About the Open Space That's Targeted for Vegas-style Billboards

By Mike Devlin

"It's an incredible opportunity to put 58 acres of land into open space and preservation of (the Santa Clara) River," Santa Clarita City Councilwoman Laurene Weste said Thursday.

This Signal article from 2005, "City to Buy Land Eyed for Shelter" unearthed by Steve Petzold shows just how serious the City Council was about purchasing the Norland Road property for open space preservation – land that it is now looking to re-zone as a buiness park for the purpose of erecting two large digital billboards. So serious, they were even willing to block a homeless shelter in the process.

In 2005, the CIty Council voted 4-1 to purchase land in Canyon Country from developer Larry Rasmussen for the purpose of preserving it for open space – an urgent, expensive purchase meant to keep the land untouched for generations.

"This is a legacy we want to leave for the next generation," she said. "If we don't act now we will never be able to pass this around to the kids. The chances don't come around often."

This purchase was made before the 2007 vote that set up a special tax for open space purchases, and just a few months before the unsuccessful 2005 vote that attempted to do the same. It was meant to be model of the great things we could do if we passed an open space preservation tax. Purchases made under the new program are protected under the law. But purchases made with other monies, no matter what the promised purpose or zoning designation, are subject to the council's whim, it would seem.

It turns out that LA County was actively pursuing the piece of land on Norland Road to build a homeless shelter. At the time, someone close to the county's negotiation alleged that the city swept in as soon as it heard about the county's plan.

"Why would the city want to spend over a million dollars to protect the river when there are existing laws that would require any development there be in accordance with all environmental regulations?" said Mark Young, vice president of the organization. "The coincidence the city wants now to acquire the property as some sort of environmental conservancy is suspect at least, since the city, as far as we know, didn't have any interest in the property until the city learned the site might someday be the site for homeless and low income services."

This raises a really big problem. The city council prevented a piece of land from being purchased for a purely humanitarian purpose, ostensibly for the purpose of environmental conservation. But instead it's going to be used for a purely commercial purpose, one that will be to the clear detriment to the surrounding area.

Weste has recused herself from this vote because she lives close to some billboards that will be removed, though past minutes make no note of recusal in closed sessions, as they did when Laurie Ender was on the council (Ender's husband works for CBS Outdoor, which owns several billboards that will be removed under the deal).

Of the remaining council, Boydston wasn't a member yet, both Kellar and McLean voted yes on purchase, and Frank Ferry voted no.

Sweet Lord, my pants are on fire.

In 2012, Bob Kellar came under legal scrutiny for taking out a personal loan from Larry Rasmussen, developer of the Centre Pointe business park in Canyon Country. The FPPC issued Kellar a stern warning because Rasmussen has an ongoing development agreement with the city. That agreement predates Kellar's time on the council, and at the time Kellar stated emphatically that his hands were clean:

"However, as I have stated before, I have never and will never vote on anything having to do with my good friend Mr. Rasmussen."

It turns out that wasn't true at all. According to the minutes of the meeting, Kellar voted 'yes' to pay Larry Rasmussen $1.1 million for the future billboard property.

Comments (7)

IHeartSCVMonday, March 24th, 2014 at 9:12 am

These are some really, really good finds (nice job finding that article too, Petz). You're always in your element when it comes to fact-finding and a particular kind of understatement...like pointing out that it's a wee bit problematic to buy land slated for a homeless shelter to then use for electronic billboards. Well done. Are you going to give the 3-minute version of this at the City Council meeting?

MikeMonday, March 24th, 2014 at 9:18 am

hmmm…are you? ;)

IHeartSCVMonday, March 24th, 2014 at 9:25 am

Oh I'll be there: farewell-to-Ferry, red light cameras, billboard-gate, election re-structuring, last-minute city council candidate posturing before the election...this is a can't-miss. I was just asking because I'd like to know if I need to wear clap-silencing mittens, because I'd probably be unable restrain myself from clapping if a public participation speaker said "Sweet Lord, Councilmember Kellar, your pants may very well be on fire."

