SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
December 1, 2010· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

December 1, 2010 – Daily Brief

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

  • Driver of Ford GT supercar, reportedly speeding, crashes head-on into Infiniti sports car at Decoro and Copper Hill. The Ford GT driver complained of knee pain, but more importantly the GT was “heavily damaged.” The Infiniti passengers were not injured. I’m hoping the GT will soon appear on Wrecked Exotics.com so we can point and laugh. SIGNAL
  • Meanwhile, the man killed while running a red light at Decoro & Hillsbourough late last week wasn’t in his 20s as initially reported. He was actually 76 years old and from Granada Hills. The status of the family he hit in a minivan is unknown SIGNAL
  • The City sounds excited at the prospect of owning a piece of the Whittaker-Bermite donut hole in the center of the valley. They’re promising that if they get it, they’ll “work with the public” to establish a vision for the 1,000 acre contaminated-but-being-cleaned-up property. Hows about a new City Hall, like what was originally slated for that area? We need a proper City Hall with columns, a rotunda and gravitas, not a worn-out brick commercial building with Dentists subleasing space. Santa Paula and Fillmore have nice city halls, why can’t we?SIGNAL
  • The SCV Homeless shelter opens tonight with an open house. The Signal says an astounding 1,500 volunteers help keep the place running. The shelter expects a lot of demand this year as the after-effects of the recession drags on. They’ve added beds for a total of 54 spots SIGNAL
  • The County of Los Angeles gets in on the purchase of Elsemere Canyon land too. 842 acres will be bought for a cool $1 million KHTS
  • The County may put the special library property tax on the ballot next year in order to raise $12 to $23 million SIGNAL
  • Some 454,000 unemployed Californians might see their unemployment benefits end this month if Congress doesn’t get its act together and pass an extension to unemployment benefits. Republicans say the benefits only encourage workers to stay home and not find a job. The Times says the benefits average out to about $310 per week LA TIMES
  • California’s new driver’s license for those under 21 years of age is in vertical/portrait format rather than horizontal/landscape format for those over 21. The new driver’s license also has a number of anti-counterfeiting measures NBC 4
  • The City will host a groundbreaking event for its new community garden on Friday at 10am. Details over at the WRB
  • Meanwhile, the City has also updated its GreenSantaClarita.com website, posting a “library” of climate change articles from the past several years. SITE
  • Despite the fact that the Pentagon’s DADT survey and report took 10 months to complete, surveyed over 100,000 service members, and found strong support for the repeal of the law, Buck McKeon insists to KPCC that we’re “rushing” the decision. Hearings over the repeal start Friday in the Senate, but the House already passed a repeal of DADT back in the Spring, so it’s likely McKeon’s play to kill the repeal (as he said he wanted to do in the WSJ yesterday) won’t work. KPCC
  • The Count is back! The first of what will be a monthly Count Sauguslavsky column is up at the WRB. Find out who’s sleeping with whom in this gossip/satire/Palmdale-bashing column WRB
  • Preview video of next month’s 6th Annual SCV Film Festival YOUTUBE

Comments (34)

