Tonight's Santa Clarita City Council meeting did away with red light cameras at intersections, solidified support for a community fighting installation of a powerful telecommunications tower, and saw the dream of a local BMX track take hold. Depending on whose view of the future you believe in, this means that months from now, intersections will be about the same or have become total death-traps; a big cell tower will have been avoided or will be bathing north SCV in radiation; and a BMX track will be within reach or remain as far off as ever. With so much of the future contingent on so much else, who knows...let's stick to summarizing the recent past.
Welcome Spring
For her invocation, Councilmember Laurene Weste remarked on how blessed we are to be experiencing such a lovely spring and encouraged people to enjoy the outdoors. Fittingly, the City was then recognized as a "Tree City USA" since it has a $2+ per capita budget for urban forestry and hosts an Arbor Day event.
Public Participation
Elaine Ballace, clad in canary yellow, spoke about a perceived imbalance in the accessibility of councilmembers to mobile home park owners compared to mobile home park renters. In the wake of new information affecting the City's mobile home park ordinance, she said that many councilmembers had met with park owners, but her own requests for meetings between councilmembers and residents have gone unfulfilled. "You should take a meeting with the people...they need to be represented!" she scolded, loudly.
Al Ferdman spoke about drought, water conservation, purple pipe network (the type that carries reclaimed water) and laid out some ideas for improving Santa Clarita's water efficiency. The following speaker also addressed water issues, specifically deep well disposal of fracking wastewater. He wanted the council to take a stand against polluting water supplies in the name of oil extraction. The direct connection to the SCV wasn't apparent.
A few speakers also rose to ask the City to build a BMX track. They argued that BMX racing is a wholesome family activity and were dismayed that they have to go to Simi Valley to reach the closest tracks. After a short burst of applause for one of the BMX speakers, Mayor McLean said, "We kind of have a rule where applause isn't allowed." She then explained that the proper way to show support is to raise one's arms and shake one's hands as a visual analog of applause. So routine are Mayor McLean's explanations of proper applause procedures that the City Clerk should probably just give a demo at the start of meetings, like a flight attendant.
Steve Petzold announced formation of the "Save Open Space--Stop Deep Well Injection in the Santa Clarita Valley Committee". That's SOS--SDWIITSCVC for short. It's on file with the State and everything. Petz explained that the goal of the group is to keep an eye on billboards, deep well injection projects, and other unwelcome additions to Santa Clarita's open space. He also suggested that Councilmember TimBen Boydston should take a position on the sanitation district to better represent Santa Clarita's interests.
Dennis Conn made a characteristically memorable appearance at the podium. He spoke on a wide range of topics, including the selling of Christmas trees to local sand/gravel magnates, his wish of stocking the Santa Clara River with trout, and his hope that councilmembers received Blarney Stones for St. Patrick's Day.
City Manager Ken Striplin responded to several of the speakers. To the BMX crowd, he said that a track was part of Santa Clarita's master plan for the sports complex, but it's part of the final phase of construction and there aren't enough funds to build a track right now. Mayor Pro Tem Bob Kellar asked Striplin to counter Ballace's assertion that the council hadn't been meeting with mobile home park residents as much as they've met with owners. Striplin said that there have been "several community meetings," and Councilmember Boydston mentioned that he has personally spoken to Ray Henry and Doug Fraser about mobile home park residents' concerns. Ballace was not appeased.
Updates from the councilmembers followed. Several mentioned the recent KHTS bus trip to meet with politicians in Sacramento. Mayor McLean said that she met with the Governor's chief environmental aide on the topic of chloride mandates and fines. After Santa Clarita decided to look at alternatives to deep well injection, some LA Regional Water Quality Control Board members threatened to rescind the timetable of goals Santa Clarita must meet to avoid fines. McLean said the aide "would contact the chair of the committee and ask him to not touch the time frame." She also spoke to some officials about whether deep well injection induced quakes are exempt from being covered by insurance, and she said answers will be coming from Sacramento. Finally, McLean brought things back to the very local scale and encouraged residents to support keeping a post office in Newhall. She said it serves some older people who rely on being able to walk to the post office. That old people who use the post office are confined to a small region of Newhall was news to me, but apparently it's just not useful in the present Stevenson Ranch location.
Consent Calendar
The items on this evening's consent calendar included awarding a contract to design a new bike trail in Newhall, acquiring 174 acres of open space near Pico Canyon Park for $1.9M, and renovating the Valencia Glen Park pool. There wasn't much discussion, and all the items passed with the staff-recommended actions.
Red Light for Redflex
Redflex is the company that operates Santa Clarita's red-light cameras, and the City's been contracting with them on a month-to-month basis after questions of the cost and effectiveness of camera enforcement arose. Before the City Council considered continuing use of the cameras, traffic engineer Andrew Yi made a presentation. He started with some dramatic videos of near-collisions (and one actual collision) that have taken place when vehicles make left-hand turns on red lights. Mayor McLean gasped "Oh my goodness!" after one of the clips, and the audience was likewise on-edge watching the footage.
