Their Vision, Their Valley

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

The people of the Santa Clarita area think planning for future development is too important to be decided behind closed doors by out-of-area consultants and special interests. This is OUR Valley and OUR Vision, and we believe planning decisions should involve as many local people as possible at its earliest stages of development, and we support preserving and enhancing the character of existing neighborhoods in a family friendly environment. We oppose the urbanization bias of planners and developers known as ‘One Valley One Vision’ which doubles the population of the SCV over the next 20 years, does not adequately address needed improvements of infrastructure, and which leads to increases in congestion and crime, fouls the air, and degrades our quality of life. Santa Clarita does not want to become more like the San Fernando Valley with all of its problems. The existing residents and neighborhood associations want OUR Valley and OUR Vision for Santa Clarita!

Our Valley, Our Vision’s Manifesto (emphasis mine)

You see, their narrow Vision and their idealized valley is one in which Santa Clarita is frozen in time, unchanging, with no or very little growth in the city proper (they’re less passionate about growth outside the city, like Newhall Ranch, Tejon Ranch or surprise new 1,000 home developments in Canyon Country). Their vision is one in which big buildings are banned because well…the San Fernando Valley has big buildings too! Their vision is one in which traffic on their streets flows smoothly and quickly at 55+ mph, but traffic on Interstate 5 slows to a crawl as SCV commuters struggle to get into and out of town because they can’t find local work.

If Santa Clarita were in a Sim City game with the OVOV group as the player, they would have just declared victory and stopped playing years ago.

But not me. I want more for Santa Clarita. I want it to grow and be prosperous, less dependent on other places and other industries for its success. My valley and my vision is utterly irreconcilable with their valley and their vision. My valley and my vision includes growth in the city center, some density and affordable housing, some commercial developments for businesses close to residences that will pay high wages rather than strip malls that pay shit wages, more local amenities attractions and features, more parks, and more transportation alternatives.

And less suburban, car-dependent, and jobs-poor growth on the edges.

Build up, not out is what I’ve been saying on this blog for a few years now. And what’s more, I believe this to be the environmentally responsible position to hold.

Comments (44)

ScottMay 19, 2010 at 4:10 pm

What does WiFido think about living in high density his whole life? Poor boyo!

TimBen BoydstonMay 20, 2010 at 7:46 am

Jeff, It is not if you build, it is what you build and where. Very few neighborhoods ever come out and say, “don’t build anything”. They simply want something that fits in. They like living in a suburban community. That is why people move here. The urban lifestyle is available just over the hill for those people who want it. Building space for good paying jobs like the new Disney Studios is a big plus, however do not think that all the people who work there will be living here. Just like building high density on the rail line would not mean that all those people are going to ride the train to work, and walk or bike everywhere else. Too much density means gridlock with polluted air due to the increase in auto trips. The State has stalled the County version of the OVOV for just this reason, it does not address the air pollution from all of the extra traffic.

