Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Happenings: A Raise, Lyons Planned, Presentations Aplenty

After tonight’s meeting, there is an official vision for the Lyons corridor, council members will be paid more starting next term, and at least a fraction of Santa Clarita’s youth are committed to being drug-free[1].  But none of it may matter if the whole valley becomes an ashen wasteland as the worst fire season in a century approaches. 

The Worst Fire Season in a Century

With Independence Day drawing nearer, Mayor Pro Tem Laurene Weste quoted Thomas Jefferson for the invocation and then spoke about the great and glorious tradition that is Santa Clarita’s Fourth of July Parade.  This year’s theme, “The Winning Spirit”, is sure to inspire Claritans valley-wide.

Presentations to the City Council followed; the bad news came first.  LA County Fire Chief Daryl Osby spoke about the upcoming wildland fire season.  He went on record with the prediction that the worst fire season in a century awaits us.  Fuel (or plants, as us non-fire people say) will be reaching a critical combustion stage in July rather than in fall, as would be expected in wetter years.  He stressed the importance of avoiding fireworks, clearing brush from around homes, and following evacuation orders—if it should come to that.

Next came an update on the recently implemented “Drug-Free Youth In Town” (DFYIT—“defy it”) program.  Students from seven junior high schools and six high schools volunteered for the program.  This involved a few hours of community service (just over three on average, based on the summary statistics), getting educated (learning things like drug “refusal skills”), and undergoing random drug tests.  Some 800 students signed up and, encouragingly, 100% of their drug tests were negative.  Then again, I harbor serious doubts that the teenage heroin addicts most in need of such a program are very likely to sign up when they know random testing awaits them.

Finally, Santa Clarita won the SCAG Compass Blueprint Award for working with LA County to plan One Valley One Vision.  Councilmember Marsha McLean said that when the honor was initially bestowed, LA County reps took the award, so she had to request this special presentation and an award to display at City Hall, too.  Typical LA County, jaded Claritans muttered.  (Not really.  Well, maybe.) 

Public Participation

Public Participation began with Alan Ferdman, who reminded us that he is running for City Council even though everybody already knows and we really doesn't need to hear the "in the interest of full disclosure" bit every single time.  Anyhow, he was pleased that LA County's Clean Water, Clean Beaches proposal has been set aside for a bit again, noting that the plan is costly, controversial, and perhaps the result of interests more political than environmental.  Cam Noltemeyer spoke next, asking about $210,000 that was approved to give to Community Conservation Solutions.  This comes in addition to the approximately $900,000 that has been given to the group already for outreach and education about water and chloride issues.  She asked, essentially, what we’ve got to show for the expenditure of over one-million dollars.  A representative from Goodwill (I missed her name) spoke about the new career center that will open tomorrow morning on Lyons.  Ron Haywood with SEIU spoke on behalf of City employees, asking why (“with the City thriving as well as this one is”) employees have to worry about the vesting schedule and the diminishment of benefits for those hired recently.  Local punctuation enthusiast Steve Petzold asked to hear more specifics about which chloride treatment option the City is considering as the least onerous choice to meet mandates.  “I would like to see more leadership,” he said.  Finally, Alan Cameron used his sonorous voice to mask the fact that his predictions about chloride treatment mandates weren’t as rock solid as he seemed to think.  “We are going to win this chloride situation […] it is inexorable that we’re going to win.”  He cited some recent legal cases and predicted the State would relax chloride standards if a lawsuit forced them to pay for the cost of treatment.

From the Dais

Most of the updates from members of Council were the same old thing…this event was a success, this other event is coming up, do these really obvious things to make your summer safer, etc.  There were two exceptions.

First, Councilmember TimBen Boydston said that he was shocked that the Castaic Lake Water Agency’s Dan Masnada would be so cavalier as to claim Santa Clarita has water in abundance, so much so that we could tap the local aquifer to meet the provisions of one of the chloride treatment plans without ill effects to current residents or new growth.  Second, Mayor Bob Kellar asked Mike Murphy to come up and describe the lobbying that Murphy, Kellar, and Weste conducted in Washington, D.C. last week regarding Cemex mining.  They met with representatives from the offices of Senators Boxer and Feinstein along with several members of the House.  Boxer introduced bill S771 to “resolve the now 14-year-old dispute” (yes, it’s been that long).  Murphy went to some pains to express how sincerely Congressman Buck McKeon supported the bill despite the fact that he would introduce no companion legislation himself, given the House’s rule against earmarks.  It wasn’t terribly convincing.  In short, Murphy said conversations were had, and there might be a hearing for S771 in the late summer or fall, but as of yet, nothing concrete (get it?) has been accomplished. 

By 7:13, we finally got to the Consent Calendar.

The Contentious Raises

Mayor Kellar did an awful job of organizing the discussion of tonight’s consent calendar.  By having everyone from the public give comments on every item all at once (rather than on an item-by-item basis), he ensured that the issues got muddled.  Then everything was brought up again as the city manager responded, then items were brought up a third time as the council members commented.  It was a mess.

