from North Newhall Specific Plan matters that come before the council, it’s her committee positions that concerns him. Like the four other City Council members, Weste is a member of the Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency. She is also a member of the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan Ad Hoc Committee. “Her involvement, in any way, with that (north Newhall) development is a violation of the regulations since she has a personal vested interest in the outcome,” Curtis said. “She has failed to recuse herself from the entire process and still controls subcommittees that have decision-making authority over that project.” He cited the FPPC government code 87100 that reads: “No public official at any level of state or local government shall make, participate in making or in any way attempt to use his official position to influence a governmental decision in which he knows or has reason to know he has a financial interest.” Weste said that although she sits on the downtown Newhall committee, it does not discuss North Newhall Specific Plan matters. “There’s nothing violated because the city attorney doesn’t let us go on anything without going through all the Fair Political Practices (Commission) rules,” she said. Email Article | Print Article | Sign Up for Our Email Newsletter Share this article:

cashOctober 9, 2009 at 1:33 pm

“There’s nothing violated because the city attorney doesn’t let us go on anything without going through all the Fair Political Practices (Commission) rules,” she (Weste) said” Of course she fails to mention that the city pays (yes man) Carl Newton’s handsome salary.

cashOctober 9, 2009 at 1:36 pm

Not much has changed since Phil moved to the end of Cleardale Avenue. A few new houses, and Saxonia Park turning into a church are just about it. Beazer Homes’ failed in an attempt to put houses next to him, and Phil was most supportive in the quest of Laurene Weste in securing Fox’s Pasture for open space several ( several what? Words omitted in article for some strange reason). Fox used to turn cattle out in the area to eat the weeds, and in 1962, the year he didn’t graze cattle, is when most of Placerita Canyon, including the original Gene Autry Melody Ranch, went up in flames. Phil is currently grazing three roping steers in a fenced area next to his roping arena. His several horses graze in pastures in the picturesque view from his home.

navigatorOctober 9, 2009 at 1:45 pm

“Weste had better advocate for public assess to the land or she should be subject to another challenge of impropriety” If the City does buy the property I will agree with you completely since public access to open space is what this is all about. In case you’re interested the SDI property that the City just purchased is now open to the public. If you haven’t been back there take a hike (so to speak

cashOctober 9, 2009 at 2:06 pm

Navigator, I have been to the SDI property. I looked at the property while it was for sale, long before the city. It will be more than just a little interesting to see where the city uses our tax dollars to make the next so called open space purchase. The new Newhall Land Company will probably be unloading bits and pieces of no profitable land soon. They have not yet been rewarded for their contribution to the open space initiative.

navigatorOctober 9, 2009 at 2:31 pm

Who knows, maybe the City will wait until NL gives them the spaces along with a development approval. The undevevelopable property is what is normally donated anyway.

cashOctober 9, 2009 at 3:46 pm

I hate to be a cynic,( I was not born one, but have lived to become one) but let’s keep an eye on how the city works with Lennar to acquire the building NHL will soon vacate. Our city seems to walk a fine line between being only deceptive and not illegal. The people with money and influence that are capable of a court challenge, have no interest as they are generally the benefactors in one form or another. I thought Ben Curtis had finally called the city council out, but that matter seems to have been swept away. We need David Guany and TimBen. The incumbents have lost sight of right and wrong, or even the perception there of, something that can happen to those that have been in a position way too long. Especially when those that they enable tell them what a great job they are doing.

Ben CurtisOctober 9, 2009 at 7:27 pm

Cash, we did call for help from the FPPC, the proper paperwork was filed, the investigation is still ongoing, but it seems that the State turns to the County DA for their prosecutorial assistance. It is akin to the fox watching the henhouse. There is still action pending on our filing. We have high hopes for TimBen and David to replace at least two of the incumbents.

cashOctober 10, 2009 at 9:18 am

Mr. Curtis, Thank you for providing an update. The conduct of the city and certain council members it very troubling. I hope we can see new blood as well. I know I can be very cynical at times, and at times I should apologize for that. However, I watch the city in wonderment as to how they can believe their actions are not prejudice, or at least have create the preception of being underhanded. The only answer I come up with is that some have been there too long and can not longer see right from wrong.