Raymond KutyloMay 19, 2010 at 5:10 pm

Jeff, the following was taken from the OUR Valley OUR Vision Facebook page under ‘Discussions’. If you read through the document, you may realize that your essay is dependent on a straw man argument. The neighborhood has objections to the developer’s plan, but does realize that something will be built there. They simply want to affect what that something is. I have another point in opposition to the planned development: that area was particularly hard hit during the 1994 earthquake, with many of the homes on that hill red-tagged and Franciscan Hill largely destroyed and subsequently rebuilt. Putting a 58 foot high building on that hill may not be the best placement due to unstable soil structures. Thanks for the opportunity to air a response to your column. Having moved here in 1955, I can assure you that there is no particular reason why I would now say ‘stop the development, it’s enough.’ But there is bad development, and there is good development. As the OVOV site states: Together we can promote smarter planning and help make the SCV better. If the people of Santa Clarita cannot petition their government and make their voices heard, please tell me why we made the effort to form a local government in the first place. Participation in local decisions affecting their lives and their neighborhoods would be something that I think is a public good. Does anybody teach Civics anymore? Have a good evening. Ray Why We Oppose the Medical Pointe at McBean Building Southwest corner of McBean and Singing Hills Dr. at the site of Coldwell Banker Vista Realty. This 58 foot tall, 4 story medical office building will have 18,000 square feet of floor area and include a 2 story parking structure. Translated. . .the developer wants a building 2,000 square feet bigger and 23 feet taller than permitted by zoning! We say NO! JUST SAY NO! TO THE DEVELOPER’S REQUEST • This development does not comply with zoning restrictions. Develop at or below the mid‐point density of the CN Zone. No CUP should be approved for additional FAR or height above 35 feet in this low scale, modest sized neighborhood. TOO TALL • This 58‐foot high building is incompatible with the size, scale, massing, and character of surrounding residential neighborhoods. • The highest point of the building is 58 feet tall, right next to senior apartments. • At 58 feet tall the building is substantially taller than City Hall (approximately 45 feet). This project will be closer in height to the Bank America building on Valencia Blvd. and to the highest eucalyptus trees in the area. PUT THE 2 STORY PARKING STRUCTURE COMPLETELY UNDERGROUND • The “subterranean” parking garage will not be subterranean at all. It will be built into the hill. The east side is NOT below ground, the parking area will be at-grade. We will see 18 feet of parking topped by 30 feet of offices on Singing Hills Drive! • A fully subterranean garage sunken below the level of Singing Hills would not be seen or heard from surrounding residential uses. This is a better alternative if no more than one retaining wall is used along Singing Hills Drive. • A 10‐foot landscaped setback next to the parking structure wall will create an inactive, landscaped “dead” space along Singing Hills. This will become a trash trap, public nuisance and is anti‐pedestrian! NO OUTLET ON SINGING HILLS • Singing Hills is the sole legal access for approximately 175 residences and 400 people living in Village Homes South. More traffic equals more potential to impede emergency ingress and egress. LESS SAFE “SAFE ROUTE TO SCHOOL” • Singing Hills Drive is a designated Safe Route to School. Children from the Summit and Tide Drive area will be subject to additional traffic when going to and from school. TRAFFIC SAFETY ON McBEAN AND SINGING HIILS DRIVE • Traffic will increase at Singing Hills and McBean, which is a highly dangerous corner with many accidents. The developer proposes no traffic improvements! • Consider parking prohibitions on Singing Hills in front of the project site to improve turning safety at this corner. • The project driveway will move closer to the senior apartment driveway. A traffic study evaluating driveway safety, sight distance and turn restrictions is needed. TRAFFIC IMPACT TO THE VILLAGE HOMES SOUTH AREA • The confluence of Singing Hills, Altamonte, Nashua, and the shopping center is sometimes a traffic “free‐for all” and is unsafe. More traffic will worsen the situation. • The City of Santa Clarita and project applicant MUST identify attractive alternatives for traffic safety at the Singing Hills, Altamonte, Nashua intersection such as: — A landscaped traffic circle to provide safe turning movements and to deter medical office traffic from entering the Village Homes South neighborhood. — Landscape parkways along both sides of Altamonte by Nashua to delineate the Village Homes South residential neighborhood from Singing Hills Dr. — Landscaped parkway with trees on the east side of Singing Hills from Altamonte to McBean to slow traffic and to provide a buffer for Village Homes South. • The Vista Valencia sign on the corner prevents adequate sight distance for drivers northbound on Singing Hills. The sign poses a risk to pedestrians, bicyclists and other vehicles. This project will only increase the sight‐distance problem, not remedy it. • Construction equipment and workers will clog our streets for years during construction and impede the only legal access to this neighborhood. UNSAFE BUS STOP • Any added bus stop in travel lanes is not safe because of speeds and frequent collisions at McBean Parkway and Singing Hills. Add a bus turnout or deceleration lane or eliminate the stop! NOISE IS A BIG PROBLEM • The City’s Noise Ordinance will let people build from 7am‐7pm and on Saturdays! • The McBean corridor is already impacted by excessive road noise and this will add more! An environmental impact report (EIR) is required to address potentially significant and unmitigated noise impacts. OTHER ISSUES • The corner Vista Valencia sign is non‐conforming and must be shown on the plans. It’s part of the property! It also must be removed before adding any new monument sign. • Nighttime lighting will impact surrounding homes and must be evaluated and minimized. • The office will block natural sunlight for neighboring apartments. A shade and shadow study should evaluate the impacts. Reduce height to ensure no residential home is put in the shade. • The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines state that an EIR should be prepared when there is substantial public controversy supported by evidence in the record of the potential for significant environmental impacts. This project has substantial public controversy and there is evidence of potentially significant environmental impacts. Therefore, a full EIR must be prepared. A mitigated negative declaration is inadequate for assessing significant environmental impacts! This development as proposed would negatively impact the neighborhood as well as traffic. The Singing Hills Neighborhood Group calls on our Santa Clarita City Council and Planning Commission to provide for smarter planning for developments, ensuring that the character, scale, and density of any new development is sensitive, compatible and conplementary to existing neighborhoods. Please sign the petition in opposition to the Medical Pointe at McBean at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/opposemedicalpointe/

Raymond KutyloMay 20, 2010 at 8:14 am

Correction to above: The building as proposed will have 18 feet of parking structure showing with an additional 40 feet of medical office building on top, not the 30 feet on top as stated. Total height from grade at Singing Hills: 58 feet. Monstrosly high for this neighborhood.

AnnetteMay 19, 2010 at 5:51 pm

Jeff, No one is asking for Santa Clarita to be frozen in time. I think what most Santa Clarita residents are asking is that existing neighborhoods are not over burdened with high density in a neighborhood setting. High density should be built with keeping the quality of the existing neighborhoods in mind. I do agree higher paying jobs are needed and we have built industrial center to provide for that.

AnnetteMay 19, 2010 at 6:26 pm

Copy and paste the link below to see a why we bought our home years ago near the Smiser property. Why put high density next to a neighborhood? http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs469.ash1/25747_1305498482471_1380783832_30817572_7965593_n.jpg

lvogelMay 19, 2010 at 6:37 pm

I agree with Annette…well duh, I am a nimby afterall! In regards to existing residential areas, why put high rises in them? If high density is something that the city wants in this valley, build in area where there are no homes with parks and schools and paseos. I’ve often wondered Jeff why you don’t live in the city?

mikeMay 19, 2010 at 6:41 pm

not in anybody’s backyard! great post Jeff. So true.

CCMay 20, 2010 at 8:45 am

Huh, you haven’t read a single post here today.

mikeMay 20, 2010 at 9:15 am

Today? This was posted yesterday. Also, a joke. But it’s funny because it’s true.

IHeartSCVMay 19, 2010 at 7:13 pm

There are places that, in their present state, are much like the SCV-of-the-future you dream of. Why’d you pick Santa Clarita in hopes it would change instead of a place that already represents your ideal?

mikeMay 19, 2010 at 8:23 pm

YeH, why even have an scvtalk? Just accept the vision of a loud minority of older residents and roll over, right?

IHeartSCVMay 19, 2010 at 9:56 pm

Ummm, missing the logic in your statement. But basically, I view Santa Clarita as a paradise lost. It was once a dry, disaster-prone valley with relatively few big roads and relatively few people, which was lovely. I have little faith in the wisdom of planners, having known too many, and as such have little hope for a better future.

lvogelMay 19, 2010 at 7:27 pm

Wonder if you’d say that Mike if it were your backyard? I didn’t buy this house to have a Building built that will be not only my view now, but also all my neighbors. I don’t know where you live, but if they built a 4 story building and justified it as a way to provide jobs, Medical care, etc., would you really be okay with that?

mikeMay 19, 2010 at 8:23 pm

Yes

lvogelMay 19, 2010 at 7:31 pm

oops, hit submit too soon… Now keep in mind that there are children that walk to school just past this large building (during construction and after). Why is my area referred to as a ‘residential zone’? Why zone it to begin with? If the idea is to build large buildings in residential areas, why not get rid of ‘zones’?

