Comment of the Week, or how I learned to dislike the Placerita Posse

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

Image not recovereddock.jpg

From SCVTalk reader Mike regarding today’s Signal story on the Placerita Canyon Property owner’s assocation having problems with the Lyons-Dockweiler road:

I love how we have to tiptoe around Placerita homeowners like they are our benevolent overlords. It isn’t enough that they get a special standards district, they now get a sphere of influence.

Exactly. It’s like the PCPOA (which calls itself the Placerita Canyon Power Posse) has veto power over any project in the City they want. They even have the gall to boast about their power and claim that when they put a halt to any and all development in their neck of the woods, they’re looking out for the good of the larger community.

Take a look at bullet list of reasons to oppose the Lyons-Dockweiler link on their website:

If the Lyons Avenue crossing is approved by the PUC, then the door is opened up for future development, such as development of the “Casden” property as well as transit oriented and other housing closer to the train station.
The proposed 800 or more condominiums threaten our safety and are incompatible with Placerita Canyon’s rural equestrian lifestyle.
That much additional traffic is incompatible with our way of life that includes horses, horse trailers, and golf carts as well as trucks.

Please. No one is threatening them or their precious “rural equestrian lifestyle”, their ranch homes or newly-built McMansions, their use of golf carts on the road (can you believe they brought that up? And you thought cyclists have entitlement issues!) their oak trees or their secret and hard-to-get-to open spaces.

And no one is going to force them to get streetlights or build sidewalks for the poor Master’s College kids who have to trudge through ankle-deep rain and mud during the winter season.

What we’re talking about here is a new road that bypasses their neighborhood entirely. A Lyons-to-Dockweiler link they have approved of before, even as the much poorer and less fortunate residents of the Dockweiler neighborhood protested it. They’re down with Masters College expansion too.

What is their problem then? The potential, as yet unapproved construction of 500-700 condos in the vacant lot in the mouth of the canyon where people park during the Cowboy Festival.

You can almost hear the sneer in their voice when they write that this possible development is “Transit oriented,” which would be a feature anywhere else in America but is apparently a liability in Santa Clarita. Nevermind that transit oriented development tends to reduce traffic rather than add to it, nevermind that this development is close enough to the train station that many potential commuters might take Metrolink rather than clog the Newhall Pass; it’s transit oriented and therefore it’s bad.

But the hyperventilating drama mamas don’t stop there; they actually consider these potential condos a “threat” to their safety. As if we’re building a new Jake’s Way next to them. And populating it with Pitchess inmates.

Give me a break.

Here’s the bottom line. Santa Clarita is progressing. We have a fantastic opportunity on our doorstep, and it’s called Studios at The Ranch. This project, once built out, will employ over 3000 people with high-paying, high skilled local jobs. It has the potential to create many, many more in Newhall and other communities.

For the prosperity of our city, we need a road that connects Lyons to Sierra Highway in order to jet those highly-paid workers into our shops, restaurants and support businesses in Old Town Newhall.

Don’t let the selfish Power Posse stand in the way of our city’s future prosperity.

Comments (50)

spineflower2April 23, 2010 at 3:13 pm

Clearly there is a “special” resident who sees to it that her, oops I mean their interests are at the forefront of the City’s interests. Interesting how this is allowed to happen, yet the first thing the City said they would do if they annexed the west side is dissolve the Town Councils.

JeffApril 23, 2010 at 3:16 pm

Just come out and say it. You’re talking about Laurene Weste. The conspiracy theorists like Not a Ferry Fan think she has a conflict of interest with Old Town Newhall development. Like she’s going to profit off of it. But the Power Posse says Newhall development will hurt their property values. So which is it? Will PC homes and property increase or decrease in value due to Newhall development? If home values are truly going to go down, wouldn’t Laurene be a no vote?

AnnetteApril 23, 2010 at 10:04 pm

Laurene Weste will benefit because the road will go through her land and they must buy her land to build the road. The homeowners will lose because the Casden’s development will be high density in fill.

CoastalSageApril 24, 2010 at 5:19 pm

One point about the Lyons to Dockweiler connection which all of Santa Clarita misses. At certain times, the Berry Petroleum facility at the east end of Placerita Canyon where it meets Sierra Highway hold a massive quantity of a certain chemical which, when released, becomes a toxic gas cloud. Here’s a February 2010 EPA report on what happened when there was a minor release of the toxic gas in a San Francisco neighborhood: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/a883dc3da7094f97852572a00065d7d8/8bbf7f04afeca89f852576d6006e44f3!OpenDocument Once every 5 years, Berry Petroleum’s owner has to file a detailed “hazard report” with the US EPA, showing what would happen if a cloud of that toxic gas leaked from their Placerita/Sierra facility. These reports are prepared by safety consultants to Berry’s owner. The contents of these reports are supposed to be a public record, but in reality they are a deep, dark secret because Berry’s owner does not want anyone in Santa Clarita to read them and understand what they say. The reports are about 3″ thick, and are supposed to be updated every 5 years, as new schools, day care centers, senior citizen recreation facilities and the like are built. Sometimes, these out-of-town safety consultants are not very careful to update their maps as to those facilities. Once in the early 2000′s there was a whole lot of chicanery relating to the filing of Berry Petroleum’s EPA report on the effects of a release of such a toxic gas cloud from the Berry Petroleum facility. Berry’s safety consultants prepared that report to the EPA, not the showing Golden Valley High School site, because while the Santa Clarita Facilities Foundation owned it, the Hart Board had not yet received approval of the site from the California Department of Education. It almost looked like the State held off approving the school site until a few days after Berry’s owners filed their EPA report. For some reason, Bob Lee received that report from Berry Petroleum in his capacity as Hart District Superintendent. Somehow, his secretary kindly made the Berry Petroleum EPA Report available for SCOPE and friends to review under a California Public Records Act request. Everyone was shocked by what was in the report, because they had no idea of the risky chemicals sitting at the east end of Placerita Canyon Road. That Berry Petroleum EPA report showed that if its “model” toxic gas cloud was accidentally released, people within a certain radius would have severe permanent eye and lung damage if they didn’t get away from the cloud within 1/2 hour, and they would be dead within 1 hour if they didn’t get out of the cloud. Obviously, they would be dead if stuck in a horrific traffic jam. Within that “injured and dead circle” are people on the 14 Freeway, the students and teachers at Golden Valley High School, the people living in new tract houses off Sierra Highway near the school, the people living off Dockweiler and the residents of Placerita Canyon. As this issue of extending Lyons Avenue to Dockweiler has to be considered in light of the existence of the “toxic gas death circle” which Berry Petroleum’s owner discloses to the EPA every 5 years. To me, it seems that it is in the best interests of the residents of Santa Clarita that a public road exist, other than the Cross Valley Connector, to get people off the 14 Freeway and out of that “death circle” if a toxic gas cloud comes out of Berry Petroleum. And yes, the Santa Clarita City Council knew about the existence and risks of this toxic gas when they approved Berry Petroleum’s building of the facility that uses the chemical which when released becomes a toxic gas.