  1. Lori RivasDecember 1, 2010 at 7:50 am
    Who are the target users for the community garden? Wouldn’t a better location be near apartments, or within walking distance of a more poverty stricken area?
  2. JeffDecember 1, 2010 at 7:55 am
    “Who are the target users for the community garden?” Yuppies. “Wouldn’t a better location be near apartments, or within walking distance of a more poverty stricken area?” Ideally we would have one in every neighborhood. I don’t know what poverty has to do with it?
  3. Lori RivasDecember 1, 2010 at 9:03 am
    I (wrongly) assumed that a community garden would be accessible for those who do not have a yard, or who rent, and are not permitted to mess with landscaping, both of which would lend towards a less affluent community. A community garden in such a neighborhood would also afford food self-sufficiency for those who, perhaps, skimp at the grocers. But, if the target audience is yuppies, and the purpose is more for hobbiests, then my point is moot.
  4. JeffDecember 1, 2010 at 9:12 am
    No, you actually raise a very good point. Poorer people lack access to high quality, inexpensive foods. Often times, the only food they can afford is rich in calories, fat and sugar. Studies have proven this time and again. Making a community garden available to them could make quality produce cheaper and more attractive to them. But they’d have to want to plant it, care for it and harvest it. Our garden is a pay-to-play system. You rent a plot of land and grow what you like on it. It’s at Central Park, which isn’t the easiest to get to if you don’t have a car. For what it’s worth, I think there’s a community garden on Walnut Street just north of 15th Street. That to me is an ideal place for a true community garden.
  5. Lori RivasDecember 1, 2010 at 9:39 am
    Really? Isn’t that all housing? I’ll have to drive by, and take a look. Who sponsors this garden? I was thinking that Newhall Park or Hart Park would be great locations…or even that hill behind the Community Center, then the kids at the Center could be involved, too.
  6. Lori RivasDecember 1, 2010 at 9:43 am
    “It’s at Central Park, which isn’t the easiest to get to if you don’t have a car.” I highly doubt anyone will haul gardening supplies on the bus to Central Park, and then haul said supplies across the parking lot, and across the expanse to grass, to the community garden. That almost seems like a Herculean task.
  7. CCDecember 1, 2010 at 10:21 am
    I have a yard and I wondered about the same things Lori. It is obviously set up for Yuppies as Jeff says. Smaller gardens near neighborhood is much more to the point of a community garden. The only thing that will be going on over at Central park is Cucumber Envy
  8. cashDecember 1, 2010 at 8:39 am
    My cash crop will be the first planted. Ideally, people would plant in their own yard and not ask the taxpayers to pay for the land.
  9. NateDecember 1, 2010 at 9:15 am
    Apparently cash hasn’t seen some of yards around here.
  10. cashDecember 2, 2010 at 8:56 am
    Oh yes Cash has. And apartment complexes have open areas. Taxpayers should not be providing the land. The idea will peter out in time.
  11. john adamsDecember 2, 2010 at 3:17 pm
    I have all my money tied up in cash now
  12. mikeDecember 2, 2010 at 8:31 pm
    psssst…. over in the Buck McKeon thread, Petz stole your old name.
  13. Lori RivasDecember 1, 2010 at 9:35 am
    My garden is in my front yard.
  14. Bill ReynoldsDecember 1, 2010 at 9:09 am
    I’d be concerned about Bambi raiding that garden at night, but maybe our tax dollars will cover night time armed guards?
  15. NateDecember 1, 2010 at 9:17 am
    Knock yourself out. Protect my tomatoes.
  16. Mr PerezDecember 1, 2010 at 7:08 pm
    Venison tastes good but dont tell that to the hippies
  17. cashDecember 2, 2010 at 8:58 am
    I don’t think they just need worry about bambi. There are enough hungry people to create problems.
  18. SFC PerezDecember 3, 2010 at 6:20 pm
    Well if there are hungry needy ppl maybe there need to be bigger gardens and Bambi and her cousins all need to long bowed.
  19. Need for Involved CitizenryDecember 1, 2010 at 10:14 am
    Why would the City want to buy into a contaminated property that is years behind on it’s cleanup and has just been a disaster since day one? Also, regarding the settlement for the easement for Golden Valley and the Metrolink Station, keep in mind that the City used City Hall as security for a loan to cover the damage award. The amount of $20,000,000 comes to mind. So while it would be nice to have that City Hall with columns, I don’t think we can afford to pay the notes for two loans. Of course you could lease out the existing building but the office market is in the tank! Maybe since Darrell Hernandez commented on the Libraries yesterday he can give us some more detail on how this $25,000,000 settlement was and will be funded.