NFICMonday, March 24th, 2014 at 11:17 am

While I love that the City has made some nice open space acquisitions, there are others that are questionable (like those used to hamper the CEMEX mine that have no otherwise redeeming qualities or abiltiy to be used). The whole open space program and the Council's behavior regarding things like acquisiions complying with the bond measure requirements or in this case rezoning open space to meet a business need makes one truly question the ethics and values of one of the most visable open space proponents Weste. That and the rigged vote (Jim Farley can elaborate) to pass this measure in the first place makes one question the underlying motives of the Council in pushing this measure through. The Council can try to hide behind closed sessions but things like the handling of the open space, rushing through billboard buyouts, getting creamed in court on the Golden Valley eminent domain and having to mortgage city hall to pay for it, the hurried decision on the library outsourcing, the monstrosity and cost of the Newhall library, the lack of results with downtown Newhall redevelopment, the hospital masterplan decision make me feel more than ever that it is time for the incumbents who have been involved in these decisions to go. We don't need more cheerleaders like Mercado and Harte on the council, we need councilmembers like Gutziet and Ferdman who will ask the hard questions and make sure the City is behaving responsibily, listening to their citizens and being financially prudent. I could care less about whether a Council meeting takes 15 minutes or 4 hours as long as all the relevant information is brought to the table, discussed and evaluated.

