2008-08-29·westranchbeacon.com · WordPress (West Ranch Beacon)·Wayback capture

Commentary: Growth is good as long as it is mutually and well managed

By admin

Dave Bossert Development Local Opinion

Image not recoveredCornucopiaFlag.jpg

Lately there has been a lot of discussion and bickering going on it the Santa Clarita Valley revolving around growth. In particular the expansion of Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital, the Smiser Ranch property, the problems out in Benz Road and so on.

First off I will tell you that I am all in favor of growth as long as it is well managed. By that I mean that during the planning stages all the stakeholders are included. The property owners certainly have every right to develop their land and should be able to do so in a responsible way. That means that proposed projects must meet the owner’s economic expectations at the same time meeting neighbor’s approval that the project is for the greater good of the community.

Local residents should be able to have input from a neighborly standpoint so that there are no surprises or adversely negative effects on their own properties. At the same time residents must also acknowledge the fact that a property owner has the right to develop their land. This is something that seems to get forgotten by some of the local environmental extremists.

To often there have been situations where the developers are painted as the big, bad corporation coming in to rape the land all in the name of making a profit. I think that is wrong. More often than not a lot of time and money gets wasted by the inflexibility of the some local individuals and/or groups who are unwilling to come to the table to discuss a proposed development.

A great example of this was the travesty surrounding the 100+ year old oak tree, dubbed “Old Glory”, several years ago. In that case the oak tree was used as a pawn by the environmentalists to try and prevent the expansion of Pico Canyon Road. Rather than working with the developer, John Lange Homes, while the Southern Oaks housing project was underway the environmentalists sat back and waited for the homes to be completed so there was no chance of working around the oak tree in questions. Then there was no choice but to either remove the tree or to have it relocated.

The relocation of such a large tree may have been unthinkable by the extremists at the time. Of course they were wrong; the tree was ultimately moved at a cost of over a million dollars. It is doing just fine in its new location.

The issue I have with story is that there was so much time, money and effort wasted by the environmental community on this situation which could have been avoided if they had a civil dialogue with the developer. By simply working together the development could have been adjusted to accommodate the existing oak tree. The builder still would have gotten the same number of homes constructed; the roadway would have had enough room for future expansion; and the 100+ year old tree would still resided in the spot it had always been in; and an enormous amount of money could have gone to better use.

The million dollars that was used to move the oak tree could have purchased 10-20 acres of undeveloped land. That could have been set aside in a local land conservancy and left as open space. This would have been a much better use of resources and would have been better for the local environment. From my perspective, some of the local environmental extremists have actually hurt the natural state of our Valley.

So what does this story have to do with what is going on in the Santa Clarita Valley now? Everything! It illustrates the fundamental problem that is plaguing our community. The lack of mutual respect for all the stakeholders involved in an issue and the ability to be able to reach a win/win solution that allows all participants to feel good about the ultimate solution.

In order for that to happen all participates have to display some amount of flexibility. That may be easier said than done with some that are involved around town. Just look at the downtown Newhall redevelopment project as an example. The Santa Clarita City Council went completely against the landlords, the store owners, even their own consultants and did what was clearly not what the other stakeholders wanted! That can’t continue to happen if our Valley is to prosper in the future as a united collection of communities.

Growth is part of any community’s evolution and if done properly is beneficial to all. The trick is to get everyone at the same table having a respectful dialogue. Engaging residents by pretending to want their participation is nothing more than a transparent sham. One that is obvious and offensive to those being scammed. The downtown Newhall redevelopment example above is a perfect example of that and was very well documented by Nota FerryFan in a YouTube video; view it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9PehP_NeYU

This is something for all the various factions around the Valley to think about since working together on some of the challenges facing our community would be much more efficient and productive. Digging in ones heels like some of the whacked out environmentalists has proven to a waste full and divisive tactic.

Dave Bossert Commentary

Dave Bossert is a community volunteer who serves on a number of boards and councils. His commentaries represent his own opinions and not necessarily the views of any organization he may be affiliated with or those of the West Ranch Beacon.