CastaicClayMay 19, 2010 at 7:58 pm

Where is the “city center” of the SCV?

Silence DogoodMay 19, 2010 at 8:30 pm

Jeff, if you want to live in a high-rise apartment building, why don’t you move to where they are? You know, North Hollywood or some other area that has been Lambertized. Some day you will realize that a lot of people moved here because of its family-friendly neighborhoods. A lot of those same people like to ride bikes too. Check out any area of this town and you will find a lot more people who like it here than want your urban chauchemar. They moved away from your vision. And what’s wrong with involving people in planning for the future for their neighborhoods, city, and region? Are you anti-democratic or something? Is it only people who learned about planning and development by playing Sim City that you trust? Wow, take a look around at IRL and get out of the game in your head. You think that because others don’t want to live in high-rises that they are bad, misguided Luddites yearning for a degenerate and poverty-sticken life in suburban hell? What kind of argument is that about a group that thinks they have a legitimate role to play in a government that is theirs the last I looked. As for the smarts of the planning dept, check out that new Pediatric Unit in the medical office building expansion… oh yeah, there isn’t one and given the delay in developing a regional hospital, there isn’t likely to be one in the next couple of decades in the Santa Clarita area. I know that doesn’t matter much to you, because that would actually enhance a family-friendly environment, and that is what those OUR Valley OUR Vision people are all about. Bastards! Finally, you are so sure this group doesn’t want ‘to grow and be prosperous, less dependent on other places and other industries for its success.’ Where does anything there at their site preclude ‘growth in the city center, some density and affordable housing, some commercial developments for businesses close to residences that will pay high wages rather than strip malls that pay shit wages, more local amenities attractions and features, more parks, and more transportation alternatives.’ What a bogus argument you make. Like your MOB allies, the truth is the first casualty in this war against citizens’ participation in their own government.

mikeMay 19, 2010 at 8:48 pm

It’s not anti-democratic to offer an opposing view. Just because a some people raise their voice, it doesn’t man that everyone agrees with them. This crowd had the candidate of their dreams last month and he got trounced at the ballot box.

AnnetteMay 19, 2010 at 9:24 pm

Can you say G & L Realty $$$$ and four bought council seats! It is hard to fight big developers but not impossible.

lvogelMay 20, 2010 at 6:05 am

Sometimes I think that the average homeowner (without ‘ties’ to the city), who simply want to raise their children in a community with schools that are easily accessible and parks that those children can play in (also easy to get to), don’t have a chance against those that sit and decide what’s best for this valley and it’s citizens, or better yet, the big $$ to be made off these developments within residential areas. How much do they care about what the ‘people’ want, compared to the all mighty dollar?

mikeMay 20, 2010 at 6:35 am

What sort of “ties” do you think I have? What makes your opinion as a parent more valuable than mine?

lvogelMay 20, 2010 at 7:13 am

I don’t know what your ‘capacity’ is with the city Mike and I am not putting a ‘value’ on my opinion or anyone elses. I also would never put a value on you as a parent; I don’t roll that way! What I do feel (my opinion) is there are more that feel development within residential areas is not compatible (or consistent) with their neighborhood. The ones that seem to think 4 or 5 story (commercial) buildings are a ‘good’ thing are those who stand to make money and I question those that hold a seat for our city that don’t listen to the residents. I also find that those that do not live near the areas that the city plans to build, feel this development is good in these neighborhoods; why, because they don’t live there. It doesn’t effect them. They don’t have to deal with the ramifications on a daily basis. Their neighborhood is the same as it was when they moved in. Hence, my question to you regarding these buidlings being built in your neighborhood, which you answered. It sounds as if you work for the city and I have offended you; not my intention and I apologize if I did. And I would never value my roll as a parent more so than another’s.

mikeMay 20, 2010 at 7:50 am

To be clear, I have no association with the city, whatsoever. Or any city, for that matter. Quite a few of the people here know me, and they can all attest to that. I just have a different viewpoint on the merits of different kinds of development. I’m younger than most of you, but I’ve also lived here for over 20 years. I haven’t seen a sound argument against building height, in and of itself, put forth. I happen to think our restriction of building height, particularly in the commercial core of Valencia and the industrial center, is a dumb idea that leads to sprawl. Perhaps if we had allowed for greater building height elsewhere, there wouldn’t be the need for some of these more bothersome developments in and near the city. If we had high buildings where they could work, we might have more jobs, fewer and shorter car trips and so forth. As for this building in particular, I really need to know more about it. I’m unpersuaded by a lot of the complaints, but I also don’t think that street could handle the cars coming in and out of there. It’s confusing enough as it is. But the opponents point to this as an example of a wider problem, but I don’t see it.

Need for Involved CitizenryMay 20, 2010 at 6:58 am

The problem with the visioning done by the Santa Clarita Planning Department is that rather than figuring out what makes sense and where the Plan is based on what the developers want to put and where. Compatible uses get short shrift. They’ve known about a huge jobs imbalance for years (yes, good paying jobs dammit) but continue to approve residential developments and retail centers with low paying jobs. When Magic Mountian and the school districts are your largest employers, there is a real disconnect.

Timothy MyersMay 20, 2010 at 8:16 am

Everyone’s a Tea Party enthusaist until a neighbor wants to do something with their land they don’t like and they they try to use ALL the instrument of government to bend the land usage (land they don’t own) to their will.