Coastal SageMonday, March 24th, 2014 at 2:21 pm

Excellent summary NFIC on one of the key issues: The Council members ramming through controversial decisions at lightening speed, with no meaningful prior notice to the public and no meaningful discussion between the Council and the public. That has been happened time and time again, over the last decade. What Santa Clarita activists fail to understand is that under the California Government Code, in a general law city like Santa Clarita, the person actually running the City and in charge of its decision making is the City Manager. The City Manager is the "boss" of every single City employee and consultant. The City Council only exist to hire the City Attorney and City Manager, and to vote on actions which only a City Council can take under the Government Code. As to actions upon which they must vote, City Council members are entitled to receive intensive private instruction and guidance from the City Manager and the City Attorney. Having received that private counseling, it is easy for a majority of any City Council to vote on a City Manager's proposals with little or no meaningful discussion. What few people understand is that the manner in which college students majoring in "public administration" are taught, amateurs like members of the public and city council members are considered a mere nuisance. The amateurs opinions are either irrelevant noise or a minor hindrance to the "professionals" in achieving the professional public administrators' goals. The Santa Clarita residents who oppose the billboards are considered to be a nuisance, even if the flash of the billboard's image changing comes into residents' houses. For example, there are homes on Rosehaven and Bougainvillea in Canyon Country whose back yards are open to light coming from Norland Drive. Theoretically, instead of the blackness of the night, interrupted only by the lights of homes twinkling from under the oak trees of Sand Canyon, with an electronic billboard there will be a constant bright light, and a flash every time the image on the billboard changes from one advertisement to the next. The same may be true with respect to some of the other proposed electronic billboards and/or homes in Sand Canyon nearest Norland Drive. In this case, there are 3 maneuvers going on, quarterbacked in large part by the City Attorney, whose job it is to implement the vision and goals of the City Manager and his professional staff: (1) The enactment of a "Development Agreement" ordinance written by the City Attorney and voted on by the Council which would have, among its many terms, the rezoning of the spot where the Norland electronic billboard will be located. The little spot will be rezoned from open space to commercial/industrial. That rezoning is required as a condition precedent to the State issuing a permit governed by the provisions of Federal law otherwise designed to limit or eliminate billboards along highways which received Federal funding. If the City Council straight up rezoned that small patch of land where the Norland electronic billboard would be located, under California law the rezoning is likely to be considered "spot zoning" which is both illegal under California planning and zoning case law and illegal under the Federal anti-billboard law. Thus, the magic of a Development Agreement ordinance enactment, covering far more topics than just zoning, arguably renders the Norland spot zoning defensible. (2) The writing of a purchase agreement whereby the City will spend slightly more than $1 Million to pay the current owner of the small billboards to "quietly go away" without a fight. Throughout California, when cities have decided to "abate billboards" by enacting ordinances, they have been forced to pay monetary compensation to the owners of billboards which must be removed. As a result, even though $1 Million might mean a lot to an individual Santa Claritan, the City is "getting a cheap deal" from the existing billboard owners who are said to have 100+ billboards. The City's professional managers don't want to lose the benefit of that bargain. (3) The writing of contractual terms, lasting 50 years, which will generate $200+ Million in billboard revenue, some of which will be shared with the public agency which runs Metrolink and some of which will be share with the City, while leaving the rest to the electronic billboards' owner/advertising company. None of that billboard related cash flow will end up in the pockets of the homeowners into whose windows the lights of the billboards will flash. There has been no public discussion of whether the City is selling its rights to approve the electronic billboards "too cheaply" in terms of the City's cut of the billboard revenue. Quaere whether 30 years from now the City's management will be complaining about the pittance in billboard revenue they receive, in contrast with the billboards' owner/advertising company's revenue which will likely increase due to inflation. The reason for the "big rush" in enacting this whole billboard program is to have it approved by the City Council and City staff before local residents can organize to defeat the program politically. Instead, once the agreements and Development Agreement ordinance are in place, there would only be 2 ways for affected property owners to "stop the billboards" or "remove the billboards": (A) Walk a referendum to repeal the Development Agreement and related ordinances or (B) File a lawsuit to invalidate provisions of the City's decision making which are illegal under state or Federal law or inconsistent with the City's General Plan. Neither of those tasks are easy or inexpensive, which is why the City's management wants the deal to be sealed immediately, before there is a ground swell of political opposition to the electronic billboard deal. It's conceivable that the City's management also has a slight concern that one or more newly elected Councilmen would vote against electronic billboards. The only hole that the City's managers and lawyers, Metrolink and the electronic billboard company cannot plug through swift action now is the ability of Santa Clarita homeowners negatively affected by the very bright and flashing billboards to later sue on the tort of nuisance. A nuisance can be found by a court even if the parties creating the nuisance (Metrolink and the billboard company) have all of the necessary permits from the City and State and have already constructed their project. (Think about the nuisance/injunction case against the manufacturer of Sriracha hot sauce, Huy Fong Foods.) But again, a nuisance case would be expensive to litigate, with no guarantee of success. In short, time is of the essence in the minds of the City's real management to get the electronic billboard deal done pronto.

NFICMonday, March 24th, 2014 at 2:51 pm

Nice commentary Sage. And people then wonder why the City and agencies like the CLWA get sued over issues like these. In all likelihood, the City is leaving money on the table in their rush to eliminate the visual blight along the railroad right of way. Why they couldn't have an agreement taking a percentage of the sign revenue would be a question I'd pose. At least there ought to be adjustments for market and inflationary conditions in the revenue stream. The attitude that City Staff knows best while in some cases may be true, it is not always the case, especially when they are operating outside of their normal areas of expertise. Likewise, it is a conflict of interest for any litigation related work to be handed the City Attorney's law firm. Inherent conflict of interest.

R ValenciaTuesday, March 25th, 2014 at 12:35 pm

If you are undecided about electronic billboards, drive by the ones on I-5 at the Citadel. Then make your decision.