Comments

5 · as published

Pauline Harte
Pauline Harte Says: August 29th, 2008 at 10:01 am “First off I will tell you that I am all in favor of growth as long as it is well managed. By that I mean that during the planning stages all the stakeholders are included. The property owners certainly have every right to develop their land and should be able to do so in a responsible way. That means that proposed projects must meet the owner’s economic expectations at the same time meeting neighbor’s approval that the project is for the greater good of the community.” I fully agree, Dave, thank you for understanding this! Residents of SCV have come together to “remind” our city that residents have property rights, too. We are not saying no to development, but we feel that development proposed on top of us should be completed without devastating surrounding communities. Our current traffic grid is woefully inadequate now, and we want all development to be addressed with this situation in mind. The Avenue at Santa Clarita, on approximately 37 acres, was proposed at a size that was 6 times larger than the Las Lomas project on apporoximately 555 acres. The Avenue would have plopped down right on top of about 750 homes, and the negative impacts from that project would have caused the ruination of that entire area. Why did these developers think they would get such a massive project approved when this city, along with Congressman Buck McKeon and Assemblyman Cameron Smyth, aggressively opposed the Las Lomas project? FROM THE BEGINNING, the nearby residents should have been invited to all meetings between The Avenue project developers (Jay and Joyce Rogers and Thomas Properties) but this did not happen so the Calgrove Corridor Coalition was formed. We insisted that projects proposed for that site should not cause irreperable negative impacts to nearby residents that would destroy property values and quality of life. We were told by The Avenue developers that the Avenue at Santa Clarita’s 2.5 million square feet of development couldn’t be pared down because anything less would not be profitable for the developers since they paid so much for the property and the cost of mitigation would be very costly. Is their bad busisness deal our problem? No, it is not, we insisted. We did not say no to a project there, but demanded that its larger than Las Lomas size be pared down to a reasonable size. If this request could not meet the developer’s economic expectations because they made a bad business deal, well, just isn’t our problem. Those of us demanding a say in the future of our communities are certainly not “whacked-out environmentalists,” but that is what we are called. We are not saying no to development, just asking for a seat at the table when projects are proposed that will directly affect our neighborhoods. That is exactly what our own city has been asking for for many years with all their efforts to gain a seat through a Sphere of Influence. I was there on the first failed Sphere of Influence push, and the second failed push, still have all the books and the paperwork. And this is exactly what we residents want ourselves – a seat at Santa Clarita’s table when developers propose projects that will impact our neighborhoods. A seat at Santa Clarita’s table to discuss the changes to the General Plan, and zoning changes, instead of being fed bits and pieces of this and that and then given multiple deadlines to comment on the bits and pieces that are not even complete! When we battled the mega-mine we did not say no to all mining. We asked for a resonable project that would not destroy this entire region, and we made reasonable mitigation requests. Southdown/Cemex said no to a smaller project, said no to mitigation requests, and the battle raged on because WE have the right as stakeholders to prevent the ruination of our city – and our city fully supported this stance. David Gauny’s Smart Growth group has NEVER opposed a hospital expansion – we INSIST on a hospital expansion, we want a GUARANTEE of a hospital expansion, and we want escape clauses removed from the Development Agreement that allow G&L to walk away without even building a hospital expansion. When the hospital tells us the Master Plan will add “UP TO” 120 beds, well, what the heck does that mean? That means they can add 2 beds and they can’t be accused of backing out on their “promise” to add “up to” 120 beds! And we are called “troublemakers” for refusing to accept these smoke and mirrors tactics! Now we are engaged in “discussions” involving changes in the original General Plan that we feel are being made without our input, without our best interests in mind, and without full cooperation regarding the information being released to us. We must deal with this the best we can, but it is frustrating to be called “troublemakers” when this IS, after all, OUR city, a city many of us helped to form some 20 years ago. Three words describe our efforts to be recognized as legitimate stakeholders in Santa Clarita’s future: WE COUNT, TOO! Pauline Harte.
Pauline Harte