Yi explained that Santa Clarita has seen fewer per capita collisions and deaths on the road since the early 2000s, when the cameras went into place. Crucially, he was referring to all accidents/collisions, not just the type caught by red-light cameras, a point that would be made later. He said the decline was the result of many changes to the roadways, not just the addition of cameras. Overall, most types of collisions did decline at intersections with red-light cameras, except for rear-end collisions, which increased. If all of this sounds a bit convoluted, that's because it was: too many changes have taken place on Santa Clarita roads to clearly credit red-light cameras with specific changes in traffic accidents. One issue that was clear was that the cameras cost more to operate than they generate for the City; it's about $200,000 to keep up camera enforcement each year. Overall, Yi summarized the issue by saying that there are about 4,600 red-light violations at the seven monitored intersections each year, and he predicted that removing cameras could lead to more collisions and would require more sheriff enforcement.
Public speakers followed. First up was Scott Dwyer, a motorcyclist. He said that despite his vulnerability to being broadsided by left-turning cars, he didn't feel the cameras were effective. Jennifer Pack, a local mother, told the story of her red-light violation next. She said she was in a long-turn lane for a major intersection and had to make a split-second decision about whether to stop sharply or try to make the yellow light. (Most of us would call this "driving", but she dramatized the turn rather effectively.) She said it's hard to guess as durations of turn arrows and yellow lights vary, so she felt she had been trapped when she triggered the cameras. The huge fine really hit her family budget hard, and she said the cameras needed to be taken down. Several more speakers followed, including Jay Beeber and Jim Farley, who have been the two persons perhaps most dedicated to fighting red-light cameras. Both brought up data questioning the effectiveness of cameras, suggested other "fixes" (like changing the duration of yellow lights), and pointed out that red light camera enforcement is on the decline throughout California.
Mayor Pro Tem Bob Kellar was the first to respond. He said that his experience in law enforcement taught him that it was necessary for a person to make judgment calls about running reds, not a camera. He had supported the cameras in 2003, but he felt engineering changes had mostly addressed intersection safety and that the cameras were no longer warranted. That is, not all violations are the same. Councilmember Dante Acosta said "I really object to these cameras on Constitutional grounds alone." He said that he's never gotten a red-light ticket, but he thinks they're an expensive burden on residents that mostly generates money for the State. It w
"This has never been about money, this has been about safety," said Councilmember Laurene Weste. "I can't put a price on your family...if you take them [cameras] away behavior will change, and some of you will have losses...there's no way to take away a person's grief when they've lost a loved one...cause I've had grief, I know what it is; I've seen people at funerals of their children, the loss of their family, and it is gut-wrenching." This was perhaps not the best thing to say while sitting directly next to Councilmember Dante Acosta, who lost his son in war. He didn't respond immediately, but a bit later on in the discussion he brought up the death of his child. He did this to make the point to Weste that he absolutely knew what grief and loss were, so he took the decision to remove cameras and the possible consequences of that action very seriously.
At this point it was 2-1 in favor or removing cameras, and Councilmember TimBen Boydston spoke next. He asked Yi how many fatalities have been caused by turning left on red, and the answer was none. This helped illustrate Boydston's contention that the cameras aren't doing much to prevent fatalities or change the behavior of people in the same way additional law enforcement might. He suggested an "incredible deterrent" might be to leave video cameras running on all major intersections, just without the associated red-light tickets. That way, motorists would know their behavior was on record and could be reviewed if there was a major accident, but they wouldn't be penalized for crossing an intersection tenths of a second too late. Boydston moved to end the operation of Redflex red-light cameras, and Bob Kellar seconded the motion, but Mayor McLean wanted a chance to speak before the vote.
She asked city staff a series of questions that began rhetorically: "How much would it cost to have seven officers and seven locations 24 hours a day?" (A lot.) She then got clarification that the cameras take pictures of license plates and drivers. This was an attempt to counter Boydston's earlier point that people do weird, unsafe things to avoid red-light tickets, including pulling down the visors so the cameras can't get a picture of their face. However, City Attorney Montes would clarify that a face picture is a requirement to enforce the ticket, so McLean was wrong in thinking that a photo of a license plate was enough. The conversation was more of the same for a whie thereafter, with Mayor McLean seeming somewhere between rhetorically questioning and legitimately confused. "When does the camera get triggered: does it get triggered on the yellow light or the red?" Her ultimate points were two. First, she said she hears far fewer brakes screeching and crashes after enforcement began at an intersection near her home. Second, she thinks it's dumb to run red lights, period. "I am really fearful if we take away the opportunity for tickets when people are dumb enough to run a red light. [Audience reacts audibly--many had spoken about missing a yellow by fractions of a second.] You don't think that anybody who runs a red light is dumb? I do. [Laughs. Audience reacts more loudly.] Alright! Alright! I'm not going to argue with you."
More discussion followed, and a representative from Redflex made a not terribly effective stand for the cameras. As a vote neared, McLean asked Boydston if he'd be amenable to a substitute motion for just a one year suspension followed by a review of changes in collision rates. Kellar and Boydston were not receptive, and the vote was called after McLean said, "Gosh sorry that you won't consider some viable options." Acosta, Boydston, and Kellar voted in favor of removing the cameras, and McLean and Weste voted against them, so the motion passed.
LA-RICS Installation Strongly Opposed
The final item of the night was consideration a communications tower set for construction on county-owned fire station property in Santa Clarita. It's part of the Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System (LA-RICS) aimed at improving communication reliability for public safety agencies. Residents had only found out they were going to be living near a tower when construction began--there had been no prior outreach.