CCMay 20, 2010 at 8:49 am

It’s called zoning.

Timothy MyersMay 20, 2010 at 10:26 am

Exactly, and a Tea Partier should be against it, if they were true to their small government feelings and not just a beard for racism.

navigatorMay 20, 2010 at 12:40 pm

What the hell does racism have to do with 4 and 5 story buildings in a residential neighborhood???

CCMay 20, 2010 at 1:48 pm

That’s Tim’s go-to card, didn’t you know that?

Silence DogoodMay 20, 2010 at 10:20 am

No zoning restrictions here or anywhere says Tim Myers. Kind of goes against Newhall Land’s slogan ‘Valencia: Built as Promised.’ So much for the master planned community promise. We now have a free-for-all where money talks, and says ‘What promise?’

Jeff (But not the one that runs this blogMay 20, 2010 at 1:32 pm

I will chime in just to point out that as someone who moved here 6 years ago I see points on both sides of this issue, but I will also say that it is often the attitude and tone of many of the “long timers” with regards to new people, building etc that is grating. There is often a feel of if you didn’t leave here before such and such date you’re really not welcome to have an opinion about things here… the truth being that many of us never wanted you invading our oasis in the first place. Whether that is your intent or not, I feel that once in while it is worth pointing out to you that it is the vibe you give us. Maybe pointing it out once in a while will have an effect much like you speaking at city council can have an effect… but maybe I haven’t been here long enough to open my mouth. Additionally, many of the people (not all) when they went before the city council on this issue come across as representing an angry pitch fork wielding mob… at some point it gets hard to take them seriously because all they seem to do is yell and point fingers, on an issue that isn’t even before the city council yet and that the city is legally obligated to have go through the planning commission. I know you have to make your thoughts known to sway opinion early but try not being so accusatory before the city has even done anything on it yet!

Jeff (But not the one that runs this blogMay 20, 2010 at 1:34 pm

Sorry, “live” here, not “leave” here.

Silence DogoodMay 20, 2010 at 4:14 pm

It doesn’t matter when you moved here, or if you were born at HMNMH and have never have stepped outside the ridgelines. If you live here you have every right to speak up as what you are: a resident and a citizen. Or not, if that is your preference. However, those who have been here a while and/or have had some dealings with the city may have a perspective that you don’t have, for better or worse. Some speak well, some don’t. Some have nothing to say but talk anyway. If you have something to say then put it out there. If someone doesn’t like it, tough. That’s life.

Jeff (But not the one that runs this blogMay 21, 2010 at 8:47 am

Oh I definitely understand the perspective advantage Silence, I believe in the value of past experience, however it is the dismissive nature and attitude that goes along with that experience that is so often off-putting. I think that those who have been here a while would also do well to realize that sometimes fresh perspective from someone observing things can also be helpful. At times people have been so close to an issue for so long and become so embroiled in cantankerous debate that it’s hard for them to remain fully objective and at times find that they are arguing against everything the other side says regardless. Sometimes it is valuable to step back and see the forest for the trees as it were. Acknowledging the value of a fresh voice on a given topic is not an admission of incompetence.

lvogelMay 20, 2010 at 2:08 pm

Having been a ‘newby’ 22 years ago, I know how some of us may sound to you Jeff(But not the one that runs this blog). I sincerly hope I don’t come off that way; I was on the receiving end at one time. I don’t even have a problem with more people moving into this area; hell, the diversity sucks here and I questioned 20 years ago if this was the place for me! I just have a real problem with commerial buildings being built in residential areas…it’s that simple. I don’t think they belong and yes, I think there will be traffic, noise/air(environmentsl), and quite frankly a certain way of living that will be a conern for MANY in the coming years…in those residential areas. I have been concerned also with the attitude of some regarding the residential areas that this construction is going to be taken place in; see the neighborhoods that are being affected by this are some of the oldest neighborhoods in the valley. I have wondered if lets say West Ranch, or some of the newer residential areas would even be considered as possible areas to have any ‘dense’ highrise building? Probably not, ’cause those HOMES are worth much more, and I’d love to see the threat of eminent domain being tossed around in the more expensive areas of this valley.

mikeMay 20, 2010 at 2:24 pm

a) West Ranch isn’t part of the city and b) this building is right across the street from the Summit (may their views forever be unobstructed), one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the city.

Jeff (But not the one that runs this blogMay 20, 2010 at 2:55 pm

Like I said Ivogel, I genuinely see points on both sides of this issue, and I appreciate that you are at least concerned with not coming off that way. I’m just not in favor of the entitlement that sometimes accompanies someones mere longevity in an area/organization etc. I also have found myself being lumped into the idea of “all of the people moving to this area and overcrowding our city.”

Jeff (But not the one that runs this blogMay 20, 2010 at 3:00 pm

As for the issue itself, I don’t profess to really have the right answer on this one in particular, I really don’t. More to my intended point is that for those arguing against this particular building you might be more conscious of the way in which you argue, you might find more of us in support because we actually hear you rather than tuning you out because it is just one more issue you are screaming and yelling at the city about. Again, not you specifically ivogel. When I watch the city council meeting though I see a number of people march up there and I feel like I have seen a number of them screaming about a number of other issues time after time after time and eventually they feel like the boy who cried wolf. When they have an issue they are actually most passionate about I won’t be listening because EVERYTHING was done at the same volume and fever pitched rage. Today it is this office building tomorrow many of them will move on to carrying signs and yelling about the new cause of the day simply because they like the public speaking opportunity.

navigatorMay 20, 2010 at 3:11 pm

A few in particular come to mind.