Sean ( SCVKickstandOctober 15, 2009 at 5:26 am

I am a frequent visitor to the are on my mountain bike. Quigley Canyon has a nice 2+ mile loop with some great singletrack. The property owner died not to long ago and his wife has decided not to continue to maintain the site. I had the good fortune to talk to another landowner inthe area who was very critical of the cities “reforestation” project. I know the Weste has visions of horse trails and her recent comments at the city councel meeting indicate to me she is no fan of bikes on her open space, but I for one am glad this will be added to the area I can ride, but I will miss the cows.

Neva WillisJanuary 4, 2010 at 6:47 pm

From the outside looking in, I’d say that Weste is a greedy, agressive lady who may or may not be legally blonde. Isn’t she a friend of Phil’s widow?

cashOctober 8, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Well of course! Closed door meeting were held on this property last year, I believe, and about the same time the Sand Canyon area land was announced. It is no surprise that the first property was purchased in the Sand Canyon area and now this one. Announcing both at the same time would have really looked bad. About the only people that will benefit from this purchase are the Placerita Canyon residents. You know they will do everything they can to keep the common folks out of the area.
cashOctober 8, 2009 at 6:57 pm
January 8, 2008: CLOSED SESSION Carl Newton, City Attorney, advised of the need to conduct a Closed Session for the purpose of holding a: CONFERENCE WITH PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Government Code Section 54956.8 Location of Property: Assessor’s Parcel Nos.: 2833-024-038 and 2833-024-039 59.60 acres vacant land, Placerita & Quigley Canyons Property Owner: Ida Pryor Under Negotiation: Price and Terms
spineflower2October 8, 2009 at 8:05 pm
I thought the idea of the open space was to complete the rim-of-the-valley protection. This is smack dab in the middle, not the rim. Just more City enriching the GOBN.
Jim FarleyOctober 8, 2009 at 8:16 pm
So these 10 acres of land provide a ‘Special Benefit’ to the property owners in the city of Santa Clarita. Proposition 218 requires that assesments be proportional and provide a ‘special benefit’ to the property. These kind of taxes have been declared illegal by the CA Supreme Court. (See my web site). Laurene Weste has perpetuated an illegal tax assessment on the property owners in the city. If you, as a property owner in the city, think this purchase of land will enhance your life, and don’t care about the lies and underhanded means to get this tax, then celebrate. Otherwise you should grieve the lack of democracy that went into imposing the tax.
cashOctober 8, 2009 at 8:26 pm
This open space program looks like a fraud to me. At least until the council is done with the debt repayment. Or should I say quid pro quo! Remember Weste lives in Placerita Canyon and Bob Kellar lives in Sand Canyon. Kellar and Weste pushed the open space initiative. The first two properties that the city purchased with open space money benefited the residents of Sand Canyon and Placerita Canyon. Both Canyon associations supported the initiative. West and Kellar live within walking distance of the land that the city is buying. Stopping development of these properties is good for all of us, but this smells a little bit. Not an uncommon odor lately!
Jim FarleyOctober 8, 2009 at 8:42 pm
I know Laurene Weste is going to use her support of the Open Space measure as a big achievement on her behalf when she seriously campaigns. It’s critical that those of us who know hang this Open Space Tax as an albatross on her neck.
cashOctober 8, 2009 at 10:10 pm
One only needs to point out where she made the purchases to bring her credibility into question. That and how the votes were assessed and counted.
Need for Involved CitizenryOctober 9, 2009 at 6:56 am
The City withheld the release of the appraisal of the Placerita Opens space that was just purchased until after the property closed. As a matter of fact, the appraisal wasn’t finalized until February of this year (it has been in escrow for about two years). How’d the City know they got a fair price when they negotiated?
cashOctober 9, 2009 at 9:55 am
Were is our city insider when we need him or her. What value will this latest purchase offer to the residents of Santa Clarita. The home owners in Placerita Canyon will surely complain if there is an increase in traffic should the land become available for public use. I believe we are owed an explanation. Perhaps someone will be able to challenge Weste for an answer at the Council meeting. TimBen or David are you up for that opportuity?