With regard to the City budget and several specific projects, Cam Noltemeyer expressed unease over how freely funds were borrowed and transferred from once district or account to another.  She wondered about who benefits and who pays.  (City Manager Ken Striplin would respond that all of the City’s budget policies were legal, prudent, and transparent, even if they look convoluted at times.  Trust us, to paraphrase.)  Apart from the 2013-14 budget, the consent calendar also included items for a substantial bridge widening, beautification of the Sand Canyon gateway, street improvements and maintenance, and improved parking for the Valencia Library.

However, council member compensation drew the most attention.  Tonight, all members but Boydston voted for a 6% pay raise for the next council term.  Boydston said it would be nobler to say "no" to getting more.  He advocated being a model of restraint.  Alan Cameron, during public comments, disagreed.  He said the Council is underpaid for the work they do, and better pay would allow more people to afford the time to serve on council.  Cameron used the initial unpopularity of women’s suffrage as an analogy with which to parallel  the unpopular—but justified, in his mind—idea of supporting a raise.  It was a stupid analogy, but his deep, booming voice concealed this. 

Councilmember Marsha McLean sounded a bit emotional as she tried to justify the raise which, as City Manager Ken Striplin pointed out, could have been as much as 10% instead of 6%.  “I wasn’t going to say anything, but now I have to,” she said, when Boydston finished his remarks in favor of no raise.  She explained how she spends at least 40 hours a week on council business, and her take-home pay is $1400 per month.  That’s $8.70 an hour, and she hoped no one would deny her or her fellow members marginally more than that.  As stated, the raise passed with everyone’s affirmative vote but Boydston’s.

Lyons Corridor

The final item of the night was a rather drawn-out discussion of the future of Lyons Avenue.  The Lyons Corridor Plan anticipates the growth and changes outlined in the General Plan (OVOV), and directs growth and (re-)development to follow certain guidelines.  There is an emphasis on moving storefronts to the sidewalks, not behind parking areas.  Architectural styles are Victorian and Crafstman, but diversity is encouraged.  Walkability is stressed, and there are incentives to encourage businesses to invest in changing their facades and the like.

The one point most people argued with was an incentive of 20% reduced parking requirements if a business were to dramatically change its structure in accordance with plan guidelines.  People wondered why it would be worthwhile to reduce the number of customers that a business’ lot could accommodate. 

Councilmember McLean, the perpetual micro-manager, wanted to have an option to review essentially all architectural changes, but she relented and agreed to only review the major ones.  Councilmember TimBen Boydston squandered 10 minutes talking about traffic flow grades and how increased development on Lyons would affect them, ignoring the fact that the changes laid out were done so only to be consistent with the master plan.  Eventually, Mayor Kellar interrupted him to say that they couldn’t change or undo a major part of One Valley One Vision that night, and Ferry pushed forward a motion that effectively ended the discussion.  Boydston was the only member who voted “no” on the plan, noting serious concerns about traffic and environmental effects.
 
The meeting ended at 9:09. 

[1]Here's the agenda.

3 comments:

Allan Cameron said...

This is Allan Cameron. Several aspects of the opinion dominated "report" on what actually occurred during the televised City Council meeting will benefit from clarification.

Perhaps the writer of these efforts may wish to get to the essence of this issue, since it has such a significant and negative effect on all of Santa Clarita.

What happened this past week, which was the subject of one of the brief comments I made to the Council (and the public) is critical, and is as follows.

On Wednesday, June 19, a meeting of our "local" Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District was actually held in Santa Clarita, rather than in Whittier where 90 percent of these meeting usually happen.

During this meeting, a very interesting woman named Betty Arenson and I both brought an issue of extreme importance to the attention of the public.


This is the fact that a lawsuit was filed against the State of California by our very own "local" Sanitation District some three and one half years ago. Since that initial filing NOT A SINGLE COMMUNICATION about the progress of that suit has been shared with the Directors of the District, much less the local public which is actually paying for the lawsuit.

The goal of the lawsuit against the State has mega-hundred million dollar significance for all of us. If successful, the mega-hundred million dollar cost of the "Chloride" scam would no longer be paid just by the SCV, but by the entire State.

When the head bureaucrat of the Sanitation District was asked if her agency would finally tell the Directors and (hopefully) the "Billpayers" about this 3.5 year old lawsuit, she said yes.

She also said something astounding.

(This electronic format would not allow the rest of the facts about how we can save hundreds of millions of local dollars to be published. Call me at 818-634-8669 for the rest of the fascinating facts.)

Allan Cameron said...

By the way, to whomever it is that generates this "thing". Who are you? Please identify yourself, by name. If you are reluctant to do so, then please call me with a response to this most simple and basic of requests. You, of course, have both MY name, and my telephone number.

God will not have her work made manifest by cowards.

Blogger said...

If you want your ex-girlfriend or ex-boyfriend to come crawling back to you on their knees (no matter why you broke up) you got to watch this video
right away...

(VIDEO) Get your ex back with TEXT messages?