Anna Mooradian spoke on behalf of Mayor Antonovich. She said that at a meeting, Antonovich had made a motion to request an extension of the grant funding LA-RICS (this would take off the pressure to build towers immediately), halt construction at all sites except those completely unopposed, and to get a report on the possibility of co-location of other communication infrastructure. More outreach and meetings had also been called for. Residents and speakers from the fire department stated their opposition to the building of a communications tower at Fire Station 108 in Santa Clarita.
The City Council was united in feeling that the staff recommendations on the matter were too weak. So rather than asking for more meetings, outreach, and the exploration of new sites, Weste and Kellar pushed motions to express opposition to the towers more broadly. With some input from City Manager Ken Striplin and City Attoenry Joe Montes, Striplin summarized his understanding of the council's intent as being "opposed to any sites within the City of Santa Clarita." The vote was unanimous, and the City of Santa Clarita will also withdraw from the LA-RICS Joint Powers Authority, but since it's county land, the decision still lies in the county's hands.
The final round of public participation brought up more people in favor of building a BMX track in Santa Clarita. Councilmember TimBen Boydston joked that the $200,000 saved each year on red light cameras could be used to build a track. More realistically, Ken Striplin sais that staff could explore whether constructing a cheap interim track would be possible. And then, the meeting ended.
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
No Deep Wells for Stanch, Elsewhere Fair Game?
Tonight's City Council meeting saw old issues handled in newly unsatisfactory ways. Mobile home park owners and residents are still feeling in limbo--ordinance discussions have been continued to an undetermined future date in light of new information. This left deep well injection as the primary issue about which to agonize. The council was united in opposing brine disposal wells in Stevenson Ranch/Westridge, but it split when it came to recommending no deep wells for chloride brine be built anywhere in Santa Clarita. The Stanch-dominated crowd grumbled throughout the proceedings, especially when assured that they were getting what they asked for. The only thing that prevented noisier protestations was the fact that the meeting to officially determine the fate of deep well injection will be on Wednesday the 11th.
"Show me the suffering"
For the invocation, Councilmember TimBen Boydston read a prayer by Cesar Chavez. He prayed, "Show me the suffering of the most miserable, So I will know my people's plight...Let the Spirit flourish and grow,/ So we will never tire of the struggle." Some of the more narcissistic in the audience may have imagined the golf course chloride well was the struggle of which he spoke, but Boydston explained that he had chosen to recite Chavez's prayer in light of the approaching commemorative holiday.
LA-RICS Riles
Public participation began with Elaine Ballace, who has come to loathe the City Council for its actions (or inactions) relating to mobile home park rents. Her mother lives at one such a park, and she doesn't think her golden years are looking very bright: "You want to kick her to the curb. Before you kick her to the curb, though, you're going to take every ounce of money she has, then kick her to the curb, call the cops and go, 'Well, she's homeless and she has no money.'" Ballace, whose speaking style is perhaps best described as loud, won applause from the audience. "There is to be no applause in the chambers," warned Mayor McLean in response. This was the first time--but far from the last--that Mayor McLean would demand the audience stop clapping so as not to disrupt the meeting.
Next, Teresa Curtis, a resident on the Pacific Crest neighborhood, brought a new issue to the attention of the council. She explained how Fire Station 108 is located on Rock Canyon Drive in the midst of their community. A new communications tower is being installed there as part of the Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System (LA-RICS) for public safety agencies. Curtis explained that they had no advance warning and no opportunity to comment on the project, which had already begun construction. She said this was concerning because the cell tower will emit radiation that she felt could endanger the health of residents. Several other speakers from the community followed, echoing her sentiments and calling for the City to step in and stop the tower from being built. One woman brought up her whole family while she spoke and said, "I'm coming from a communist country, Hungary, OK? And I'm in shock, I'm shocked, that this is happening in the United States." Fire Captain Lew(is) Currier spoke in his capacity as a union director. He said that out of health concerns for firefighters and residents, the LA-RICS tower should be studied carefully, especially if it will be used for co-location of other commercial communication structures.
Since the Station 108 tower was the main topic of public participation, Deputy City Manager Darren Hernandez came to the microphone to respond. He explained that because the fire stations are owned and run by LA County, the City of Santa Clarita cannot "opt out" of LA-RICS, which is what many communities with private fire/police forces have done. David Perry, a field deputy for LA County Supervisor Antonovich (I guess "Mayor Antonovich" now), explained that his office asked for construction on the tower to cease until public outreach takes place. He said they were "somewhat blindsided" by the fact that Motorola had begun construction already. A spokesperson from the company managing the project said it will be up to the LACO Board of Supervisors to determine if colocation of other communication towers will be prohibited; under present agreements it's technically allowed.
The City Council--particularly Boydston, Kellar, and McLean--was very receptive to the community's concerns about the project. Mayor McLean was already prepared to call for a new site to be found, but this sentiment was viewed as somewhat premature by Mayor Pro Tem Bob Kellar City Attorney Darren Hernandez. Still, the issue will be discussed at a future meeting, and a letter of concern will be sent to Antonovich's office.