CastaicClayApril 25, 2010 at 6:34 am

I do not think this road extension will be of any additional benefit in your scenario. It is just a good talking point for the City Council to justify their goal.

mikeApril 23, 2010 at 3:17 pm

Well put Jeff. I agree, across the board.

sarahpoofApril 23, 2010 at 3:32 pm

Jeff, the problem is that the proposed roadway will potentially go across Weste’s property, causing the city to pay her millions for the rights. So the “posse” is correct – Weste would gain, the neighborhood will lose. You have become very one-sided lately, arguing forcefully on issues where you do not have all the facts. Why so quick to jump on the bandwagon?

JeffApril 23, 2010 at 3:41 pm

Sarah: I’m passionate when required. I like my part of the city and the way this organization runs rubs me the wrong way. I did link to the Signal & the website so that readers could get the other side of the story if they wish. This isn’t a battle of equals. And I’m not the arbiter. I’m an interested participant when it comes to Newhall.

drive66April 23, 2010 at 3:40 pm

If I lived where you had lots o land, horses and cruised around in golf carts, I wouldn’t want any of you riff raff coming through my little piece o paradise either. ;-P

CastaicClayApril 23, 2010 at 6:18 pm

A “cut and paste” from my reply to signal article. What purpose does the connection from Lyons to Dockweiler serve? Opening “Downtown Newhall” up to an out of the way section of Sierra Hwy?

CCApril 23, 2010 at 8:49 pm

I don’t see the advantage to open it up either. Leave them alone. I don’t blame people for protecting the places that they love. Since there is little purpose to the road, why spend the money?

JeffApril 23, 2010 at 10:37 pm

The railroad crossing at 13th Street is the most dangerous in the City. At least one person has been killed there in 1999. It is not compliant with state regulations and needs to be replaced. 10,000 cars use it daily. Moreover, I think there should be a quick way to get from Sierra Highway to Newhall once the Studios at the Ranch project opens up.

CastaicClayApril 24, 2010 at 8:10 am

Why is the 13th street crossing more dangerous than any other? (10,000 cars daily? Proof please) How much time will be saved on this new road? A minute, maybe? That is not “awesome” enough.

ToadlyApril 24, 2010 at 8:15 am

Finally, do you really think the 13th street crossing is the most dangerous? There are many other intersections in town that would be contenders for that distinction. For example, the City Planning Dept is working with a developer to put a five story medical office building at the corner of McBean and Singing Hills. This is the part of McBean coming downhill from the freeway where the cars can really pick up speed and where over 20 major accidents have happened over the last five years, including broadsides and head-ons. It is a major ingress and egress for a local elementary school, and the only legal access for approximately 172 homes, far above current code requirements. The proposed building is far above the building codes floor-to-area (FAR) restrictions, completely conflicts with neighborhood one and two story building standards, is in a geologically unstable area of town, and for perspective, would be as tall as the Bank of America building or about the same height as McBean’s eucalyptus trees. The only thing standing in the way of this ‘progress’ is a nascent neighborhood organization that is springing up because this building will drastically alter the character of this neighborhood, make a bad traffic situation much worse, and portends the changes that the area a few hundred yards down McBean can anticipate with the buildout of the medical office building expansion at HMNMH. These small neighborhood associations get out-gunned by the big money interests, and are the process underdogs at the City. Jeff, you should give them a break if not outright assistance.

CoastalSageApril 24, 2010 at 6:09 pm

Jeff, FYI, it doesn’t matter to the City of Santa Clarita or to the California Public Utilities Commission if a train track/city street intersection is unsafe. There is no economic incentive to force cities, counties or the PUC to make track/street intersections safe, let alone require the building of bridges which separate cars and trains. Several years ago, the National Transportation Safety Board learned, to its chagrin, that it could not force the California Public Utilities Commission to understand, let alone follow the NTSB’s “safe track/street intersection” design guidelines. When you read the pdf which is part of that NTSB report, you’ll see the NTSB investigators reporting that California’s PUC employees approving the track/street intersection designs didn’t even know about the NTSB’s safe design standards. See NTSB’s report at pdf linked from: http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2003/HAR0304.htm The NTSB also learned that in California no matter how negligent a City or County is in approving a civil engineer’s design of a track/street intersection, the City’s pocket book is immune from negligent design liability under state law. So why in the world should any City or County even care if a track/street intersection is safe? Why should they bother to require that a developer build a bridge to grade separate trains from cars at a busy intersection? There’s no financial penalty for a city or county which caves in to developer pressure not to saddle them with the costs. There’s no political penalty either because, historically, multi-death train/truck collisions usually happen only once at each track/street intersection. So the developer (who also gets off scott free) also argues “Why should I pay for a bridge to make an intersection safer?” In a “badly designed track/street intersection” train crash, the only party involved with the city or county who IS financially liable is a PRIVATE civil engineer who the city/county hires to help design the intersection. These characters only carry $1 Million in liability insurance, are incorporated, and are judgment proof if their ignorance of the NTSB safe track/street design guidelines are ignored. The private civil engineers just keep designing the same types of “cheap track/street intersections” because there is no disincentive in doing so. And in Santa Clarita, if the track/street intersection is designed in house, then none of the designers or decision makers are responsible if someone is killed. And, as the last “kick in the pants” it is the city which controls each track/road intersection which effectively decides how much time there is between when the “safety gates” drop down and when the train barrels through the intersection. In most areas of the San Fernando Valley, for example, that time frame is 45 seconds. So if a car, truck or fire truck gets stuck on the tracks at the 13th Street crossing, the gates drop and the train barrels through 45 seconds later, heaven help the people in the cars and trucks who are “backed up” at the intersection, as several thousand tons of train cars go flying through the air.

AnnetteApril 23, 2010 at 9:46 pm

Jeff, The issue of the at grade crossing goes much deeper than a few “power posse” complaints. The planning department has been bent on finding access into that area to accommodate the developers like (Casden’s). The stage one EIR does NOT cover the scope Casden’s development, just the small area of the RR crossing. Both stages of the EIR need to be evaluated at the same time and the OVOV document would give even more data for an informed decision. Why is the planning department so intent on rushing this stage one EIR if they have nothing to worry about with the forthcoming information ? Developers and their lobbyist are invading our valley by buying elections. This should be a concern to all residents that high density infill will happen if we do not speak up!

Sterling KingApril 23, 2010 at 10:53 pm

You said it right Annette. It’s not to hard to see the unfair advantage citizens have. Thanks for your comment.

spineflower2April 24, 2010 at 7:46 am

It’s “divide and conquer.” Once the RR is approved (blind to the development it brings), at the next stage can say “oh, you should have brought that up earlier, too late to stop it.” Same process as the Newhall Ranch piecemealing.