lvogelMay 20, 2010 at 2:46 pm

hmmmm….there’s a senior living apartment and a condo and apartment complex surrounding this building; not to mention village homes next door. The Summit isn’t as close or in the same residential area. Thanks for the clarification of West Ranch. Didn’t know that. Is all the area on the west side of the 5 freeway, not part of the SCV?

navigatorMay 20, 2010 at 2:52 pm

Are you serious LV? I thought only the folks on the westside were not aware that they are outside City limits.

mikeMay 20, 2010 at 2:49 pm

Yes… Isn’t there a commercial something or other there already? (i’m not in favor of the building, just being a skeptic)

lvogelMay 20, 2010 at 6:17 pm

Yes, I was serious navigator. I really thought that West Ranch High School, TPC Golf course and the homes up there were part of the SCV. I am obviously ignorant in regard to ‘city limts’. Heck, I just remember that on that side of the freeway, years ago, there was a large ‘Valencia’ sign that was displayed on the hill; and, Magic Mountain (again on that side) has a Valencia address, as well as El Torito, Red Lobster, Wendy’s, etc; all on that side, so….. Yes, Mike there is currently a one story Realty office there. Now, again if Vista Realty wants to sell, fine. If the new owners want to build something else there, fine. However, 5 stories? it just doesn’t make sense (to me).