Consent Given
Most of the consent calendar items concerned bookkeeping and general city services. Councilmember TimBen Boydston asked that a new program involving Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing not be used with single-family home developments. It's a program which lets energy-saving improvements be paid over time with property taxes. Boydston was also worried that money borrowed under this program is paid back preferentially before private mortgages, etc. (it's part of the property tax) and wanted to look out for the banks. He suggested that banks which have issued mortgages on a property must approve. City Attorney Montes told Boydston that the council could make its participation in the program contingent on bank agreement. It was a bit of a thorny issues, so Mayor McLean stepped in and said, "Perhaps we need some more work on it." Thus, Item 7 was continued, and the recommended actions for all of the other consent calendar items were approved.
A brief public hearing followed. The always succinct Erin Lay explained that a needs assessment had just been completed for the Community Development Block Grant Program. The council received the summary of the needs survey, but no further action was taken.
Mobile Park Owners Dismayed
Last week, mobile home park residents dominated the conversation about revisions to the City's mobile home park ordinance. They described constantly increasing rents, few park improvements, and frustration with the ordinance process. After their testimony, the council agreed to lower the standard annual rent adjustment floor from 3% to 2.6%. This rather modest change was met with dismay from mobile home park owners and managers.
One manager called the standard adjustment shift a "game changer". Most others agreed with him, saying it wouldn't allow them to keep up with costly improvements and maintenance. Mindy Johnson, manager of Parklane, said that talk of rent increases and the ordinance has been disrupting her community. She claimed people have been knocking on doors trying to win support with "false information and scare tactics." Johnson promised that, "We pride ourselves on having very strong resident relations...morning coffee is always available for residents to stop in and say 'hi'." Nancy Must, who manages two of the mobile home park communities with better resident-owner relations (at least based on public comments), said operating expenses have increased by an average of 4.3% per year. She commented, "Possibly there is no one size fits all...I hope that you'll go back and you'll discuss this."
In addition to speakers on behalf of management and owners, many renters were present in the audience. Most chose not to speak. In support of the residents, Doug Fraser did some math. He challenged the assertion that Parklane was facing financial difficulties. "He [the owner] has 400 spaces averaging $900 a space rent. That's $360,000 a month, times 12 months is $4,300,000 that he receives." He said Parklane is suffering from bad management, not low revenue.
Ray Henry and a couple of residents also spoke. However, the City Council did not, because City Manager Ken Striplin explained that new information regarding the ordinance would need to be reviewed. "The continuance is to a date uncertain," he said--definitely no earlier than April. A portion of meeting attendants left at this point, but most of the audience was there to talk about chloride wells, so the room stayed mostly full.
The Discussion Before the Discussion
Say what you will of Stanchers--they get their stuff together in a hurry. Maybe they're late to deep well injection and maybe they're very late to chlorides in general, but tonight's speakers were up to speed, had hired attorneys, and had very specific goals. However, the council wouldn't hear from them for quite a while, having to get their own stuff in order first.
Councilmember TimBen Boydston asked City Attorney Joe Montes whether there was any conflict in discussing deep wells when two of five councilmembers also sat on the sanitation district board. Montes said that, after conferring with the counsel from the sanitation district, he felt the matter could be legally discussed. The conversation was a bit longer and more convoluted, though. Some of the confusion resulted from previous conversations over whether it would have been proper to vote on chloride treatment preferences. Suffice it to say the conversation could be had by all members of the council, and it was.
Councilmember Laurene Weste was very eager to read a motion she had prepared in opposition of placing any wells on the west side of Santa Clarita. She read it several times, in fact. The motion got a second from Mayor Pro Tem Bob Kellar. Boydston thought they could do more. He said, "I think a more appropriate motion would be to move that the Santa Clarita City Council oppose the TMDL of 100 milligrams [of chloride] per liter for treated wastewater in the Santa Clarita Valley, oppose deep well injection of treated wastewater anywhere in the Santa Clarita Valley [cheers erupt from audience] and support the withdrawing of the S-DEIR for deep well injection from public circulation and suspend indefinitely the call for public comment of the said S-DEIR." Mayor Bob Kellar was quick to respond. "We have been fighting and fighting and fighting..." He said the sanitation district has been the greatest of allies to the Stanchers, and it was unrealistic to think that sweeping changes could be made. He warned the audience of the LA and State Water Boards, which are forcing the City's hand with the threat of massive fines. "I wish that you could have been in the room in some of the meetings that we have had...and they've backed up what they have threatened."
Councilmember Acosta said he felt that discussing the EIR was "opening a can of worms." He felt it was very much a conversation to be had by the sanitation board, not the council.
Eventually, Mayor McLean spoke. "I would like to add to the motion...I truly believe that we need to pursue with the state to have the limit raised to a reasonable level which will completely do away with having to put anything anywhere." Applause followed, and she added that she'd like the state to put a moratorium on fines until matters were resolved. Of her motion, she asked, "Do we wish to hear the speakers first before we vote?" Before that could happen, there was more discussion.
"Sounds like you're agreeing with TimBen," said Councilmember Acosta to McLean. She wasn't ready to accept this, saying, "Well not quite...the motion that Councilman Boydston made was way stronger." The mayor argued that her motion wasn't suggesting that Santa Clarita would ignore state mandates, but rather that it would try to work with the state to come up with new, more reasonable chloride limits. Councilmember West began pushing her motion again, promising that a new site wouldn't be on the west side of the SCV or in any populated areas, attempting to play to the crowd. "It's not going to be this area!" she promised. Mayor McLean suggested the motion be revised to state that no wells would go by any homes. Boydston asked how far away from homes she would propose the wells be. "Oh come on!" replied a tiring McLean.