GangFangApril 23, 2010 at 9:50 pm

Tell me more about these “secret and hard-to-get-to open spaces”……

Need for Involved CitizenryApril 24, 2010 at 6:32 am

Lets start with the employment numbers at Disney Ranch – Disney in a presentation about a month ago indicated that there will be less than 200 full time employees at the Ranch. The rest of the jobs are transient (just another filming location that brings in folks from all over). So. If you think that the Casden site will house a bunch of those “3,000″ jobs, I think your mistaken. Lets talk about transit friendly. I continue to wonder why high density development is being pushed near train stations when the reality is few residents actually are able or choose to use the train. If one wants an urban village lifestyle, why would one choose to commute an hour or more on the train daily when there are plenty of units downtown – a place that is even more transit friendly. Can I take a train to a Dodger game? No way, they don’t run that late. Can I go to the theater? Nope. How about a museum? Well perhaps the Hart museum but try getting to the Getty or any of the LA County museums on a train. I am unconvinced that it is, or will ever be pratical for most people to get along without a car in this Valley. The layout and distances just do not support it. Therefore, in my mind, all these urban villages will do is add to the ever increasing traffic over the Newhall Pass. What the City needs to do is put all their efforts into working with developers that will build projects that can house permanent, well paying jobs and companies that will provide them. This, and not building high density residential projects is what is needed to really solve the traffic issues out here. The City knows jobs is a huge issue (that is likely whey they are having issues with the State on their OVOV EIR) but they have yet to show they have the balls to stand up to a developer wanting to build residential and tell them “No, we don’t need more residential but you can build a commercial project that will provide permanent, well paying jobs”. And that doesn’t mean retail, even though the City like all others has become a whore to the Sales Tax dollar.

TimBen BoydstonApril 24, 2010 at 7:13 am

Jeff, If you build 100 units and it creates 400 car trips per day our roads become that much more crowded. So if you build “transit oriented developement” and you are able to reduce car trips by 25% (a big if, and the largest number I have seen thrown about)you reduce car trips by 100. But if you only build 25 units you reduce car trips by 300. If you have the roads to handle the increase, then you don’t sit in traffic fouling the air. But the new OVOV plan actually calls for worse traffic. We are not planning on building enough roads, and without a mass transit system such as that of San Francisco or New York, we are headed for gridlock. That is why good long range planning is so important. OVOV is not a good plan.

spineflower2April 24, 2010 at 7:47 am

AMEN. Just say NO to OVOV!

CoastalSageApril 24, 2010 at 5:37 pm

The City of Santa Clarita’s OVOV draft plan is very bad, if only for one reason. It entirely mis-calculates how much clean water is available for existing and future residents to use. The water calculations are SO BAD, Los Angeles County has pulled back the EIR on its share of OVOV, trying to figure out where in the world the local water agencies are going to get the potable water needed for existing residents and businesses, let alone new developments. The disinterested professionals at the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning are now saying that it won’t be able to present or consider any solution to the water shortage problem for at least 7 months. But that’s OK, because Lennar’s political consultants Timothy L. Strader, Sr., and his sons Tim Jr. and Pat, operating as “Starpointeventures.com” have obtained the California Secretary of State’s permission to circulate two statewide initiative petitions to prevent cities, counties and private parties from bringing lawsuits to enforce CEQA with respect to a bad EIR. So with any luck on Lennar’s part, EIR’s will become perfunctory, and it will simply buy the approval of OVOV by the Board of Supervisors and the City Council, through campaign contributions. The Straders’ professional signature gatherers only need to collect 433,971 by 08/23/10 to get the initiatives on the statewide ballot and be done with all you complainers. And regardless of the outcome of the Lennar/Strader ballot measure, Lisa Hardy, Planning Director of Santa Clarita, is forging ahead, full steam to push through Her Valley Her Vision, regardless of whether there’s enough potable water, and regardless of anything else. How else will Lisa get her dream job with some private developer, like Jeff Lambert did, once the Southern California real estate economy recovers? It’s Lisa’s turn for a ride on the gravy train, and she’s not going to miss it.

mikeApril 24, 2010 at 8:35 am

And if you only build 25 units, that’s 75 units that get building on a razed hillside on the edge of town. This inefficient sprawl we have is, in part, a result of the restrictions on land usage here and elsewhere. Some people would really like to live in this manner. There ought to be places for them. It may add 400 car trips (not a big deal, anyway), but when they are located close to other things, as this would be, those car trips would be considerably shorter and have far less of an impact that the 8-mile trek from Saugus sprawl into the commercial areas of Santa Clarita. It seems that the driving concern for many when it comes to urban planning is the speed at which cars can move on our streets. I’m glad that the people at city hall are thinking harder, differently and yes, bigger.

Saugus SplasherApril 25, 2010 at 7:24 pm

Mike, you are correct that residential development needs to be close to the things people want, otherwise the result is lots of traffic. Timmy says he doesn’t want us to become another san fernando valley (as if there are others who want exactly that, which we know isn’t true), but what he really advocates for is suburban sprawl or worse. It would be nice to hear a example of the high density development that is now located in Santa Clarita, and I’d also like to hear of a city in southern california that is a example of good planning.

GangFangApril 24, 2010 at 7:58 am

I miss the language!!

ToadlyApril 24, 2010 at 8:03 am

There are certainly a number of interests in the promotion of the Lyons crossing, not the least of them being Councilmember Weste’s interest. In addition to this egregious conflict of interest on her part, issues of redevelopment in OTN and the fast-tracted Newhall library are also involved. She should have recused herself from these decisions long ago. It is the sense of many of the Placerita Canyon residents that they are being railroaded down a track leading to adjacent high-density urbanization that will severely impact why they live in area in the first place. The problem is a high density bias at the City Planning Dept, a city manager who shares that bias, and a City Council that is either asleep, conflicted with personal interest, or just happy to be there and rubber stamp whatever staff brings up. If we had a local newspaper that was actually acting as a watchdog on government that would be something, but ours acts more like the City newsletter. There is really no protection for the people or neighborhoods right now other than individual neighborhood association like PCPOA. So Jeff, please step back to gain some perspective and give the neighborhood associations some respect. For the next few years there will be more of these associations forming as there are no checks to speak of in the process and these high density high profit development schemes get the green light.

AnnetteApril 24, 2010 at 10:03 am

Toadly; You are totally correct! “The problem is a high density bias at the City Planning Dept, a city manager who shares that bias”. The big developers are coming into town to provide the big bucks to get their EIR’s approved by false mitigation measures and a council that does not do the research on the data, just follows plannings direction to tell them the biased facts of a project to get it approved. Since Santa Clarita is a growing, community the developers see us as a great investment and it is the little guy that is being squeezed be the high density ideas of development! This Rail Road crossing would be the beginning of the end for the residents in Placerita and along Dockweiler, so I say, we must all stand together before it is our turn to get stepped on by the high density developers.

CastaicClayApril 24, 2010 at 8:20 am

I don’t know how many times I have brought this up but here I go again. Build the access to the Casdan property at 15th street. Elevate the tracks over the road and and do not connect any streets from the Casden tract to Placerita Cyn. To build a bridge for the train should be no more, probably less than the bridge at Lyons.

MayApril 24, 2010 at 9:42 am

What PCPOA wants is what every neighborhood wants, and what is written in the General Plan, “Continue to provide for the development of new housing while ensuring that the character, scale, and density of new residential development is sensitive, compatible and conplimentary to exisiting neighborhoods.” That’s why we stood with our Dockweiler and Hidden Knolls neighbors, why we supported the Calgrove Coalition and the Benz Road folks, and the neighborhoods threatened by the MRF, among others. The proposed development simply was not compatible with existing neighborhoods! We further feel that an EIR should be as complete as possible and not examine a 100′ X 200′ strip in a project area of more than 200 Acres. The present EIR ignores the adjacent Newhall Creek, does not discuss how and where traffic will be diverted during construction to raise the road to accommodate an at-grade (not a bridge, not an underpass) rail crossing at Lyons Avenue and Railroad. PCPOA is asking the City to lay out the complete project for approval. After all the contract for the EIR was proposed and passed in a single City Council agenda item in May 2009. How do you get a price for an entire project unless the parameters are known? PS The Placerita Power Posse is not the PCPOA. It refers to a Fourth of July Parade entry several years back in which residents were invited to show off antique cars, souped-up trucks, motorcyles and such.