  20. CCDecember 1, 2010 at 10:23 am
    Great! Another decision by City Hall to purchase contaminated land and then ask you and me to pay for the cleanup. I can’t wait.
  21. Coastal SageDecember 1, 2010 at 11:22 am
    The public is not “on the hook for clean up costs” at the Whittaker Bermite property. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has determined that Whittaker Corporation is liable. Whittaker Corporation is an active, operating company owned by a British conglomerate. Whittaker is obtaining reimbursement for their costs of clean-up of the property from two insurance carriers under a document called the “Coverage and Claims Settlement Agreement” which the Phoenix based bankruptcy court has turned into a court order for payment by those responsible parties. At present, because most of Whittaker Bermite is zoned for residential development, DTSC has ordered that the property be cleaned-up (“remediated”) to residential-occupancy standards. That standard is the most expensive to implement, and works to help minimize the quantity of toxic ground water in “Bermite Mountain” which is dripping down into the community’s drinking water aquifers. Should the city buy and then re-zone the Whittaker Bermite property for a less intense use, that would allow the pool of insurance dollars for remediation to be stretched even farther. However, according to DTSC’s longstanding policy, the standard they impose for remediation at Whittaker Bermite will always be stringent enough to minimize contamination of the drinking water aquifers. The “big plus” of the city’s obtaining ownership of the Whittaker Bermite property is that from an aesthetic point of view, Bermite Mountain will not necessarily be covered by 3000 high density houses plus a shopping center, all of which would visually stick out like ugly sore thumbs like the hillside homes in Stevenson Ranch and West Hollywood.
  22. Jim FarleyDecember 1, 2010 at 1:29 pm
    3000 as of yet non-existant houses that gave WB a $75,000 weighted ‘yes’ vote for the Open Space Preservation District and the least democratic election seen in the SCV. Sorry folks, I know it’s an old issue but I can’t help reminding whenever possible. At least the city is on notice we won’t just stand by if they try this ploy again.
  23. The King Of SCVDecember 2, 2010 at 10:23 am
    Yes Jimmy, you may remind us of this at every turn if you will. It’s very important to keep past shenanigans front and center in our remembrance or else they will change the rules of it’s intended purpose and wrongly use the money they’ve raised. Thanks for your vigilance on this my good friend.
  24. Berta González-HarperDecember 2, 2010 at 11:56 am
    King of SCV no less!
  25. CCDecember 1, 2010 at 2:39 pm
    Ahhh, like British Petroleum. Yeah, I’m sure we won’t foot the bill for that one either.
  26. Coastal SageDecember 1, 2010 at 4:59 pm
    CC: To be politically correct, we are required to have faith that insurance companies regulated by the State of California will, in fact, pay claims as ordered by the courts.
  27. Coastal SageDecember 1, 2010 at 11:02 am
    “Hows about a new City Hall, like what was originally slated for that area?” Ancient history provides the answer. Early in its existence, the City of Santa Clarita bought a piece of property high on the hillside above the south east corner of Soledad Canyon Road and Bouquet Canyon Road. The land was purchased so that a City Hall with a grand view of the city below would be built. The city land touched the Whittaker Bermite property. As part of the “Porta Bella” land use entitlements granted by the city in those ancient days, the Whittaker Bermite property owner was supposed to pay for construction of a people mover to take Metrolink riders up the hill, so they could reach the new City Hall on foot. Unfortunately, now-departed city staff members had failed to use common sense, let alone do “due diligence” on the land the city had purchased for the new City Hall. That land was center punched by the main traunch of the San Gabriel Fault, which is now rated as an active fault capable of producing an earthquake equal to or stronger than the Northridge Earthquake. The San Gabriel is not a hidden fault. It is a fault traunch which can be seen and walked all the way from the 14 Freeway north west to the intersection of Bouquet and Soledad, famed among Southern California geologists. The fault is so prominent that