"Are we going to listen to the speakers before we vote?" asked Boydston, in an attempt to move the conversation forward.. The audience applauded. Mayor McLean said, "Would you like to have a vote on your motion and then discuss my motion? [Montes came to the microphone, shaking his head to indicate this wasn't the right procedure.] No? Not first--can't do that? Nevermind." Thus, the public finally got a chance to speak--after an intermission.
Stanch Speaks
Comments began with John Yoon. He spoke with a great deal of feeling, and his arm motions were equally demonstrative, though not quite synchronized with his spoken points. He got to the main argument of the Stanchers--that deep well injection "does not belong under any neighborhood!"--very quickly. He advocated for a pipeline to the ocean for disposal instead, or using trucks to carry ultra-concentrated chloride brine to a disposal location. The audience was amused by and supportive of the colorful speaker.
Kim Sloane said, "I'm encouraged by what I've been hearing." But she was a bit troubled to have received a flyer that was attempting to clear up deep well injection misconceptions. She pointed out that the fears refuted on the sheet--injection causes earthquakes, it's fracking, etc...--were not real misconceptions harbored by residents. They merely stated that deep well injection could increase the probability of earthquakes. It was a risk factor, not a sure thing.
Allen Meachem spoke for Boston Scientific, which has hundreds of employees in Santa Clarita. He said the project made it harder to attract workers to the valley. He wanted them to consider different methods, not just different well sites. He said Princess Cruises had also submitted a letter on the record in favor of other disposal methods that would be better for their employees' safety/peace of mind. Boston Scientific's attorney, Peter Gutierrez of Latham & Watkins, spoke after. He pointed out problems with the EIR. And he wasn't the only outside attorney/expert brought in on the issue. In short, the Stanchers had done a lot to show they would fight deep wells not just on their side of town, but in the whole community.
Al Ferdman made a financial case for the feasibility and cost effectiveness of building a brine line to the ocean. The audience got very excited as he made his points, noting that with grants, savings elsewhere, and other considerations, building a pipeline was mere percentage points more expensive than drilling deep wells. I didn't get all the numbers he dropped, but it sounded persuasive on the surface, and the audience was certainly on board with paying a little more for a pipeline instead of wells.
Many other speakers came forward, suggesting that earthquakes could be triggered far away from injection sites, worrying about migration of brine up through abandoned oil fields, and even stating that the golf course would be rendered less desirable. A big financial point was that the mere perception of more danger from deep well injection could diminish home values--several repeated the idea that perception trumped scientific studies when trying to market a property. The second big financial point was that earthquake insurers wouldn't cover quakes triggered by non-tectonic processes. This was very worrisome to homeowners, who weren't convinced the wells would be seismically neutral.
Lynne Plambeck was perhaps the sole voice not entirely in agreement with everyone else. She said pollution limits exist for a reason. Even if chloride levels are low in Santa Clarita compared to other watersheds, the underlying Clean Water Act is absolutely essential to protecting the public and the environment. She was trying to challenge people who spoke dismissively of meeting TMDL mandates and who wanted to challenge compliance with water laws.
Motions, motions, motions
The City Council discussed the matter for a considerable amount of time once speakers had finished. There was a great deal of confusion over what the motions were, which motions could be made without overstepping boundaries, and so on. There was even more confusion about the proper language for stating that an EIR would be effectively killed--is withdrawing the same as suspending?Mayor McLean asked City Attorney Montes for advice on a few occasions, and at one point he replied, "You're running the meeting..." to reinforce the obvious: the council gets to decide how it feels about the deep well site. At one point, he told the exasperated mayor, "You can vote yes, you can vote no, or you can abstain." Were he not working at the pleasure of the council, I think Joe Montes could have gotten even sassier.
The City Council first decided to support the position of no deep well injection for chloride disposal in the Stevenson Ranch area. Everyone agreed on this, and Stanchers applauded the unanimous vote.
Boydston made some individual motions next. He motioned that no deep wells be considered for anywhere in the Santa Clarita Valley. Councilmember Dante Acosta was somewhat reluctant to interfere with the sanitation board, but he said that since they were just making statements/recommendations for the board, he seconded Boydston's motion. Before the vote, Kellar angered some Stanchers. He said, "Folks, honestly, we've accomplished everything that you were hoping to accomplish. We genuinely have... I don't want to take something off the table that we might be regretting." The Stanchers forming the bulk of the crowd bristled at this, as they had very cogently communicated their wish for no wells anywhere in Santa Clarita--in line with Boydston's motion. It was plain to see they had not "accomplished everything."
On the vote, Boydston and Acosta voted for no deep wells anywhere, Kellar and Weste voted to leave that option open, and McLean abstained. City Attorney Joe Montes explained that her abstention would be considered a vote in favor of the motion per council rules. McLean quickly shouted, "No!" at this. She clarified it wasn't because she was in favor of deep wells, but because she thought it was improper to discuss at council rather than the sanitation board.