IHeartSCVMonday, March 24th, 2014 at 9:12 am
These are some really, really good finds (nice job finding that article too, Petz). You're always in your element when it comes to fact-finding and a particular kind of understatement...like pointing out that it's a wee bit problematic to buy land slated for a homeless shelter to then use for electronic billboards. Well done. Are you going to give the 3-minute version of this at the City Council meeting?
MikeMonday, March 24th, 2014 at 9:18 am
hmmm…are you? ;)
IHeartSCVMonday, March 24th, 2014 at 9:25 am
Oh I'll be there: farewell-to-Ferry, red light cameras, billboard-gate, election re-structuring, last-minute city council candidate posturing before the election...this is a can't-miss. I was just asking because I'd like to know if I need to wear clap-silencing mittens, because I'd probably be unable restrain myself from clapping if a public participation speaker said "Sweet Lord, Councilmember Kellar, your pants may very well be on fire."
NFICMonday, March 24th, 2014 at 11:17 am
While I love that the City has made some nice open space acquisitions, there are others that are questionable (like those used to hamper the CEMEX mine that have no otherwise redeeming qualities or abiltiy to be used). The whole open space program and the Council's behavior regarding things like acquisiions complying with the bond measure requirements or in this case rezoning open space to meet a business need makes one truly question the ethics and values of one of the most visable open space proponents Weste. That and the rigged vote (Jim Farley can elaborate) to pass this measure in the first place makes one question the underlying motives of the Council in pushing this measure through. The Council can try to hide behind closed sessions but things like the handling of the open space, rushing through billboard buyouts, getting creamed in court on the Golden Valley eminent domain and having to mortgage city hall to pay for it, the hurried decision on the library outsourcing, the monstrosity and cost of the Newhall library, the lack of results with downtown Newhall redevelopment, the hospital masterplan decision make me feel more than ever that it is time for the incumbents who have been involved in these decisions to go. We don't need more cheerleaders like Mercado and Harte on the council, we need councilmembers like Gutziet and Ferdman who will ask the hard questions and make sure the City is behaving responsibily, listening to their citizens and being financially prudent. I could care less about whether a Council meeting takes 15 minutes or 4 hours as long as all the relevant information is brought to the table, discussed and evaluated.
Coastal SageMonday, March 24th, 2014 at 2:21 pm
Excellent summary NFIC on one of the key issues: The Council members ramming through controversial decisions at lightening speed, with no meaningful prior notice to the public and no meaningful discussion between the Council and the public. That has been happened time and time again, over the last decade. What Santa Clarita activists fail to understand is that under the California Government Code, in a general law city like Santa Clarita, the person actually running the City and in charge of its decision making is the City Manager. The City Manager is the "boss" of every single City employee and consultant. The City Council only exist to hire the City Attorney and City Manager, and to vote on actions which only a City Council can take under the Government Code. As to actions upon which they must vote, City Council members are entitled to receive intensive private instruction and guidance from the City Manager and the City Attorney. Having received that private counseling, it is easy for a majority of any City Council to vote on a City Manager's proposals with little or no meaningful discussion. What few people understand is that the manner in which college students majoring in "public administration" are taught, amateurs like members of the public and city council members are considered a mere nuisance. The amateurs opinions are either irrelevant noise or a minor hindrance to the "professionals" in achieving the professional public administrators' goals. The Santa Clarita residents who oppose the billboards are considered to be a nuisance, even if the flash of the billboard's image changing comes into residents' houses. For example, there are homes on Rosehaven and Bougainvillea in Canyon Country whose back yards are open to light coming from Norland Drive. Theoretically, instead of the blackness of the night, interrupted only by the lights of homes twinkling from under the oak trees of Sand Canyon, with an electronic billboard there will be a constant bright light, and a flash every time the image on the billboard changes from one advertisement to the next. The same may be true with respect to some of the other proposed electronic billboards and/or homes in Sand Canyon nearest Norland Drive. In this case, there are 3 maneuvers going on, quarterbacked in large part by the City Attorney, whose job it is to implement the vision and goals of the City Manager and his professional staff: (1) The enactment of a "Development Agreement" ordinance written by the City Attorney