ScottMay 19, 2010 at 4:10 pm
What does WiFido think about living in high density his whole life? Poor boyo!
TimBen BoydstonMay 20, 2010 at 7:46 am
Jeff, It is not if you build, it is what you build and where. Very few neighborhoods ever come out and say, “don’t build anything”. They simply want something that fits in. They like living in a suburban community. That is why people move here. The urban lifestyle is available just over the hill for those people who want it. Building space for good paying jobs like the new Disney Studios is a big plus, however do not think that all the people who work there will be living here. Just like building high density on the rail line would not mean that all those people are going to ride the train to work, and walk or bike everywhere else. Too much density means gridlock with polluted air due to the increase in auto trips. The State has stalled the County version of the OVOV for just this reason, it does not address the air pollution from all of the extra traffic.
Raymond KutyloMay 19, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Jeff, the following was taken from the OUR Valley OUR Vision Facebook page under ‘Discussions’. If you read through the document, you may realize that your essay is dependent on a straw man argument. The neighborhood has objections to the developer’s plan, but does realize that something will be built there. They simply want to affect what that something is. I have another point in opposition to the planned development: that area was particularly hard hit during the 1994 earthquake, with many of the homes on that hill red-tagged and Franciscan Hill largely destroyed and subsequently rebuilt. Putting a 58 foot high building on that hill may not be the best placement due to unstable soil structures. Thanks for the opportunity to air a response to your column. Having moved here in 1955, I can assure you that there is no particular reason why I would now say ‘stop the development, it’s enough.’ But there is bad development, and there is good development. As the OVOV site states: Together we can promote smarter planning and help make the SCV better. If the people of Santa Clarita cannot petition their government and make their voices heard, please tell me why we made the effort to form a local government in the first place. Participation in local decisions affecting their lives and their neighborhoods would be something that I think is a public good. Does anybody teach Civics anymore? Have a good evening. Ray Why We Oppose the Medical Pointe at McBean Building Southwest corner of McBean and Singing Hills Dr. at the site of Coldwell Banker Vista Realty. This 58 foot tall, 4 story medical office building will have 18,000 square feet of floor area and include a 2 story parking structure. Translated. . .the developer wants a building 2,000 square feet bigger and 23 feet taller than permitted by zoning! We say NO! JUST SAY NO! TO THE DEVELOPER’S REQUEST • This development does not comply with zoning restrictions. Develop at or below the mid‐point density of the CN Zone. No CUP should be approved for additional FAR or height above 35 feet in this low scale, modest sized neighborhood. TOO TALL • This 58‐foot high building is incompatible with the size, scale, massing, and character of surrounding residential neighborhoods. • The highest point of the building is 58 feet tall, right next to senior apartments. • At 58 feet tall the building is substantially taller than City Hall (approximately 45 feet). This project will be closer in height to the Bank America building on Valencia Blvd. and to the highest eucalyptus trees in the area. PUT THE 2 STORY PARKING STRUCTURE COMPLETELY UNDERGROUND • The “subterranean” parking garage will not be subterranean at all. It will be built into the hill. The east side is NOT below ground, the parking area will be at-grade. We will see 18 feet of parking topped by 30 feet of offices on Singing Hills Drive! • A fully subterranean garage sunken below the level of Singing Hills would not be seen or heard from surrounding residential uses. This is a better alternative if no more than one retaining wall is used along Singing Hills Drive. • A 10‐foot landscaped setback next to the parking structure wall will create an inactive, landscaped “dead” space along Singing Hills. This will become a trash trap, public nuisance and is anti‐pedestrian! NO OUTLET ON SINGING HILLS • Singing Hills is the sole legal access for approximately 175 residences and 400 people living in Village Homes South. More traffic equals more potential to impede emergency ingress and egress. LESS SAFE “SAFE ROUTE TO SCHOOL” • Singing Hills Drive is a designated Safe Route to School. Children from the Summit and Tide Drive area will be subject to additional traffic when going to and from school. TRAFFIC SAFETY ON McBEAN AND SINGING HIILS DRIVE • Traffic will increase at Singing Hills and McBean, which is a highly dangerous corner with many accidents. The developer proposes no traffic improvements! • Consider parking prohibitions on Singing Hills in front of the project site to improve turning safety at this corner. • The project driveway will move closer to the senior apartment driveway. A traffic study evaluating driveway safety, sight distance and turn restrictions is needed. TRAFFIC IMPACT TO THE VILLAGE HOMES SOUTH AREA • The confluence of Singing Hills, Altamonte, Nashua, and the shopping center is sometimes a traffic “free‐for all” and is unsafe. More traffic will worsen the situation. • The City of Santa Clarita and project applicant MUST identify attractive alternatives for traffic safety at the Singing Hills, Altamonte, Nashua intersection such as: — A landscaped traffic circle to provide safe turning movements and to deter medical office traffic from entering the Village Homes South neighborhood. — Landscape parkways along both sides of Altamonte by Nashua to delineate the Village Homes South residential neighborhood from Singing Hills Dr. — Landscaped parkway with trees on the east side of Singing Hills from Altamonte to McBean to slow traffic and to provide a buffer for Village Homes South. • The Vista Valencia sign on the corner prevents adequate sight distance for drivers northbound on Singing Hills. The sign poses a risk to pedestrians, bicyclists and other vehicles. This project will only increase the sight‐distance problem, not remedy it. • Construction equipment and workers will clog our streets for years during construction and impede the only legal access to this neighborhood. UNSAFE BUS STOP • Any added bus stop in travel lanes is not safe because of speeds and frequent collisions at McBean Parkway and Singing Hills. Add a bus turnout or deceleration lane or eliminate the stop! NOISE IS A BIG PROBLEM • The City’s Noise Ordinance will let people build from 7am‐7pm and on Saturdays! • The McBean corridor is already impacted by excessive road noise and this will add more! An environmental impact report (EIR) is required to address potentially significant and unmitigated noise impacts. OTHER ISSUES • The corner Vista Valencia sign is non‐conforming and must be shown on the plans. It’s part of the property! It also must be removed before adding any new monument sign. • Nighttime lighting will impact surrounding homes and must be evaluated and minimized. • The office will block natural sunlight for neighboring apartments. A shade and shadow study should evaluate the impacts. Reduce height to ensure no residential home is put in the shade. • The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines state that an EIR should be prepared when there is substantial public controversy supported by evidence in the record of the potential for significant environmental impacts. This project has substantial public controversy and there is evidence of potentially significant environmental impacts. Therefore, a full EIR must be prepared. A mitigated negative declaration is inadequate for assessing significant environmental impacts! This development as proposed would negatively impact the neighborhood as well as traffic. The Singing Hills Neighborhood Group calls on our Santa Clarita City Council and Planning Commission to provide for smarter planning for developments, ensuring that the character, scale, and density of any new development is sensitive, compatible and conplementary to existing neighborhoods. Please sign the petition in opposition to the Medical Pointe at McBean at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/opposemedicalpointe/
Raymond KutyloMay 20, 2010 at 8:14 am
Correction to above: The building as proposed will have 18 feet of parking structure showing with an additional 40 feet of medical office building on top, not the 30 feet on top as stated. Total height from grade at Singing Hills: 58 feet. Monstrosly high for this neighborhood.
AnnetteMay 19, 2010 at 5:51 pm