Pauline Harte Says: August 29th, 2008 at 10:18 am “First off I will tell you that I am all in favor of growth as long as it is well managed. By that I mean that during the planning stages all the stakeholders are included. The property owners certainly have every right to develop their land and should be able to do so in a responsible way. That means that proposed projects must meet the owner’s economic expectations at the same time meeting neighbor’s approval that the project is for the greater good of the community.” I fully agree, Dave, thank you for understanding this! Residents of SCV have come together to “remind” our city that residents have property rights, too. We are not saying no to development, but we feel that development proposed on top of us should be completed without devastating surrounding communities. Our current traffic grid is woefully inadequate now, and we want all development to be addressed with this situation in mind. We will not accept new developments causing serious negative impacts to existing neighborhoods in the name of “Progress.” The Avenue at Santa Clarita, on approximately 37 acres, was proposed at a size that was 6 times larger than the Las Lomas project on apporoximately 555 acres. The Avenue would have plopped down right on top of about 750 homes, and the negative impacts from that project would have caused the ruination of that entire area. Why did these developers think they would get such a massive project approved when this city, along with Congressman Buck McKeon and Assemblyman Cameron Smyth, aggressively opposed the Las Lomas project? FROM THE BEGINNING, the nearby residents should have been invited to all meetings between The Avenue project developers (Jay and Joyce Rogers and Thomas Properties) but this did not happen so the Calgrove Corridor Coalition was formed. We insisted that projects proposed for that site should not cause irreperable negative impacts to nearby residents that would destroy property values and quality of life. We were told by The Avenue developers that the Avenue at Santa Clarita’s 2.5 million square feet of development couldn’t be pared down because anything less would not be profitable for the developers since they paid so much for the property and the cost of mitigation would be very costly. Is their bad busisness deal our problem? No, it is not, we insisted. We did not say no to a project there, but demanded that its larger than Las Lomas size be pared down to a reasonable size. If this request could not meet the developer’s economic expectations because they made a bad business deal, well, just isn’t our problem. Those of us demanding a say in the future of our communities are certainly not “whacked-out environmentalists,” but that is what we are called. We are not saying no to development, just asking for a seat at the table when projects are proposed that will directly affect our neighborhoods. That is exactly what our own city has been asking for for many years with all their efforts to gain a seat through a Sphere of Influence. I was there on the first failed Sphere of Influence push, and the second failed push, still have all the books and the paperwork. And this is exactly what we residents want ourselves – a seat at Santa Clarita’s table when developers propose projects that will impact our neighborhoods. A seat at Santa Clarita’s table to discuss the changes to the General Plan, and zoning changes, instead of being fed bits and pieces of this and that and then given multiple deadlines to comment on the bits and pieces that are not even complete! When we battled the mega-mine we did not say no to all mining. We asked for a resonable project that would not destroy this entire region, and we made reasonable mitigation requests. Southdown/Cemex said no to a smaller project, said no to mitigation requests, and the battle raged on because WE have the right as stakeholders to prevent the ruination of our city – and our city fully supported this stance. David Gauny’s Smart Growth group has NEVER opposed a hospital expansion – we INSIST on a hospital expansion, we want a GUARANTEE of a hospital expansion, and we want escape clauses removed from the Development Agreement that allow G&L to walk away without even building a hospital expansion. When the hospital tells us the Master Plan will add “UP TO” 120 beds, well, what the heck does that mean? That means they can add 2 beds and they can’t be accused of backing out on their “promise” to add “up to” 120 beds! And we are called “troublemakers” for refusing to accept these smoke and mirrors tactics! Now we are engaged in “discussions” involving changes in the original General Plan that we feel are being made without our input, without our best interests in mind, and without full cooperation regarding the information being released to us. We must deal with this the best we can, but it is frustrating to be called “troublemakers” when this IS, after all, OUR city, a city many of us helped to form some 20 years ago. Three words describe our efforts to be recognized as legitimate stakeholders in Santa Clarita’s future: WE COUNT, TOO! Pauline Harte.
David Gauny