a famous portion of it, on the Whittaker Bermite property, actually turns over on itself, with the layers of colored soil looking like a breaking ocean wave. In 1972 the State of California enacted the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Among other things, the law set up a mapping process, which essentially required that no structures for human habitation be built on earthquake faults where there was a surface rupture, or on land within 100′ on either side of the fault traunches. At some point in time, 3 surface rupture traunches of the San Gabriel Fault were officially “found” on the Whittaker Bermite/Porta Bella property, and they were followed north westward onto the city’s property which had been intended for construction of a City Hall. The geological reports showing the existence of those fault traunches were sent to the State, and the fault traunches on Whittaker Bermite were declared to be an Alquist Priolo Zone. Then, after the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989, an additional state law was passed forbidding the construction of public buildings on or near known, active earthquake fault traunches, whether or not they were in an Alquist Priolo zone. The historical result was that the city’s hill top property was rendered suitable for park land and little more. The three traunches of the San Gabriel fault which cross the Whittaker Bermite property, and their 100 foot set back, were zoned as open space in the existing Porta Bella land use entitlements. Should those land use entitlements be terminated by the city if it buys the Whittaker Bermite property, the Alquist Priolo Zone on the property will not go away, and should insure that a large portion of the property will be preserved as open space. Certainly, the new grandiose, columned City Hall which Jeff envisions could be built on some portion of the Whittaker Bermite property not burdened by the Alquist Priolo zone, but I for one like the existing City Hall building, which is spartan and practical.
  28. Need for Involved CitizenryDecember 2, 2010 at 7:17 am
    It troubles me when entities (as would apply to the City here) go outside of their expertise to become real estate speculators. They typically don’t have the expertise to properly evaluate what is necessary to be done, the risk-reward trade-off’s, and determine realistic timing. In the case of the City having an equity interest in a significant undeveloped property, how do they maintain impartiality as a regulatorary agency when they also have a vested interest in maximizing an economic outcome? I believe this is a huge conflict of interest.
  29. Berta González-HarperDecember 1, 2010 at 11:08 am
    @CC I am neither for or against any purchase at this point since I don’t have enough information however one thing I do know is that Whittaker and all of its insurers are on the hook for the entire clean-up NO MATTER WHO OWNS THE PROPERTY.
  30. Alan FerdmanDecember 1, 2010 at 4:22 pm
    Ref. Bermite and the Library My biggest concern is related to; how we are going to pay for all of this? About 8 months ago we were told about the Bermite eminent domain lawsuit the city lost with a settlement of $13,000,000. Then few months ago we were told we also had to pay the plaintiffs legal fees of $7,000,000. Yesterday the onion peeled another layer and the signal reported that there is additional action bringing the total cost to the city at $25,200.000. Today, The Signal reported Ken Striplin saying that “This is a really huge victory for us” because we might be able to pick up the Bermite site for only another $13,000,000. That totals up just under $30,000,000 and does not include the city’s legal and staff cost. Now let’s add that to the $8,600,000 for the Library takeover and we are fast approaching $40,000,000. So my question isn’t wither you think this is a good idea or not, but; How are WE going to PAY for it all?
  31. Mr PerezDecember 1, 2010 at 10:07 pm
    Garage sale
  32. JoeDecember 1, 2010 at 9:38 pm
    I saw that Ford GT near kohls taking up two spots in the morning of black friday while everyone was fighting for spots. KARMA!
  33. cashDecember 2, 2010 at 8:59 am
    Was it a red GT. The red GT belongs to a local dentist.
  34. Bill ReynoldsDecember 4, 2010 at 4:19 pm
    Shovels Hit Dirt at Santa Clarita’s Community Garden! Wow, what a headline! Isn’t it great that Obama’s shovel ready jobs finally came to our fine city. Hallelujah, Brothers and Sisters!

Preserved as part of the SCV Talk Archive. Text is presented as originally published; presentation has been standardised for readability. The original capture is available at the Internet Archive.

Support