Deep into another discussion about the EIR and opposition to chloride mandates, Mayor Pro Tem Bob Kellar was starting to get frustrated. He saw the threat of fines as very real, and he had little patience for any more discussion of alternatives or movements he regarded as unlikely to succeed and very likely to result in more fines. When he concluded his speech, Councilmember Boydston said he had another motion to make--for a longer comment period on the EIR, if it's not withdrawn. At this, Kellar asked, defeatedly, "City Manager, can we order breakfast?" It was decided that the EIR would be cancelled and, in the unlikely event it wasn't, the comment period would be extended. (Weste and Kellar voted no, but Acosta, Boydston, and Kellar got it through.)
Finally, Mayor McLean encouraged working with the state to have the TMDL for chloride raised "to a reasonable level." She got a second from Boydston, and she told the crowd, "I'm going to take you up on your offer, to work with us on this." The whole council voted for this motion, and the crowd was also supportive.
The meeting ended with McLean dismissing most people from making a public participation comment, as they had submitted cards to speak on a topic already covered earlier in the evening. This has become a newly enforced policy under McLean, and it's gotten less grumbles than I would have imagined. The meeting ended after 10.
"Show me the suffering"
For the invocation, Councilmember TimBen Boydston read a prayer by Cesar Chavez. He prayed, "Show me the suffering of the most miserable, So I will know my people's plight...Let the Spirit flourish and grow,/ So we will never tire of the struggle." Some of the more narcissistic in the audience may have imagined the golf course chloride well was the struggle of which he spoke, but Boydston explained that he had chosen to recite Chavez's prayer in light of the approaching commemorative holiday.
LA-RICS Riles
Public participation began with Elaine Ballace, who has come to loathe the City Council for its actions (or inactions) relating to mobile home park rents. Her mother lives at one such a park, and she doesn't think her golden years are looking very bright: "You want to kick her to the curb. Before you kick her to the curb, though, you're going to take every ounce of money she has, then kick her to the curb, call the cops and go, 'Well, she's homeless and she has no money.'" Ballace, whose speaking style is perhaps best described as loud, won applause from the audience. "There is to be no applause in the chambers," warned Mayor McLean in response. This was the first time--but far from the last--that Mayor McLean would demand the audience stop clapping so as not to disrupt the meeting.
Next, Teresa Curtis, a resident on the Pacific Crest neighborhood, brought a new issue to the attention of the council. She explained how Fire Station 108 is located on Rock Canyon Drive in the midst of their community. A new communications tower is being installed there as part of the Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System (LA-RICS) for public safety agencies. Curtis explained that they had no advance warning and no opportunity to comment on the project, which had already begun construction. She said this was concerning because the cell tower will emit radiation that she felt could endanger the health of residents. Several other speakers from the community followed, echoing her sentiments and calling for the City to step in and stop the tower from being built. One woman brought up her whole family while she spoke and said, "I'm coming from a communist country, Hungary, OK? And I'm in shock, I'm shocked, that this is happening in the United States." Fire Captain Lew(is) Currier spoke in his capacity as a union director. He said that out of health concerns for firefighters and residents, the LA-RICS tower should be studied carefully, especially if it will be used for co-location of other commercial communication structures.
Since the Station 108 tower was the main topic of public participation, Deputy City Manager Darren Hernandez came to the microphone to respond. He explained that because the fire stations are owned and run by LA County, the City of Santa Clarita cannot "opt out" of LA-RICS, which is what many communities with private fire/police forces have done. David Perry, a field deputy for LA County Supervisor Antonovich (I guess "Mayor Antonovich" now), explained that his office asked for construction on the tower to cease until public outreach takes place. He said they were "somewhat blindsided" by the fact that Motorola had begun construction already. A spokesperson from the company managing the project said it will be up to the LACO Board of Supervisors to determine if colocation of other communication towers will be prohibited; under present agreements it's technically allowed.
The City Council--particularly Boydston, Kellar, and McLean--was very receptive to the community's concerns about the project. Mayor McLean was already prepared to call for a new site to be found, but this sentiment was viewed as somewhat premature by Mayor Pro Tem Bob Kellar City Attorney Darren Hernandez. Still, the issue will be discussed at a future meeting, and a letter of concern will be sent to Antonovich's office.
Consent Given
Most of the consent calendar items concerned bookkeeping and general city services. Councilmember TimBen Boydston asked that a new program involving Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing not be used with single-family home developments. It's a program which lets energy-saving improvements be paid over time with property taxes. Boydston was also worried that money borrowed under this program is paid back preferentially before private mortgages, etc. (it's part of the property tax) and wanted to look out for the banks. He suggested that banks which have issued mortgages on a property must approve. City Attorney Montes told Boydston that the council could make its participation in the program contingent on bank agreement. It was a bit of a thorny issues, so Mayor McLean stepped in and said, "Perhaps we need some more work on it." Thus, Item 7 was continued, and the recommended actions for all of the other consent calendar items were approved.
A brief public hearing followed. The always succinct Erin Lay explained that a needs assessment had just been completed for the Community Development Block Grant Program. The council received the summary of the needs survey, but no further action was taken.
Mobile Park Owners Dismayed
Last week, mobile home park residents dominated the conversation about revisions to the City's mobile home park ordinance. They described constantly increasing rents, few park improvements, and frustration with the ordinance process. After their testimony, the council agreed to lower the standard annual rent adjustment floor from 3% to 2.6%. This rather modest change was met with dismay from mobile home park owners and managers.