Jeff, No one is asking for Santa Clarita to be frozen in time. I think what most Santa Clarita residents are asking is that existing neighborhoods are not over burdened with high density in a neighborhood setting. High density should be built with keeping the quality of the existing neighborhoods in mind. I do agree higher paying jobs are needed and we have built industrial center to provide for that.
AnnetteMay 19, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Copy and paste the link below to see a why we bought our home years ago near the Smiser property. Why put high density next to a neighborhood? http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs469.ash1/25747_1305498482471_1380783832_30817572_7965593_n.jpg
lvogelMay 19, 2010 at 6:37 pm
I agree with Annette…well duh, I am a nimby afterall! In regards to existing residential areas, why put high rises in them? If high density is something that the city wants in this valley, build in area where there are no homes with parks and schools and paseos. I’ve often wondered Jeff why you don’t live in the city?
mikeMay 19, 2010 at 6:41 pm
not in anybody’s backyard! great post Jeff. So true.
CCMay 20, 2010 at 8:45 am
Huh, you haven’t read a single post here today.
mikeMay 20, 2010 at 9:15 am
Today? This was posted yesterday. Also, a joke. But it’s funny because it’s true.
IHeartSCVMay 19, 2010 at 7:13 pm
There are places that, in their present state, are much like the SCV-of-the-future you dream of. Why’d you pick Santa Clarita in hopes it would change instead of a place that already represents your ideal?
mikeMay 19, 2010 at 8:23 pm
YeH, why even have an scvtalk? Just accept the vision of a loud minority of older residents and roll over, right?
IHeartSCVMay 19, 2010 at 9:56 pm
Ummm, missing the logic in your statement. But basically, I view Santa Clarita as a paradise lost. It was once a dry, disaster-prone valley with relatively few big roads and relatively few people, which was lovely. I have little faith in the wisdom of planners, having known too many, and as such have little hope for a better future.
lvogelMay 19, 2010 at 7:27 pm
Wonder if you’d say that Mike if it were your backyard? I didn’t buy this house to have a Building built that will be not only my view now, but also all my neighbors. I don’t know where you live, but if they built a 4 story building and justified it as a way to provide jobs, Medical care, etc., would you really be okay with that?
mikeMay 19, 2010 at 8:23 pm
Yes
lvogelMay 19, 2010 at 7:31 pm
oops, hit submit too soon… Now keep in mind that there are children that walk to school just past this large building (during construction and after). Why is my area referred to as a ‘residential zone’? Why zone it to begin with? If the idea is to build large buildings in residential areas, why not get rid of ‘zones’?
CastaicClayMay 19, 2010 at 7:58 pm
Where is the “city center” of the SCV?
Silence DogoodMay 19, 2010 at 8:30 pm
Jeff, if you want to live in a high-rise apartment building, why don’t you move to where they are? You know, North Hollywood or some other area that has been Lambertized. Some day you will realize that a lot of people moved here because of its family-friendly neighborhoods. A lot of those same people like to ride bikes too. Check out any area of this town and you will find a lot more people who like it here than want your urban chauchemar. They moved away from your vision. And what’s wrong with involving people in planning for the future for their neighborhoods, city, and region? Are you anti-democratic or something? Is it only people who learned about planning and development by playing Sim City that you trust? Wow, take a look around at IRL and get out of the game in your head. You think that because others don’t want to live in high-rises that they are bad, misguided Luddites yearning for a degenerate and poverty-sticken life in suburban hell? What kind of argument is that about a group that thinks they have a legitimate role to play in a government that is theirs the last I looked. As for the smarts of the planning dept, check out that new Pediatric Unit in the medical office building expansion… oh yeah, there isn’t one and given the delay in developing a regional hospital, there isn’t likely to be one in the next couple of decades in the Santa Clarita area. I know that doesn’t matter much to you, because that would actually enhance a family-friendly environment, and that is what those OUR Valley OUR Vision people are all about. Bastards! Finally, you are so sure this group doesn’t want ‘to grow and be prosperous, less dependent on other places and other industries for its success.’ Where does anything there at their site preclude ‘growth in the city center, some density and affordable housing, some commercial developments for businesses close to residences that will pay high wages rather than strip malls that pay shit wages, more local amenities attractions and features, more parks, and more transportation alternatives.’ What a bogus argument you make. Like your MOB allies, the truth is the first casualty in this war against citizens’ participation in their own government.
mikeMay 19, 2010 at 8:48 pm
It’s not anti-democratic to offer an opposing view. Just because a some people raise their voice, it doesn’t man that everyone agrees with them. This crowd had the candidate of their dreams last month and he got trounced at the ballot box.
AnnetteMay 19, 2010 at 9:24 pm
Can you say G & L Realty $$$$ and four bought council seats! It is hard to fight big developers but not impossible.
lvogelMay 20, 2010 at 6:05 am
Sometimes I think that the average homeowner (without ‘ties’ to the city), who simply want to raise their children in a community with schools that are easily accessible and parks that those children can play in (also easy to get to), don’t have a chance against those that sit and decide what’s best for this valley and it’s citizens, or better yet, the big $$ to be made off these developments within residential areas. How much do they care about what the ‘people’ want, compared to the all mighty dollar?
mikeMay 20, 2010 at 6:35 am
What sort of “ties” do you think I have? What makes your opinion as a parent more valuable than mine?
lvogelMay 20, 2010 at 7:13 am
I don’t know what your ‘capacity’ is with the city Mike and I am not putting a ‘value’ on my opinion or anyone elses. I also would never put a value on you as a parent; I don’t roll that way! What I do feel (my opinion) is there are more that feel development within residential areas is not compatible (or consistent) with their neighborhood. The ones that seem to think 4 or 5 story (commercial) buildings are a ‘good’ thing are those who stand to make money and I question those that hold a seat for our city that don’t listen to the residents. I also find that those that do not live near the areas that the city plans to build, feel this development is good in these neighborhoods; why, because they don’t live there. It doesn’t effect them. They don’t have to deal with the ramifications on a daily basis. Their neighborhood is the same as it was when they moved in. Hence, my question to you regarding these buidlings being built in your neighborhood, which you answered. It sounds as if you work for the city and I have offended you; not my intention and I apologize if I did. And I would never value my roll as a parent more so than another’s.
mikeMay 20, 2010 at 7:50 am
To be clear, I have no association with the city, whatsoever. Or any city, for that matter. Quite a few of the people here know me, and they can all attest to that. I just have a different viewpoint on the merits of different kinds of development. I’m younger than most of you, but I’ve also lived here for over 20 years. I haven’t seen a sound argument against building height, in and of itself, put forth. I happen to think our restriction of building height, particularly in the commercial core of Valencia and the industrial center, is a dumb idea that leads to sprawl. Perhaps if we had allowed for greater building height elsewhere, there wouldn’t be the need for some of these more bothersome developments in and near the city. If we had high buildings where they could work, we might have more jobs, fewer and shorter car trips and so forth. As for this building in particular, I really need to know more about it. I’m unpersuaded by a lot of the complaints, but I also don’t think that street could handle the cars coming in and out of there. It’s confusing enough as it is. But the opponents point to this as an example of a wider problem, but I don’t see it.
Need for Involved CitizenryMay 20, 2010 at 6:58 am