David Gauny Says: August 29th, 2008 at 11:23 am Dave – an excellent commentary here and I agree with your points completely. Almost every problem can be worked through peaceably, if done so with rational thought, consideration of each others’ rights, and the removal of ego. Regarding the G&L/HM issue, this last component has been the biggest problem. A ram-rod approach from start to finish, arrogance from applicant (and occasionally staff) has resulted in blind dismissal of public concerns which only served to magnify the problem. The result is that a systemic problem in our city government is now apparent; a problem which demands correction, not cover-up. I respect most of our City Council members but I resent –and I am shocked by– the recent remarks that there are “a few negative people” who are derailing public perception about the city’s failures. We have presented only fact and minor errors, when made, were rectified immediately with the apologies due. Conversely, the developer in our case has, in my opinion, made misstatements and misrepresentations that border on gross negligence or even flat-out deception. Remember that it took two years to get a statement from the CEO that no expanded hospital would be committed? Moreover, remember the “independent consultants” who lied about phone calls made to Providence? The collusion email? The letter from the Mayor that really wasn’t? To malign the public in this matter is deplorable and it misses the mark. Our citizens (and there are many), are simply bringing these facts to light. The failures here belong to the applicant and the city and they should look inward for to fix the many failures in complying with CA State law. The way most see it, the developer is opting to fix our elections instead. Powerful are the lobbyists who can get a few council members to refer to its public as troublemakers for being vigilant in such matters. What a travesty! Before we hear any more campaign stumping or attempts neutralize the people concerned enough to study the facts, I think thee council should be asking itself where we would be if we trusted government to prevail in issues like the Elsemere Canyon Landfill or Cemex. We fought like hell to bring out the facts on those issues, spending millions of taxpayer dollars to fight for our rights. Why is this approach now rejected with such vehemence? There are problems – deal with them. Otherwise, it will be duplicity that destroys our community, not the citizens who raise the issues.
David Gauny
David Gauny Says: August 29th, 2008 at 11:27 am one add’l note: we are not a few people. Smart Growth SCV just passed the 3,500 member mark and the other community coalitions’ lists are growing every day.
Valerie Thomas
Valerie Thomas Says: August 29th, 2008 at 3:57 pm Dave, thank you for the excellent column. Again and again we hear the same things from neighborhoods throughout the Valley: a property owner has the right to develop his property. Then come the “buts:” It has to be appropriate to zoning and the General Plan. It has to be compatible to existing neighborhoods. It has to be a “good neighbor” — not tax our existing resources, such as water availability, air quality, traffic circulation, schools, parks, etc. without offsetting — legitimately offsetting –these new demands on our fragile and finite resources. Perhaps, most important, it has to fit within the residents’ vision for our Valley. Those “buts” don’t seem unreasonable to me. Twenty years ago, a number of residents worked for many months to draw up a vision. It is the Genral Plan. Yes, times change and the General Plan needs to be revised, but that needs to come from the citizens as well as City Staff and the business community and developers. One Valley One Vision is the proposed revision of the General Plan. Mr. Pulskamp is fond of citing numerous community meetings held over the last eight years. I know of no ordinary resident who has been invited to give his or her opinion of where he or she would like to see our city head over the next decade. Three years ago, the Casden proposal became public knowledge. Placerita Canyon residents were outraged that 1500 condominiums were being proposed for the floodplain we know as the Cowboy Festival parking lot. The zoning for that parcel in the General Plan is “Business Park,” not “high density residential.” Several of us passed around letters proposing more suitable uses such as a mini-version of San Diego’s gaslight District, a sports complex, or a complete equestrian facility. We presented 500 letters to the City Council with our ideas. We were ignored. When applications were solicited for the Newhall Redevelopment Committee, Placerita Canyon Property Owners’ Association proposed me as the represetative for a large stakeholder in the project. I was turned down despite the fact I have lived in Newhall for more than 30 years and had worked in Downtown Newhall for 10 years. We are asking to be part of the process in addressing the vision for Santa Clarita. Why not use our energy rather than fight us? Allow us — no, encourage us — to be truly part of the process.