and voted on by the Council which would have, among its many terms, the rezoning of the spot where the Norland electronic billboard will be located. The little spot will be rezoned from open space to commercial/industrial. That rezoning is required as a condition precedent to the State issuing a permit governed by the provisions of Federal law otherwise designed to limit or eliminate billboards along highways which received Federal funding. If the City Council straight up rezoned that small patch of land where the Norland electronic billboard would be located, under California law the rezoning is likely to be considered "spot zoning" which is both illegal under California planning and zoning case law and illegal under the Federal anti-billboard law. Thus, the magic of a Development Agreement ordinance enactment, covering far more topics than just zoning, arguably renders the Norland spot zoning defensible. (2) The writing of a purchase agreement whereby the City will spend slightly more than $1 Million to pay the current owner of the small billboards to "quietly go away" without a fight. Throughout California, when cities have decided to "abate billboards" by enacting ordinances, they have been forced to pay monetary compensation to the owners of billboards which must be removed. As a result, even though $1 Million might mean a lot to an individual Santa Claritan, the City is "getting a cheap deal" from the existing billboard owners who are said to have 100+ billboards. The City's professional managers don't want to lose the benefit of that bargain. (3) The writing of contractual terms, lasting 50 years, which will generate $200+ Million in billboard revenue, some of which will be shared with the public agency which runs Metrolink and some of which will be share with the City, while leaving the rest to the electronic billboards' owner/advertising company. None of that billboard related cash flow will end up in the pockets of the homeowners into whose windows the lights of the billboards will flash. There has been no public discussion of whether the City is selling its rights to approve the electronic billboards "too cheaply" in terms of the City's cut of the billboard revenue. Quaere whether 30 years from now the City's management will be complaining about the pittance in billboard revenue they receive, in contrast with the billboards' owner/advertising company's revenue which will likely increase due to inflation. The reason for the "big rush" in enacting this whole billboard program is to have it approved by the City Council and City staff before local residents can organize to defeat the program politically. Instead, once the agreements and Development Agreement ordinance are in place, there would only be 2 ways for affected property owners to "stop the billboards" or "remove the billboards": (A) Walk a referendum to repeal the Development Agreement and related ordinances or (B) File a lawsuit to invalidate provisions of the City's decision making which are illegal under state or Federal law or inconsistent with the City's General Plan. Neither of those tasks are easy or inexpensive, which is why the City's management wants the deal to be sealed immediately, before there is a ground swell of political opposition to the electronic billboard deal. It's conceivable that the City's management also has a slight concern that one or more newly elected Councilmen would vote against electronic billboards. The only hole that the City's managers and lawyers, Metrolink and the electronic billboard company cannot plug through swift action now is the ability of Santa Clarita homeowners negatively affected by the very bright and flashing billboards to later sue on the tort of nuisance. A nuisance can be found by a court even if the parties creating the nuisance (Metrolink and the billboard company) have all of the necessary permits from the City and State and have already constructed their project. (Think about the nuisance/injunction case against the manufacturer of Sriracha hot sauce, Huy Fong Foods.) But again, a nuisance case would be expensive to litigate, with no guarantee of success. In short, time is of the essence in the minds of the City's real management to get the electronic billboard deal done pronto.
NFICMonday, March 24th, 2014 at 2:51 pm
Nice commentary Sage. And people then wonder why the City and agencies like the CLWA get sued over issues like these. In all likelihood, the City is leaving money on the table in their rush to eliminate the visual blight along the railroad right of way. Why they couldn't have an agreement taking a percentage of the sign revenue would be a question I'd pose. At least there ought to be adjustments for market and inflationary conditions in the revenue stream. The attitude that City Staff knows best while in some cases may be true, it is not always the case, especially when they are operating outside of their normal areas of expertise. Likewise, it is a conflict of interest for any litigation related work to be handed the City Attorney's law firm. Inherent conflict of interest.
R ValenciaTuesday, March 25th, 2014 at 12:35 pm
If you are undecided about electronic billboards, drive by the ones on I-5 at the Citadel. Then make your decision.