AnnetteApril 24, 2010 at 11:07 am

Very well stated May! To the others that say build, build build, it is only time before you will face the high density coming to a neighborhood near you!

Saugus SplasherApril 24, 2010 at 10:16 am

It is ironic that during the daytime Ben Curtis is the owner/operator of Curtis Sand and Gravel (www.curtisgravel.com) which has a permit to mine aggregate from the Santa Clara River and which causes frequent dust plumes in eastern Canyon Country? YAY PROPERTY RIGHTS AND FREE ENTERPRISE! When he is not mining in the Santa Clara River next to residential neighborhoods, Ben Curtis is protecting the homeowners of Placerita Canyon as president of the Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association from the plans of Casden Properties to develop their land. BOOOO PROPERTY RIGHTS AND FREE ENTERPRISE! NIMBY!!

mikeApril 24, 2010 at 10:48 am

And also, through his family and connections, the biggest donor to TBB’s campaign. If given the choice between the guy operating the mine by day and fighting for multi-million dollar estates by night and the people expanding the hospital, I’ll take the hospital folks any day.

AnnetteApril 24, 2010 at 11:13 am

And you can prove this about the campaign? More medical office building do not equate to more hospital beds. Mike you just sound a little jealous

Saugus SplasherApril 24, 2010 at 11:39 am

They are mostly not multi-million dollar estates in Placerita Canyon. Some of the houses look pretty shabby and you should see what many of the homeowners have done to impair creeks and washes – not exactly practicing environmentalists. It’s really all about the wants of the few taking priority over the needs of the many.

mikeApril 24, 2010 at 11:20 am

Ben Curtis, Dale Curtis, Jason Curtis and their co-worker Paul Economu got together for a donation valued at $1,440.

Saugus SplasherApril 24, 2010 at 11:44 am

Not a very good investment considering the absolute pounding Timothy Benjamin took in the election.

AnnetteApril 24, 2010 at 1:51 pm

I would not say it was a pounding when there was only 1000 votes difference from first to fifth.

Saugus SplasherApril 24, 2010 at 6:55 pm

When you run a distant 5th in what was essentially a 5 way race, you just took a pounding. Sorry, but when you are a former councilman and you finish “last” (and behind a “nobody” who finished fourth) it shows that the people aren’t buying what you are selling.

mikeApril 24, 2010 at 7:33 pm

It was a pounding. I was as shocked as anyone to see it.

TimBen BoydstonApril 25, 2010 at 11:03 am

It is actually Timothy Ben (after my Grandfather) And what is your real name?

AnnetteApril 24, 2010 at 1:53 pm

A small amount compared to what the PAC (G & L) spent on the incumbents don’t ya think? Let’s see if big donations = big favors!

mikeApril 24, 2010 at 7:32 pm

Sure, but still not the kind of character I’d want my guy being in the pocket of.

TimBen BoydstonApril 26, 2010 at 7:02 am

Just a few facts for you “Mike”. First let everyone know that the contributions were both cash and “in kind” which means labor in this case. So your misleading statement about all of this “big contribution” by Ben Curtis and his connections is absurd. If you look at the cash contributions you will find that I am the biggest supporter at this time. I am “in the pocket” of no one. PS..What is your real name?

Neutral ObserverApril 24, 2010 at 4:20 pm

For all those commenting on issues relating to Laurene Weste’s property on Placerita Canyon Road, the Casden Tract, and the connection of Lyons Avenue to Dockweiler, perhaps it would be instructive for you to read the advisory letter the FPPC wrote to her, in response to a Placerita Canyon resident’s complaints to the FPPC. See: http://www.fppc.ca.gov/enf_letter/04-05-10/ENF009.PDF The bottom line is very simple: (1) Mayor Weste cannot participate in any City Hall discussions or City decisions concerning a property within 500′ of her property, except to get off the elevated platform and show up in the audience like any other citizen would to comment as a property owner. (2) As to properties more than 500′ from her land, the FPPC says there is a legal question of whether she has an “indirect interest” in the outcome of the matter. According to the FPPC letter, at page 3, the standard as to what is an “indirect interest” is “whether it is reasonably foreseeable that a material economic effect on your financial interests would result from your vote for and participation regarding the aforementioned decisions”. The “aforementioned decisions” were redevelopment agency financing, the Spruce Street library and the Master’s College Specific Plan. In the future, in order to prevail on a complaint before the FPPC or in court, concerning, for example the Casden project, the Lyons to Dockweiler extension, or further Newhall Redevelopment Agency matters, a party complaining about Laurene Weste’s actions (be it a Santa Clarita resident, Casden, or the FPPC) would have to bear the EVIDENTIARY BURDEN of proving that “it is reasonably forseeable that the City’s decision would have an economic effect on her financial interests.” The FPPC and the courts have to act on real “evidence” which is defined in the California Evidence Code and case law, not just supposition and theories. The practical result is that as to projects more than 500′ from Mayor Weste’s property, (1) she can simply choose not to be involved in discussions at City Hall or voting or (2) she can play chicken with the FPPC and those locals who don’t like her (or the Casden), because it is they (not her) who will have to bear the burden of proving that it was reasonably forseeable that the City’s decision would have an economic effect on Mayor Weste’s financial interests. Under that reasonably foreseeable material economic effect standard, it can include a negative effect, preventing a City Council member from OPPOSING a project in his or her own neighborhood, except from the floor of the Council Chamber, sitting with his/her neighbors, at hearings on the project. At some point the “indirect interest” and “reasonably foreseeable” standard reaches absurdity. Where the “line of absurdity is” is unclear. For example, it is reasonably foreseeable that every time the City Council approves more commercial development, or more housing development, that traffic congestion on the freeways in Santa Clarita will become worse, thereby diminishing the desirability of living in Santa Clarita and thereby price a council member’s house or land would bring if it were put up for sale. As a result, under the “reasonably foreseeable standard”, Council members could never vote for or against any real estate development project, anywhere in the city, if the council member was a property owner.

Need for Involved CitizenryApril 24, 2010 at 8:03 pm

While one might not like Curtis Sand and Gravel, they’ve been there since 1955, predating most everything out here. Like it or not, other than the visual aspect, their use is relatively benign. Their operations are small scale compared to what CEMEX would have been. I don’t begruge the Placerita homeowners including Ben Curtis, Kevin Malone, Val Thomas, etc. living in a nice area and wanting to keep it low density. A couple of the properties slated for “urban villages” are flood plain parcels that will be expensive to develop. I don’t see why the City has to say “we’ll let you go high denisty so you can make a profit” when the properties could just as soon be low density with lower profits or be purchased as open space. Why is almost all of the the open space outside the City boundaries? Why can’t some of this land be procured for decent sized parks? We need them more desparately than high density villages. Why is it necessary for this City to go the road of high density? I don’t believe the County will all of a sudden stop approving hill scraping for Newhall Land if we have Urban Villages.