The problem with the visioning done by the Santa Clarita Planning Department is that rather than figuring out what makes sense and where the Plan is based on what the developers want to put and where. Compatible uses get short shrift. They’ve known about a huge jobs imbalance for years (yes, good paying jobs dammit) but continue to approve residential developments and retail centers with low paying jobs. When Magic Mountian and the school districts are your largest employers, there is a real disconnect.
Timothy MyersMay 20, 2010 at 8:16 am
Everyone’s a Tea Party enthusaist until a neighbor wants to do something with their land they don’t like and they they try to use ALL the instrument of government to bend the land usage (land they don’t own) to their will.
CCMay 20, 2010 at 8:49 am
It’s called zoning.
Timothy MyersMay 20, 2010 at 10:26 am
Exactly, and a Tea Partier should be against it, if they were true to their small government feelings and not just a beard for racism.
navigatorMay 20, 2010 at 12:40 pm
What the hell does racism have to do with 4 and 5 story buildings in a residential neighborhood???
CCMay 20, 2010 at 1:48 pm
That’s Tim’s go-to card, didn’t you know that?
Silence DogoodMay 20, 2010 at 10:20 am
No zoning restrictions here or anywhere says Tim Myers. Kind of goes against Newhall Land’s slogan ‘Valencia: Built as Promised.’ So much for the master planned community promise. We now have a free-for-all where money talks, and says ‘What promise?’
Jeff (But not the one that runs this blogMay 20, 2010 at 1:32 pm
I will chime in just to point out that as someone who moved here 6 years ago I see points on both sides of this issue, but I will also say that it is often the attitude and tone of many of the “long timers” with regards to new people, building etc that is grating. There is often a feel of if you didn’t leave here before such and such date you’re really not welcome to have an opinion about things here… the truth being that many of us never wanted you invading our oasis in the first place. Whether that is your intent or not, I feel that once in while it is worth pointing out to you that it is the vibe you give us. Maybe pointing it out once in a while will have an effect much like you speaking at city council can have an effect… but maybe I haven’t been here long enough to open my mouth. Additionally, many of the people (not all) when they went before the city council on this issue come across as representing an angry pitch fork wielding mob… at some point it gets hard to take them seriously because all they seem to do is yell and point fingers, on an issue that isn’t even before the city council yet and that the city is legally obligated to have go through the planning commission. I know you have to make your thoughts known to sway opinion early but try not being so accusatory before the city has even done anything on it yet!
Jeff (But not the one that runs this blogMay 20, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Sorry, “live” here, not “leave” here.
Silence DogoodMay 20, 2010 at 4:14 pm
It doesn’t matter when you moved here, or if you were born at HMNMH and have never have stepped outside the ridgelines. If you live here you have every right to speak up as what you are: a resident and a citizen. Or not, if that is your preference. However, those who have been here a while and/or have had some dealings with the city may have a perspective that you don’t have, for better or worse. Some speak well, some don’t. Some have nothing to say but talk anyway. If you have something to say then put it out there. If someone doesn’t like it, tough. That’s life.
Jeff (But not the one that runs this blogMay 21, 2010 at 8:47 am
Oh I definitely understand the perspective advantage Silence, I believe in the value of past experience, however it is the dismissive nature and attitude that goes along with that experience that is so often off-putting. I think that those who have been here a while would also do well to realize that sometimes fresh perspective from someone observing things can also be helpful. At times people have been so close to an issue for so long and become so embroiled in cantankerous debate that it’s hard for them to remain fully objective and at times find that they are arguing against everything the other side says regardless. Sometimes it is valuable to step back and see the forest for the trees as it were. Acknowledging the value of a fresh voice on a given topic is not an admission of incompetence.
lvogelMay 20, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Having been a ‘newby’ 22 years ago, I know how some of us may sound to you Jeff(But not the one that runs this blog). I sincerly hope I don’t come off that way; I was on the receiving end at one time. I don’t even have a problem with more people moving into this area; hell, the diversity sucks here and I questioned 20 years ago if this was the place for me! I just have a real problem with commerial buildings being built in residential areas…it’s that simple. I don’t think they belong and yes, I think there will be traffic, noise/air(environmentsl), and quite frankly a certain way of living that will be a conern for MANY in the coming years…in those residential areas. I have been concerned also with the attitude of some regarding the residential areas that this construction is going to be taken place in; see the neighborhoods that are being affected by this are some of the oldest neighborhoods in the valley. I have wondered if lets say West Ranch, or some of the newer residential areas would even be considered as possible areas to have any ‘dense’ highrise building? Probably not, ’cause those HOMES are worth much more, and I’d love to see the threat of eminent domain being tossed around in the more expensive areas of this valley.
mikeMay 20, 2010 at 2:24 pm
a) West Ranch isn’t part of the city and b) this building is right across the street from the Summit (may their views forever be unobstructed), one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the city.
Jeff (But not the one that runs this blogMay 20, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Like I said Ivogel, I genuinely see points on both sides of this issue, and I appreciate that you are at least concerned with not coming off that way. I’m just not in favor of the entitlement that sometimes accompanies someones mere longevity in an area/organization etc. I also have found myself being lumped into the idea of “all of the people moving to this area and overcrowding our city.”
Jeff (But not the one that runs this blogMay 20, 2010 at 3:00 pm
As for the issue itself, I don’t profess to really have the right answer on this one in particular, I really don’t. More to my intended point is that for those arguing against this particular building you might be more conscious of the way in which you argue, you might find more of us in support because we actually hear you rather than tuning you out because it is just one more issue you are screaming and yelling at the city about. Again, not you specifically ivogel. When I watch the city council meeting though I see a number of people march up there and I feel like I have seen a number of them screaming about a number of other issues time after time after time and eventually they feel like the boy who cried wolf. When they have an issue they are actually most passionate about I won’t be listening because EVERYTHING was done at the same volume and fever pitched rage. Today it is this office building tomorrow many of them will move on to carrying signs and yelling about the new cause of the day simply because they like the public speaking opportunity.
navigatorMay 20, 2010 at 3:11 pm
A few in particular come to mind.
lvogelMay 20, 2010 at 2:46 pm
hmmmm….there’s a senior living apartment and a condo and apartment complex surrounding this building; not to mention village homes next door. The Summit isn’t as close or in the same residential area. Thanks for the clarification of West Ranch. Didn’t know that. Is all the area on the west side of the 5 freeway, not part of the SCV?
navigatorMay 20, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Are you serious LV? I thought only the folks on the westside were not aware that they are outside City limits.
mikeMay 20, 2010 at 2:49 pm
Yes… Isn’t there a commercial something or other there already? (i’m not in favor of the building, just being a skeptic)
lvogelMay 20, 2010 at 6:17 pm
Yes, I was serious navigator. I really thought that West Ranch High School, TPC Golf course and the homes up there were part of the SCV. I am obviously ignorant in regard to ‘city limts’. Heck, I just remember that on that side of the freeway, years ago, there was a large ‘Valencia’ sign that was displayed on the hill; and, Magic Mountain (again on that side) has a Valencia address, as well as El Torito, Red Lobster, Wendy’s, etc; all on that side, so….. Yes, Mike there is currently a one story Realty office there. Now, again if Vista Realty wants to sell, fine. If the new owners want to build something else there, fine. However, 5 stories? it just doesn’t make sense (to me).