One manager called the standard adjustment shift a "game changer". Most others agreed with him, saying it wouldn't allow them to keep up with costly improvements and maintenance. Mindy Johnson, manager of Parklane, said that talk of rent increases and the ordinance has been disrupting her community. She claimed people have been knocking on doors trying to win support with "false information and scare tactics." Johnson promised that, "We pride ourselves on having very strong resident relations...morning coffee is always available for residents to stop in and say 'hi'." Nancy Must, who manages two of the mobile home park communities with better resident-owner relations (at least based on public comments), said operating expenses have increased by an average of 4.3% per year. She commented, "Possibly there is no one size fits all...I hope that you'll go back and you'll discuss this."
In addition to speakers on behalf of management and owners, many renters were present in the audience. Most chose not to speak. In support of the residents, Doug Fraser did some math. He challenged the assertion that Parklane was facing financial difficulties. "He [the owner] has 400 spaces averaging $900 a space rent. That's $360,000 a month, times 12 months is $4,300,000 that he receives." He said Parklane is suffering from bad management, not low revenue.
Ray Henry and a couple of residents also spoke. However, the City Council did not, because City Manager Ken Striplin explained that new information regarding the ordinance would need to be reviewed. "The continuance is to a date uncertain," he said--definitely no earlier than April. A portion of meeting attendants left at this point, but most of the audience was there to talk about chloride wells, so the room stayed mostly full.
The Discussion Before the Discussion
Say what you will of Stanchers--they get their stuff together in a hurry. Maybe they're late to deep well injection and maybe they're very late to chlorides in general, but tonight's speakers were up to speed, had hired attorneys, and had very specific goals. However, the council wouldn't hear from them for quite a while, having to get their own stuff in order first.
Councilmember TimBen Boydston asked City Attorney Joe Montes whether there was any conflict in discussing deep wells when two of five councilmembers also sat on the sanitation district board. Montes said that, after conferring with the counsel from the sanitation district, he felt the matter could be legally discussed. The conversation was a bit longer and more convoluted, though. Some of the confusion resulted from previous conversations over whether it would have been proper to vote on chloride treatment preferences. Suffice it to say the conversation could be had by all members of the council, and it was.
Councilmember Laurene Weste was very eager to read a motion she had prepared in opposition of placing any wells on the west side of Santa Clarita. She read it several times, in fact. The motion got a second from Mayor Pro Tem Bob Kellar. Boydston thought they could do more. He said, "I think a more appropriate motion would be to move that the Santa Clarita City Council oppose the TMDL of 100 milligrams [of chloride] per liter for treated wastewater in the Santa Clarita Valley, oppose deep well injection of treated wastewater anywhere in the Santa Clarita Valley [cheers erupt from audience] and support the withdrawing of the S-DEIR for deep well injection from public circulation and suspend indefinitely the call for public comment of the said S-DEIR." Mayor Bob Kellar was quick to respond. "We have been fighting and fighting and fighting..." He said the sanitation district has been the greatest of allies to the Stanchers, and it was unrealistic to think that sweeping changes could be made. He warned the audience of the LA and State Water Boards, which are forcing the City's hand with the threat of massive fines. "I wish that you could have been in the room in some of the meetings that we have had...and they've backed up what they have threatened."
Councilmember Acosta said he felt that discussing the EIR was "opening a can of worms." He felt it was very much a conversation to be had by the sanitation board, not the council.
Eventually, Mayor McLean spoke. "I would like to add to the motion...I truly believe that we need to pursue with the state to have the limit raised to a reasonable level which will completely do away with having to put anything anywhere." Applause followed, and she added that she'd like the state to put a moratorium on fines until matters were resolved. Of her motion, she asked, "Do we wish to hear the speakers first before we vote?" Before that could happen, there was more discussion.
"Sounds like you're agreeing with TimBen," said Councilmember Acosta to McLean. She wasn't ready to accept this, saying, "Well not quite...the motion that Councilman Boydston made was way stronger." The mayor argued that her motion wasn't suggesting that Santa Clarita would ignore state mandates, but rather that it would try to work with the state to come up with new, more reasonable chloride limits. Councilmember West began pushing her motion again, promising that a new site wouldn't be on the west side of the SCV or in any populated areas, attempting to play to the crowd. "It's not going to be this area!" she promised. Mayor McLean suggested the motion be revised to state that no wells would go by any homes. Boydston asked how far away from homes she would propose the wells be. "Oh come on!" replied a tiring McLean.
"Are we going to listen to the speakers before we vote?" asked Boydston, in an attempt to move the conversation forward.. The audience applauded. Mayor McLean said, "Would you like to have a vote on your motion and then discuss my motion? [Montes came to the microphone, shaking his head to indicate this wasn't the right procedure.] No? Not first--can't do that? Nevermind." Thus, the public finally got a chance to speak--after an intermission.
Stanch Speaks
Comments began with John Yoon. He spoke with a great deal of feeling, and his arm motions were equally demonstrative, though not quite synchronized with his spoken points. He got to the main argument of the Stanchers--that deep well injection "does not belong under any neighborhood!"--very quickly. He advocated for a pipeline to the ocean for disposal instead, or using trucks to carry ultra-concentrated chloride brine to a disposal location. The audience was amused by and supportive of the colorful speaker.