Love Santa ClaritaApril 24, 2010 at 11:11 pm

A couple of comments on all of these various comments Ben Curtis got saved by the City to I think $1 million for his land which he was going to lose where CEMEX has the mining rights. In regards to Weste, I believe the road easements are already owned through her property and have been since County days. She is zoned commercial. She has recused herself. What more do you want? Stop the personal attacks. PCPOA approved Masters and the first part of the Dockweiller Extension knowing it would come down to Placerita and either connect at Lyons or 13. If they now pretend otherwise then they are being hypocritical.

CCApril 25, 2010 at 5:39 pm

What the proponents of high density living fail to realize is that the vast majority of people who came to Santa Clarita in the first place were escaping high density living. How soon they forget. Mike, the recipe for sprawl is to make SCV high density so that folks have to move further out to have decent living arrangements for their families.

Michele NicholsonApril 27, 2010 at 11:54 am

Yeah, I say get over it. That’s the one thing I can’t tolerate in this valley is the snobbery of the so called upper classes. Unreal!

PCerMay 2, 2010 at 1:53 pm

People who live in Placerita Canyon are here because of the rural equestrian lifestyle. The community has its boundaries defined in the current Uniform Development Code as Sierra Highway to San Fernando Road (now Railroad), ridge to ridge. We just want to keep our small, historic community, without the city carving away chunks for high development. By the way, not all the homes here are grand, expensive homes owned by the wealthy, but a large proportion are smaller and owned by hard-working families, just like everywhere else. If you want suburban, you can move to many other areas, like Valencia, the rest of Newhall,or Saugus, or Canyon Country. If you want to live in a rural equestrian community, you have few choices. Why not keep this choice? There should be room for everyone.