navigatorOctober 9, 2009 at 11:04 am
The property under consideration is contiguous with property that the City already possesses so in that rspect it is an easy fit.
Petz2October 9, 2009 at 11:40 am
Property is owned by the legendary Phil Rawlins who has an interesting biography. http://pcpoa.com/placerita%20gold%202.htm
CastaicClayOctober 9, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Thanks for the correction Petz.
navigatorOctober 9, 2009 at 12:26 pm
I believe it’s the late Phil Rawlins
cashOctober 9, 2009 at 1:16 pm
navigator So why is it a fit? How will the land be used. The city owns lots of land but that does not mean buying adjacent land is an open space fit?
mikeOctober 9, 2009 at 1:27 pm
or, why buy the hole when you already own the donut? This is an area that is almost, quite literally, sealed off from the rest of the city, too. Benefits only some of the wealthiest residents.
cashOctober 9, 2009 at 1:28 pm
I guess Weste was able to fulfill Phil Rawlings dream for Placerita Canyon. This stinks to the high heaven’s! Weste should be run out of office! Weste had better advocate for public assess to the land or she should be subject to another challenge of impropriety. Did she have to pull this off to get Ben Curtis and her Placertia friends of off her back! You remember Ben, he is the guy that filed a formal complaint against Weste claiming she was using her office for personal gain. This in regards to Weste’s roll as a member of the OTN redevelopment agency and decisions that make her property more valuable. Come on Timben and David we need you guys!
cashOctober 9, 2009 at 1:31 pm
By Katherine Geyer Assistant City Editor kgeyer@the-signal.com Posted: Aug. 15, 2008 9:41 p.m. POSTED Oct. 17, 2008 5:03 a.m. A Placerita Canyon resident filed a complaint with a state commission Friday, alleging Councilwoman Laurene Weste’s involvement with Newhall redevelopment is a conflict of interest because she owns property in the north Newhall area. Weste said Friday, however, that she abides by all the rules and recuses herself from all votes relating to the north Newhall area, including the city’s North Newhall Specific Plan project. “I abide by all the city attorney’s advice and guidance on what I can and can’t vote on,” Weste said. “It makes my life a lot easier to get attorney advice and then abide by it.” Resident Ben Curtis said in a news release that he filed a complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission on Friday. The commission regulates financial conflicts of interest among elected officials. Curtis said that although Weste recuses herself from North Newhall Specific Plan matters that come before the council, it’s her committee positions that concerns him. Like the four other City Council members, Weste is a member of the Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency. She is also a member of the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan Ad Hoc Committee. “Her involvement, in any way, with that (north Newhall) development is a violation of the regulations since she has a personal vested interest in the outcome,” Curtis said. “She has failed to recuse herself from the entire process and still controls subcommittees that have decision-making authority over that project.” He cited the FPPC government code 87100 that reads: “No public official at any level of state or local government shall make, participate in making or in any way attempt to use his official position to influence a governmental decision in which he knows or has reason to know he has a financial interest.” Weste said that although she sits on the downtown Newhall committee, it does not discuss North Newhall Specific Plan matters. “There’s nothing violated because the city attorney doesn’t let us go on anything without going through all the Fair Political Practices (Commission) rules,” she said. Email Article | Print Article | Sign Up for Our Email Newsletter Share this article:
cashOctober 9, 2009 at 1:33 pm
“There’s nothing violated because the city attorney doesn’t let us go on anything without going through all the Fair Political Practices (Commission) rules,” she (Weste) said” Of course she fails to mention that the city pays (yes man) Carl Newton’s handsome salary.