Kim Sloane said, "I'm encouraged by what I've been hearing." But she was a bit troubled to have received a flyer that was attempting to clear up deep well injection misconceptions. She pointed out that the fears refuted on the sheet--injection causes earthquakes, it's fracking, etc...--were not real misconceptions harbored by residents. They merely stated that deep well injection could increase the probability of earthquakes. It was a risk factor, not a sure thing.
Allen Meachem spoke for Boston Scientific, which has hundreds of employees in Santa Clarita. He said the project made it harder to attract workers to the valley. He wanted them to consider different methods, not just different well sites. He said Princess Cruises had also submitted a letter on the record in favor of other disposal methods that would be better for their employees' safety/peace of mind. Boston Scientific's attorney, Peter Gutierrez of Latham & Watkins, spoke after. He pointed out problems with the EIR. And he wasn't the only outside attorney/expert brought in on the issue. In short, the Stanchers had done a lot to show they would fight deep wells not just on their side of town, but in the whole community.
Al Ferdman made a financial case for the feasibility and cost effectiveness of building a brine line to the ocean. The audience got very excited as he made his points, noting that with grants, savings elsewhere, and other considerations, building a pipeline was mere percentage points more expensive than drilling deep wells. I didn't get all the numbers he dropped, but it sounded persuasive on the surface, and the audience was certainly on board with paying a little more for a pipeline instead of wells.
Many other speakers came forward, suggesting that earthquakes could be triggered far away from injection sites, worrying about migration of brine up through abandoned oil fields, and even stating that the golf course would be rendered less desirable. A big financial point was that the mere perception of more danger from deep well injection could diminish home values--several repeated the idea that perception trumped scientific studies when trying to market a property. The second big financial point was that earthquake insurers wouldn't cover quakes triggered by non-tectonic processes. This was very worrisome to homeowners, who weren't convinced the wells would be seismically neutral.
Lynne Plambeck was perhaps the sole voice not entirely in agreement with everyone else. She said pollution limits exist for a reason. Even if chloride levels are low in Santa Clarita compared to other watersheds, the underlying Clean Water Act is absolutely essential to protecting the public and the environment. She was trying to challenge people who spoke dismissively of meeting TMDL mandates and who wanted to challenge compliance with water laws.
Motions, motions, motions
The City Council discussed the matter for a considerable amount of time once speakers had finished. There was a great deal of confusion over what the motions were, which motions could be made without overstepping boundaries, and so on. There was even more confusion about the proper language for stating that an EIR would be effectively killed--is withdrawing the same as suspending?Mayor McLean asked City Attorney Montes for advice on a few occasions, and at one point he replied, "You're running the meeting..." to reinforce the obvious: the council gets to decide how it feels about the deep well site. At one point, he told the exasperated mayor, "You can vote yes, you can vote no, or you can abstain." Were he not working at the pleasure of the council, I think Joe Montes could have gotten even sassier.
The City Council first decided to support the position of no deep well injection for chloride disposal in the Stevenson Ranch area. Everyone agreed on this, and Stanchers applauded the unanimous vote.
Boydston made some individual motions next. He motioned that no deep wells be considered for anywhere in the Santa Clarita Valley. Councilmember Dante Acosta was somewhat reluctant to interfere with the sanitation board, but he said that since they were just making statements/recommendations for the board, he seconded Boydston's motion. Before the vote, Kellar angered some Stanchers. He said, "Folks, honestly, we've accomplished everything that you were hoping to accomplish. We genuinely have... I don't want to take something off the table that we might be regretting." The Stanchers forming the bulk of the crowd bristled at this, as they had very cogently communicated their wish for no wells anywhere in Santa Clarita--in line with Boydston's motion. It was plain to see they had not "accomplished everything."
On the vote, Boydston and Acosta voted for no deep wells anywhere, Kellar and Weste voted to leave that option open, and McLean abstained. City Attorney Joe Montes explained that her abstention would be considered a vote in favor of the motion per council rules. McLean quickly shouted, "No!" at this. She clarified it wasn't because she was in favor of deep wells, but because she thought it was improper to discuss at council rather than the sanitation board.
Deep into another discussion about the EIR and opposition to chloride mandates, Mayor Pro Tem Bob Kellar was starting to get frustrated. He saw the threat of fines as very real, and he had little patience for any more discussion of alternatives or movements he regarded as unlikely to succeed and very likely to result in more fines. When he concluded his speech, Councilmember Boydston said he had another motion to make--for a longer comment period on the EIR, if it's not withdrawn. At this, Kellar asked, defeatedly, "City Manager, can we order breakfast?" It was decided that the EIR would be cancelled and, in the unlikely event it wasn't, the comment period would be extended. (Weste and Kellar voted no, but Acosta, Boydston, and Kellar got it through.)
Finally, Mayor McLean encouraged working with the state to have the TMDL for chloride raised "to a reasonable level." She got a second from Boydston, and she told the crowd, "I'm going to take you up on your offer, to work with us on this." The whole council voted for this motion, and the crowd was also supportive.
The meeting ended with McLean dismissing most people from making a public participation comment, as they had submitted cards to speak on a topic already covered earlier in the evening. This has become a newly enforced policy under McLean, and it's gotten less grumbles than I would have imagined. The meeting ended after 10.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