spineflower2April 23, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Clearly there is a “special” resident who sees to it that her, oops I mean their interests are at the forefront of the City’s interests. Interesting how this is allowed to happen, yet the first thing the City said they would do if they annexed the west side is dissolve the Town Councils.
JeffApril 23, 2010 at 3:16 pm
Just come out and say it. You’re talking about Laurene Weste. The conspiracy theorists like Not a Ferry Fan think she has a conflict of interest with Old Town Newhall development. Like she’s going to profit off of it. But the Power Posse says Newhall development will hurt their property values. So which is it? Will PC homes and property increase or decrease in value due to Newhall development? If home values are truly going to go down, wouldn’t Laurene be a no vote?
AnnetteApril 23, 2010 at 10:04 pm
Laurene Weste will benefit because the road will go through her land and they must buy her land to build the road. The homeowners will lose because the Casden’s development will be high density in fill.
CoastalSageApril 24, 2010 at 5:19 pm
One point about the Lyons to Dockweiler connection which all of Santa Clarita misses. At certain times, the Berry Petroleum facility at the east end of Placerita Canyon where it meets Sierra Highway hold a massive quantity of a certain chemical which, when released, becomes a toxic gas cloud. Here’s a February 2010 EPA report on what happened when there was a minor release of the toxic gas in a San Francisco neighborhood: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/a883dc3da7094f97852572a00065d7d8/8bbf7f04afeca89f852576d6006e44f3!OpenDocument Once every 5 years, Berry Petroleum’s owner has to file a detailed “hazard report” with the US EPA, showing what would happen if a cloud of that toxic gas leaked from their Placerita/Sierra facility. These reports are prepared by safety consultants to Berry’s owner. The contents of these reports are supposed to be a public record, but in reality they are a deep, dark secret because Berry’s owner does not want anyone in Santa Clarita to read them and understand what they say. The reports are about 3″ thick, and are supposed to be updated every 5 years, as new schools, day care centers, senior citizen recreation facilities and the like are built. Sometimes, these out-of-town safety consultants are not very careful to update their maps as to those facilities. Once in the early 2000′s there was a whole lot of chicanery relating to the filing of Berry Petroleum’s EPA report on the effects of a release of such a toxic gas cloud from the Berry Petroleum facility. Berry’s safety consultants prepared that report to the EPA, not the showing Golden Valley High School site, because while the Santa Clarita Facilities Foundation owned it, the Hart Board had not yet received approval of the site from the California Department of Education. It almost looked like the State held off approving the school site until a few days after Berry’s owners filed their EPA report. For some reason, Bob Lee received that report from Berry Petroleum in his capacity as Hart District Superintendent. Somehow, his secretary kindly made the Berry Petroleum EPA Report available for SCOPE and friends to review under a California Public Records Act request. Everyone was shocked by what was in the report, because they had no idea of the risky chemicals sitting at the east end of Placerita Canyon Road. That Berry Petroleum EPA report showed that if its “model” toxic gas cloud was accidentally released, people within a certain radius would have severe permanent eye and lung damage if they didn’t get away from the cloud within 1/2 hour, and they would be dead within 1 hour if they didn’t get out of the cloud. Obviously, they would be dead if stuck in a horrific traffic jam. Within that “injured and dead circle” are people on the 14 Freeway, the students and teachers at Golden Valley High School, the people living in new tract houses off Sierra Highway near the school, the people living off Dockweiler and the residents of Placerita Canyon. As this issue of extending Lyons Avenue to Dockweiler has to be considered in light of the existence of the “toxic gas death circle” which Berry Petroleum’s owner discloses to the EPA every 5 years. To me, it seems that it is in the best interests of the residents of Santa Clarita that a public road exist, other than the Cross Valley Connector, to get people off the 14 Freeway and out of that “death circle” if a toxic gas cloud comes out of Berry Petroleum. And yes, the Santa Clarita City Council knew about the existence and risks of this toxic gas when they approved Berry Petroleum’s building of the facility that uses the chemical which when released becomes a toxic gas.
CastaicClayApril 25, 2010 at 6:34 am
I do not think this road extension will be of any additional benefit in your scenario. It is just a good talking point for the City Council to justify their goal.
mikeApril 23, 2010 at 3:17 pm
Well put Jeff. I agree, across the board.
sarahpoofApril 23, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Jeff, the problem is that the proposed roadway will potentially go across Weste’s property, causing the city to pay her millions for the rights. So the “posse” is correct – Weste would gain, the neighborhood will lose. You have become very one-sided lately, arguing forcefully on issues where you do not have all the facts. Why so quick to jump on the bandwagon?
JeffApril 23, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Sarah: I’m passionate when required. I like my part of the city and the way this organization runs rubs me the wrong way. I did link to the Signal & the website so that readers could get the other side of the story if they wish. This isn’t a battle of equals. And I’m not the arbiter. I’m an interested participant when it comes to Newhall.
drive66April 23, 2010 at 3:40 pm
If I lived where you had lots o land, horses and cruised around in golf carts, I wouldn’t want any of you riff raff coming through my little piece o paradise either. ;-P
CastaicClayApril 23, 2010 at 6:18 pm
A “cut and paste” from my reply to signal article. What purpose does the connection from Lyons to Dockweiler serve? Opening “Downtown Newhall” up to an out of the way section of Sierra Hwy?
CCApril 23, 2010 at 8:49 pm
I don’t see the advantage to open it up either. Leave them alone. I don’t blame people for protecting the places that they love. Since there is little purpose to the road, why spend the money?
JeffApril 23, 2010 at 10:37 pm
The railroad crossing at 13th Street is the most dangerous in the City. At least one person has been killed there in 1999. It is not compliant with state regulations and needs to be replaced. 10,000 cars use it daily. Moreover, I think there should be a quick way to get from Sierra Highway to Newhall once the Studios at the Ranch project opens up.
CastaicClayApril 24, 2010 at 8:10 am
Why is the 13th street crossing more dangerous than any other? (10,000 cars daily? Proof please) How much time will be saved on this new road? A minute, maybe? That is not “awesome” enough.
ToadlyApril 24, 2010 at 8:15 am
Finally, do you really think the 13th street crossing is the most dangerous? There are many other intersections in town that would be contenders for that distinction. For example, the City Planning Dept is working with a developer to put a five story medical office building at the corner of McBean and Singing Hills. This is the part of McBean coming downhill from the freeway where the cars can really pick up speed and where over 20 major accidents have happened over the last five years, including broadsides and head-ons. It is a major ingress and egress for a local elementary school, and the only legal access for approximately 172 homes, far above current code requirements. The proposed building is far above the building codes floor-to-area (FAR) restrictions, completely conflicts with neighborhood one and two story building standards, is in a geologically unstable area of town, and for perspective, would be as tall as the Bank of America building or about the same height as McBean’s eucalyptus trees. The only thing standing in the way of this ‘progress’ is a nascent neighborhood organization that is springing up because this building will drastically alter the character of this neighborhood, make a bad traffic situation much worse, and portends the changes that the area a few hundred yards down McBean can anticipate with the buildout of the medical office building expansion at HMNMH. These small neighborhood associations get out-gunned by the big money interests, and are the process underdogs at the City. Jeff, you should give them a break if not outright assistance.
CoastalSageApril 24, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Jeff, FYI, it doesn’t matter to the City of Santa Clarita or to the California Public Utilities Commission if a train track/city street intersection is unsafe. There is no economic incentive to force cities, counties or the PUC to make track/street intersections safe, let alone require the building of bridges which separate cars and trains. Several years ago, the National Transportation Safety Board learned, to its chagrin, that it could not force the California Public Utilities Commission to understand, let alone follow the NTSB’s “safe track/street intersection” design guidelines. When you read the pdf which is part of that NTSB report, you’ll see the NTSB investigators reporting that California’s PUC employees approving the track/street intersection designs didn’t even know about the NTSB’s safe design standards. See NTSB’s report at pdf linked from: http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2003/HAR0304.htm The NTSB also learned that in California no matter how negligent a City or County is in approving a civil engineer’s design of a track/street intersection, the City’s pocket book is immune from negligent design liability under state law. So why in the world should any City or County even care if a track/street intersection is safe? Why should they bother to require that a developer build a bridge to grade separate trains from cars at a busy intersection? There’s no financial penalty for a city or county which caves in to developer pressure not to saddle them with the costs. There’s no political penalty either because, historically, multi-death train/truck collisions usually happen only once at each track/street intersection. So the developer (who also gets off scott free) also argues “Why should I pay for a bridge to make an intersection safer?” In a “badly designed track/street intersection” train crash, the only party involved with the city or county who IS financially liable is a PRIVATE civil engineer who the city/county hires to help design the intersection. These characters only carry $1 Million in liability insurance, are incorporated, and are judgment proof if their ignorance of the NTSB safe track/street design guidelines are ignored. The private civil engineers just keep designing the same types of “cheap track/street intersections” because there is no disincentive in doing so. And in Santa Clarita, if the track/street intersection is designed in house, then none of the designers or decision makers are responsible if someone is killed. And, as the last “kick in the pants” it is the city which controls each track/road intersection which effectively decides how much time there is between when the “safety gates” drop down and when the train barrels through the intersection. In most areas of the San Fernando Valley, for example, that time frame is 45 seconds. So if a car, truck or fire truck gets stuck on the tracks at the 13th Street crossing, the gates drop and the train barrels through 45 seconds later, heaven help the people in the cars and trucks who are “backed up” at the intersection, as several thousand tons of train cars go flying through the air.