cashOctober 9, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Not much has changed since Phil moved to the end of Cleardale Avenue. A few new houses, and Saxonia Park turning into a church are just about it. Beazer Homes’ failed in an attempt to put houses next to him, and Phil was most supportive in the quest of Laurene Weste in securing Fox’s Pasture for open space several ( several what? Words omitted in article for some strange reason). Fox used to turn cattle out in the area to eat the weeds, and in 1962, the year he didn’t graze cattle, is when most of Placerita Canyon, including the original Gene Autry Melody Ranch, went up in flames. Phil is currently grazing three roping steers in a fenced area next to his roping arena. His several horses graze in pastures in the picturesque view from his home.
navigatorOctober 9, 2009 at 1:45 pm
“Weste had better advocate for public assess to the land or she should be subject to another challenge of impropriety” If the City does buy the property I will agree with you completely since public access to open space is what this is all about. In case you’re interested the SDI property that the City just purchased is now open to the public. If you haven’t been back there take a hike (so to speak
cashOctober 9, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Navigator, I have been to the SDI property. I looked at the property while it was for sale, long before the city. It will be more than just a little interesting to see where the city uses our tax dollars to make the next so called open space purchase. The new Newhall Land Company will probably be unloading bits and pieces of no profitable land soon. They have not yet been rewarded for their contribution to the open space initiative.
navigatorOctober 9, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Who knows, maybe the City will wait until NL gives them the spaces along with a development approval. The undevevelopable property is what is normally donated anyway.
cashOctober 9, 2009 at 3:46 pm
I hate to be a cynic,( I was not born one, but have lived to become one) but let’s keep an eye on how the city works with Lennar to acquire the building NHL will soon vacate. Our city seems to walk a fine line between being only deceptive and not illegal. The people with money and influence that are capable of a court challenge, have no interest as they are generally the benefactors in one form or another. I thought Ben Curtis had finally called the city council out, but that matter seems to have been swept away. We need David Guany and TimBen. The incumbents have lost sight of right and wrong, or even the perception there of, something that can happen to those that have been in a position way too long. Especially when those that they enable tell them what a great job they are doing.
Ben CurtisOctober 9, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Cash, we did call for help from the FPPC, the proper paperwork was filed, the investigation is still ongoing, but it seems that the State turns to the County DA for their prosecutorial assistance. It is akin to the fox watching the henhouse. There is still action pending on our filing. We have high hopes for TimBen and David to replace at least two of the incumbents.
cashOctober 10, 2009 at 9:18 am
Mr. Curtis, Thank you for providing an update. The conduct of the city and certain council members it very troubling. I hope we can see new blood as well. I know I can be very cynical at times, and at times I should apologize for that. However, I watch the city in wonderment as to how they can believe their actions are not prejudice, or at least have create the preception of being underhanded. The only answer I come up with is that some have been there too long and can not longer see right from wrong.
Sean ( SCVKickstandOctober 15, 2009 at 5:26 am
I am a frequent visitor to the are on my mountain bike. Quigley Canyon has a nice 2+ mile loop with some great singletrack. The property owner died not to long ago and his wife has decided not to continue to maintain the site. I had the good fortune to talk to another landowner inthe area who was very critical of the cities “reforestation” project. I know the Weste has visions of horse trails and her recent comments at the city councel meeting indicate to me she is no fan of bikes on her open space, but I for one am glad this will be added to the area I can ride, but I will miss the cows.
Neva WillisJanuary 4, 2010 at 6:47 pm
From the outside looking in, I’d say that Weste is a greedy, agressive lady who may or may not be legally blonde. Isn’t she a friend of Phil’s widow?