AnnetteApril 23, 2010 at 9:46 pm
Jeff, The issue of the at grade crossing goes much deeper than a few “power posse” complaints. The planning department has been bent on finding access into that area to accommodate the developers like (Casden’s). The stage one EIR does NOT cover the scope Casden’s development, just the small area of the RR crossing. Both stages of the EIR need to be evaluated at the same time and the OVOV document would give even more data for an informed decision. Why is the planning department so intent on rushing this stage one EIR if they have nothing to worry about with the forthcoming information ? Developers and their lobbyist are invading our valley by buying elections. This should be a concern to all residents that high density infill will happen if we do not speak up!
Sterling KingApril 23, 2010 at 10:53 pm
You said it right Annette. It’s not to hard to see the unfair advantage citizens have. Thanks for your comment.
spineflower2April 24, 2010 at 7:46 am
It’s “divide and conquer.” Once the RR is approved (blind to the development it brings), at the next stage can say “oh, you should have brought that up earlier, too late to stop it.” Same process as the Newhall Ranch piecemealing.
GangFangApril 23, 2010 at 9:50 pm
Tell me more about these “secret and hard-to-get-to open spaces”……
Need for Involved CitizenryApril 24, 2010 at 6:32 am
Lets start with the employment numbers at Disney Ranch – Disney in a presentation about a month ago indicated that there will be less than 200 full time employees at the Ranch. The rest of the jobs are transient (just another filming location that brings in folks from all over). So. If you think that the Casden site will house a bunch of those “3,000″ jobs, I think your mistaken. Lets talk about transit friendly. I continue to wonder why high density development is being pushed near train stations when the reality is few residents actually are able or choose to use the train. If one wants an urban village lifestyle, why would one choose to commute an hour or more on the train daily when there are plenty of units downtown – a place that is even more transit friendly. Can I take a train to a Dodger game? No way, they don’t run that late. Can I go to the theater? Nope. How about a museum? Well perhaps the Hart museum but try getting to the Getty or any of the LA County museums on a train. I am unconvinced that it is, or will ever be pratical for most people to get along without a car in this Valley. The layout and distances just do not support it. Therefore, in my mind, all these urban villages will do is add to the ever increasing traffic over the Newhall Pass. What the City needs to do is put all their efforts into working with developers that will build projects that can house permanent, well paying jobs and companies that will provide them. This, and not building high density residential projects is what is needed to really solve the traffic issues out here. The City knows jobs is a huge issue (that is likely whey they are having issues with the State on their OVOV EIR) but they have yet to show they have the balls to stand up to a developer wanting to build residential and tell them “No, we don’t need more residential but you can build a commercial project that will provide permanent, well paying jobs”. And that doesn’t mean retail, even though the City like all others has become a whore to the Sales Tax dollar.
TimBen BoydstonApril 24, 2010 at 7:13 am
Jeff, If you build 100 units and it creates 400 car trips per day our roads become that much more crowded. So if you build “transit oriented developement” and you are able to reduce car trips by 25% (a big if, and the largest number I have seen thrown about)you reduce car trips by 100. But if you only build 25 units you reduce car trips by 300. If you have the roads to handle the increase, then you don’t sit in traffic fouling the air. But the new OVOV plan actually calls for worse traffic. We are not planning on building enough roads, and without a mass transit system such as that of San Francisco or New York, we are headed for gridlock. That is why good long range planning is so important. OVOV is not a good plan.
spineflower2April 24, 2010 at 7:47 am
AMEN. Just say NO to OVOV!
CoastalSageApril 24, 2010 at 5:37 pm
The City of Santa Clarita’s OVOV draft plan is very bad, if only for one reason. It entirely mis-calculates how much clean water is available for existing and future residents to use. The water calculations are SO BAD, Los Angeles County has pulled back the EIR on its share of OVOV, trying to figure out where in the world the local water agencies are going to get the potable water needed for existing residents and businesses, let alone new developments. The disinterested professionals at the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning are now saying that it won’t be able to present or consider any solution to the water shortage problem for at least 7 months. But that’s OK, because Lennar’s political consultants Timothy L. Strader, Sr., and his sons Tim Jr. and Pat, operating as “Starpointeventures.com” have obtained the California Secretary of State’s permission to circulate two statewide initiative petitions to prevent cities, counties and private parties from bringing lawsuits to enforce CEQA with respect to a bad EIR. So with any luck on Lennar’s part, EIR’s will become perfunctory, and it will simply buy the approval of OVOV by the Board of Supervisors and the City Council, through campaign contributions. The Straders’ professional signature gatherers only need to collect 433,971 by 08/23/10 to get the initiatives on the statewide ballot and be done with all you complainers. And regardless of the outcome of the Lennar/Strader ballot measure, Lisa Hardy, Planning Director of Santa Clarita, is forging ahead, full steam to push through Her Valley Her Vision, regardless of whether there’s enough potable water, and regardless of anything else. How else will Lisa get her dream job with some private developer, like Jeff Lambert did, once the Southern California real estate economy recovers? It’s Lisa’s turn for a ride on the gravy train, and she’s not going to miss it.
mikeApril 24, 2010 at 8:35 am
And if you only build 25 units, that’s 75 units that get building on a razed hillside on the edge of town. This inefficient sprawl we have is, in part, a result of the restrictions on land usage here and elsewhere. Some people would really like to live in this manner. There ought to be places for them. It may add 400 car trips (not a big deal, anyway), but when they are located close to other things, as this would be, those car trips would be considerably shorter and have far less of an impact that the 8-mile trek from Saugus sprawl into the commercial areas of Santa Clarita. It seems that the driving concern for many when it comes to urban planning is the speed at which cars can move on our streets. I’m glad that the people at city hall are thinking harder, differently and yes, bigger.
Saugus SplasherApril 25, 2010 at 7:24 pm
Mike, you are correct that residential development needs to be close to the things people want, otherwise the result is lots of traffic. Timmy says he doesn’t want us to become another san fernando valley (as if there are others who want exactly that, which we know isn’t true), but what he really advocates for is suburban sprawl or worse. It would be nice to hear a example of the high density development that is now located in Santa Clarita, and I’d also like to hear of a city in southern california that is a example of good planning.
GangFangApril 24, 2010 at 7:58 am
I miss the language!!
ToadlyApril 24, 2010 at 8:03 am
There are certainly a number of interests in the promotion of the Lyons crossing, not the least of them being Councilmember Weste’s interest. In addition to this egregious conflict of interest on her part, issues of redevelopment in OTN and the fast-tracted Newhall library are also involved. She should have recused herself from these decisions long ago. It is the sense of many of the Placerita Canyon residents that they are being railroaded down a track leading to adjacent high-density urbanization that will severely impact why they live in area in the first place. The problem is a high density bias at the City Planning Dept, a city manager who shares that bias, and a City Council that is either asleep, conflicted with personal interest, or just happy to be there and rubber stamp whatever staff brings up. If we had a local newspaper that was actually acting as a watchdog on government that would be something, but ours acts more like the City newsletter. There is really no protection for the people or neighborhoods right now other than individual neighborhood association like PCPOA. So Jeff, please step back to gain some perspective and give the neighborhood associations some respect. For the next few years there will be more of these associations forming as there are no checks to speak of in the process and these high density high profit development schemes get the green light.
AnnetteApril 24, 2010 at 10:03 am
Toadly; You are totally correct! “The problem is a high density bias at the City Planning Dept, a city manager who shares that bias”. The big developers are coming into town to provide the big bucks to get their EIR’s approved by false mitigation measures and a council that does not do the research on the data, just follows plannings direction to tell them the biased facts of a project to get it approved. Since Santa Clarita is a growing, community the developers see us as a great investment and it is the little guy that is being squeezed be the high density ideas of development! This Rail Road crossing would be the beginning of the end for the residents in Placerita and along Dockweiler, so I say, we must all stand together before it is our turn to get stepped on by the high density developers.
CastaicClayApril 24, 2010 at 8:20 am
I don’t know how many times I have brought this up but here I go again. Build the access to the Casdan property at 15th street. Elevate the tracks over the road and and do not connect any streets from the Casden tract to Placerita Cyn. To build a bridge for the train should be no more, probably less than the bridge at Lyons.
MayApril 24, 2010 at 9:42 am
What PCPOA wants is what every neighborhood wants, and what is written in the General Plan, “Continue to provide for the development of new housing while ensuring that the character, scale, and density of new residential development is sensitive, compatible and conplimentary to exisiting neighborhoods.” That’s why we stood with our Dockweiler and Hidden Knolls neighbors, why we supported the Calgrove Coalition and the Benz Road folks, and the neighborhoods threatened by the MRF, among others. The proposed development simply was not compatible with existing neighborhoods! We further feel that an EIR should be as complete as possible and not examine a 100′ X 200′ strip in a project area of more than 200 Acres. The present EIR ignores the adjacent Newhall Creek, does not discuss how and where traffic will be diverted during construction to raise the road to accommodate an at-grade (not a bridge, not an underpass) rail crossing at Lyons Avenue and Railroad. PCPOA is asking the City to lay out the complete project for approval. After all the contract for the EIR was proposed and passed in a single City Council agenda item in May 2009. How do you get a price for an entire project unless the parameters are known? PS The Placerita Power Posse is not the PCPOA. It refers to a Fourth of July Parade entry several years back in which residents were invited to show off antique cars, souped-up trucks, motorcyles and such.
AnnetteApril 24, 2010 at 11:07 am
Very well stated May! To the others that say build, build build, it is only time before you will face the high density coming to a neighborhood near you!
Saugus SplasherApril 24, 2010 at 10:16 am
It is ironic that during the daytime Ben Curtis is the owner/operator of Curtis Sand and Gravel (www.curtisgravel.com) which has a permit to mine aggregate from the Santa Clara River and which causes frequent dust plumes in eastern Canyon Country? YAY PROPERTY RIGHTS AND FREE ENTERPRISE! When he is not mining in the Santa Clara River next to residential neighborhoods, Ben Curtis is protecting the homeowners of Placerita Canyon as president of the Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association from the plans of Casden Properties to develop their land. BOOOO PROPERTY RIGHTS AND FREE ENTERPRISE! NIMBY!!
mikeApril 24, 2010 at 10:48 am
And also, through his family and connections, the biggest donor to TBB’s campaign. If given the choice between the guy operating the mine by day and fighting for multi-million dollar estates by night and the people expanding the hospital, I’ll take the hospital folks any day.
AnnetteApril 24, 2010 at 11:13 am
And you can prove this about the campaign? More medical office building do not equate to more hospital beds. Mike you just sound a little jealous
Saugus SplasherApril 24, 2010 at 11:39 am
They are mostly not multi-million dollar estates in Placerita Canyon. Some of the houses look pretty shabby and you should see what many of the homeowners have done to impair creeks and washes – not exactly practicing environmentalists. It’s really all about the wants of the few taking priority over the needs of the many.
mikeApril 24, 2010 at 11:20 am
Ben Curtis, Dale Curtis, Jason Curtis and their co-worker Paul Economu got together for a donation valued at $1,440.
Saugus SplasherApril 24, 2010 at 11:44 am
Not a very good investment considering the absolute pounding Timothy Benjamin took in the election.
AnnetteApril 24, 2010 at 1:51 pm
I would not say it was a pounding when there was only 1000 votes difference from first to fifth.
Saugus SplasherApril 24, 2010 at 6:55 pm
When you run a distant 5th in what was essentially a 5 way race, you just took a pounding. Sorry, but when you are a former councilman and you finish “last” (and behind a “nobody” who finished fourth) it shows that the people aren’t buying what you are selling.
mikeApril 24, 2010 at 7:33 pm
It was a pounding. I was as shocked as anyone to see it.
TimBen BoydstonApril 25, 2010 at 11:03 am
It is actually Timothy Ben (after my Grandfather) And what is your real name?
AnnetteApril 24, 2010 at 1:53 pm
A small amount compared to what the PAC (G & L) spent on the incumbents don’t ya think? Let’s see if big donations = big favors!
mikeApril 24, 2010 at 7:32 pm
Sure, but still not the kind of character I’d want my guy being in the pocket of.
TimBen BoydstonApril 26, 2010 at 7:02 am
Just a few facts for you “Mike”. First let everyone know that the contributions were both cash and “in kind” which means labor in this case. So your misleading statement about all of this “big contribution” by Ben Curtis and his connections is absurd. If you look at the cash contributions you will find that I am the biggest supporter at this time. I am “in the pocket” of no one. PS..What is your real name?
Neutral ObserverApril 24, 2010 at 4:20 pm
For all those commenting on issues relating to Laurene Weste’s property on Placerita Canyon Road, the Casden Tract, and the connection of Lyons Avenue to Dockweiler, perhaps it would be instructive for you to read the advisory letter the FPPC wrote to her, in response to a Placerita Canyon resident’s complaints to the FPPC. See: http://www.fppc.ca.gov/enf_letter/04-05-10/ENF009.PDF The bottom line is very simple: (1) Mayor Weste cannot participate in any City Hall discussions or City decisions concerning a property within 500′ of her property, except to get off the elevated platform and show up in the audience like any other citizen would to comment as a property owner. (2) As to properties more than 500′ from her land, the FPPC says there is a legal question of whether she has an “indirect interest” in the outcome of the matter. According to the FPPC letter, at page 3, the standard as to what is an “indirect interest” is “whether it is reasonably foreseeable that a material economic effect on your financial interests would result from your vote for and participation regarding the aforementioned decisions”. The “aforementioned decisions” were redevelopment agency financing, the Spruce Street library and the Master’s College Specific Plan. In the future, in order to prevail on a complaint before the FPPC or in court, concerning, for example the Casden project, the Lyons to Dockweiler extension, or further Newhall Redevelopment Agency matters, a party complaining about Laurene Weste’s actions (be it a Santa Clarita resident, Casden, or the FPPC) would have to bear the EVIDENTIARY BURDEN of proving that “it is reasonably forseeable that the City’s decision would have an economic effect on her financial interests.” The FPPC and the courts have to act on real “evidence” which is defined in the California Evidence Code and case law, not just supposition and theories. The practical result is that as to projects more than 500′ from Mayor Weste’s property, (1) she can simply choose not to be involved in discussions at City Hall or voting or (2) she can play chicken with the FPPC and those locals who don’t like her (or the Casden), because it is they (not her) who will have to bear the burden of proving that it was reasonably forseeable that the City’s decision would have an economic effect on Mayor Weste’s financial interests. Under that reasonably foreseeable material economic effect standard, it can include a negative effect, preventing a City Council member from OPPOSING a project in his or her own neighborhood, except from the floor of the Council Chamber, sitting with his/her neighbors, at hearings on the project. At some point the “indirect interest” and “reasonably foreseeable” standard reaches absurdity. Where the “line of absurdity is” is unclear. For example, it is reasonably foreseeable that every time the City Council approves more commercial development, or more housing development, that traffic congestion on the freeways in Santa Clarita will become worse, thereby diminishing the desirability of living in Santa Clarita and thereby price a council member’s house or land would bring if it were put up for sale. As a result, under the “reasonably foreseeable standard”, Council members could never vote for or against any real estate development project, anywhere in the city, if the council member was a property owner.
Need for Involved CitizenryApril 24, 2010 at 8:03 pm
While one might not like Curtis Sand and Gravel, they’ve been there since 1955, predating most everything out here. Like it or not, other than the visual aspect, their use is relatively benign. Their operations are small scale compared to what CEMEX would have been. I don’t begruge the Placerita homeowners including Ben Curtis, Kevin Malone, Val Thomas, etc. living in a nice area and wanting to keep it low density. A couple of the properties slated for “urban villages” are flood plain parcels that will be expensive to develop. I don’t see why the City has to say “we’ll let you go high denisty so you can make a profit” when the properties could just as soon be low density with lower profits or be purchased as open space. Why is almost all of the the open space outside the City boundaries? Why can’t some of this land be procured for decent sized parks? We need them more desparately than high density villages. Why is it necessary for this City to go the road of high density? I don’t believe the County will all of a sudden stop approving hill scraping for Newhall Land if we have Urban Villages.
Love Santa ClaritaApril 24, 2010 at 11:11 pm
A couple of comments on all of these various comments Ben Curtis got saved by the City to I think $1 million for his land which he was going to lose where CEMEX has the mining rights. In regards to Weste, I believe the road easements are already owned through her property and have been since County days. She is zoned commercial. She has recused herself. What more do you want? Stop the personal attacks. PCPOA approved Masters and the first part of the Dockweiller Extension knowing it would come down to Placerita and either connect at Lyons or 13. If they now pretend otherwise then they are being hypocritical.
CCApril 25, 2010 at 5:39 pm
What the proponents of high density living fail to realize is that the vast majority of people who came to Santa Clarita in the first place were escaping high density living. How soon they forget. Mike, the recipe for sprawl is to make SCV high density so that folks have to move further out to have decent living arrangements for their families.
Michele NicholsonApril 27, 2010 at 11:54 am
Yeah, I say get over it. That’s the one thing I can’t tolerate in this valley is the snobbery of the so called upper classes. Unreal!
PCerMay 2, 2010 at 1:53 pm
People who live in Placerita Canyon are here because of the rural equestrian lifestyle. The community has its boundaries defined in the current Uniform Development Code as Sierra Highway to San Fernando Road (now Railroad), ridge to ridge. We just want to keep our small, historic community, without the city carving away chunks for high development. By the way, not all the homes here are grand, expensive homes owned by the wealthy, but a large proportion are smaller and owned by hard-working families, just like everywhere else. If you want suburban, you can move to many other areas, like Valencia, the rest of Newhall,or Saugus, or Canyon Country. If you want to live in a rural equestrian community, you have few choices. Why not keep this choice? There should be room for everyone.