To tree, or not to tree: That remains the question

After an uneventful opening, tonight's city council meeting[1] became wholly focused on the decision of whether to allow a faux-tree cell tower to be installed next to a water tower in north Valencia. Despite hours of testimony and debate, the council decided to continue this public hearing to a date uncertain. However, they made it clear that it is their intention to deny the project unless a much more compelling case establishing need for the tree-disguised cell tower ("monoeucalyptus") can be made. It was a polarizing issue: those who lived in the effected neighborhoods cared deeply, and those who lived elsewhere cared not a whit. Indeed, unless you're passionate about contemplating the place of artificial eucalyptus in the Claritan landscape, this meeting definitely fell into the category of can-miss.

Front Matter

Councilmember TimBen Boydston delivered tonight's invocation. He recalled the Memorial Day ceremony he attended on Monday, and he read from a Memorial Day prayer, ending with his usual entreaty that God bless Santa Clarita. The flag salute came next, and the cub scout troop which led it was applauded for doing so--is this something we do now?

The scouts didn't get to sit down for long, as they were soon called forward to be recognized for building some nesting boxes for Barn Owls[2]. Then recognitions moved from owls to tumors as Mayor Weste declared June 1 to be Cancer Survivors Day, acknowledge the American Cancer Society's recent Relay for Life effort and several local groups fighting cancer in the SCV.

A meeting without Public Participation is scarcely a meeting at all; luckily, the regulars were around to provide comments. Alan Ferdman encouraged all residents to submit their Proposition 218 protest letter against hikes in sanitation bills to cover chloride cleanup costs. He said that the City had not made an effort to adequately inform citizens and that the protest procedures were not as straightforward as they could be. Cam Noltemeyer echoed his sentiments, and she challenged Councilmember Dante Acosta to oppose the sanitation rate increase on the grounds of his campaign statement that he "fought the chloride tax scam." The most interesting comments of the night, however, came from Saugus journalism student Sarah Farnell. She said teens are unconstitutionally subject to and targeted for violating curfew laws. She said the ACLU has been involved in many cases regarding teen curfew laws and said that they have no place in Santa Clarita.

After public comments, City Manager Ken Striplin responded. He said the Prop. 218 process is dictated by state law, so there's little different they could do.  He said the curfew law, in place since 1997, was intended to protect youth, and both he and City Attorney Joe Montes said that they didn't have knowledge that nighttime curfew enforcement was unconstitutional. To be more precise, Montes said he didn't really know the exact answer as to whether it was unconstitutional as he hasn't reviewed current cases in that area, but he suspected there might be differences between allowing daytime and nighttime curfew enforcement.

Following this foray into the realm of citizen concerns, Councilmember updates were the usual mix of events, reminders, and reports. However, Councilmember Dante Acosta got personal during his comments, remembering his son, Rudy, who died while in the armed services. He said this has forever changed the meaning of Memorial Day for his family. Everything else seemed trite by comparison. For example, Mayor Pro Tem Marsha McLean and Councilmember Bob Kellar spent a while arguing about the appropriateness of viewing plans for proposed projects ( a hotel in the case of tonight's argument, if I remember correctly). McLean said it's their job to keep an eye on aesthetics in Santa Clarita to make sure things meet "a certain standard." Kellar told her she was asking to review the building project at a stage where councilmembers normally don't, and she was heading down a slippery slope of micro-managing development in the SCV. Their standoff was, perhaps, a bit more tense than it might have been because of the shaky place they left their relationship last week, when Kellar voted to give Danta Acosta the SCAG appointment long-held and deeply valued by Marsha McLean.

Consent Calendar

There wasn't much on the Consent Calendar. There was a contract for janitorial supplies, a final adoption of the revisions to the Old Town Newhall Specific Plan discussed at the last meeting, and the usual housekeeping items. All items passed with the recommended actions and without discussion.

Mixed Signals

For the better part of a year, AT&T has been trying to get clearance to build a cell tower (disguised as a eucalyptus tree, a "monoeucalyptus" in their jargon) in North Valencia--we're talking Decoro/Helmers/that-general-area. And during that same period, residents have been talking about what an unsightly monstrosity the cell tower will be. The Santa Clarita Planning Commission has given AT&T the OK twice--once after the initial application process, and once after a nearby resident appealed the approval. Tonight was the City Council's chance to weigh in on the Planning Commission's decision to deny the resident's appeal, thereby letting the tower be built.

Discussion of this item dragged on for hours, and many more hours of discussion lie ahead in future meeting(s), so I'll stick to a few of the highlights.

Representatives from AT&T were in the odd position of having to argue they weren't giving customers sufficient coverage and that they needed to install a new cell tower to fill a significant service gap. The faux eucalyptus tree cell tower would be placed next to an existing 50' water tower and a stand of real trees, so they claimed it would be relatively unobtrusive, and the placement on a hill would allow them to provide coverage over a considerable area. The crux of the presentation seemed to be that there were up to 16 potential sites, but this site was vastly better than the other options for a number of reasons.

The appellant spoke next. The main argument against approval of the cell tower was that it would diminish property values. Monoeucalyptuses are ugly, plain and simple: "Plastic trees do not have a place in Santa Clarita's residential landscape." There were also suggestions that AT&T hadn't really contacted the owners of all of the other potential cell tower location sites, that service in the area was already adequate, and that AT&T's narrative and statements had changed throughout the approval process. There was an entertaining (in a way) video of a woman making calls throughout the alleged service gap region. She could make and receive calls without any issues, it seemed. Once the appellant's time was up, Councilmember Bob Kellar asked "What's the benefit to AT&T misleading [the City of Santa Clarita]?" It was a valid question--why do anything but build the most efficient infrastructure?--and there was no real answer. In any case, thunderous applause followed the presentation.

Public comments were overwhelmingly against the cell tower. People were upset that AT&T had so frequently changed its story; a little kid named Nathan said that lying's wrong and the company shouldn't be rewarded. Others worried that one tower might make it easier for more towers to be installed in the area. More than one person mentioned fears of radiation from the towers, though the City couldn't legally reject a tower installation on those grounds, according to the City Attorney Montes. One woman claimed that AT&T told residents that they'd simply find a new spot for a tower if this site didn't work out, so rejection of the proposal wasn't a huge loss for the company. Another said she'd rather have owl boxes than cell towers, and everyone laughed (Mayor Weste said "That was a good one!")--except for the box-building cub scouts, who had wisely left the room by this hour.
A very few did speak in favor of the tower, noting that their phone and data service could be less than optimal in the area. After all of the comments, the public hearing was finally closed, and the council began deliberation.

The City Attorney suggested that the city council weigh the proposal's compliance with local ordinances as their first step in approving/rejecting the appeal. He said considerations about federal laws would be the next step. This was the start of many long, confusing conversations between attorney and council. The main causes for confusion: (1)Ability to reject project without violating local/federal laws that afford telecommunications companies certain rights and protections, (2)Whether there was/wasn't a significant service gap, and how to legally handle conflicting information to this effect, and (3)What the council could legally do that evening, since it couldn't deny the application outright.

While everyone spoke a fair bit, Councilmember Acosta was notably vociferous. This was his first demonstration of really delving into an issue, asking questions, and providing direction. His style was, at times, ambivalent. He recognized the need for and value of better service, but his ears had been sympathetic to the residents' pleas. He got most worked up over AT&T's inability to answer a simple question about who they spoke to at a proposed alternative tower site. It was truly sloppy on the applicants' part to not have all of these details available, especially since they hinged their case on all alternative sites being unsuitable or unwilling to accommodate the towers. Things were made worse when Acosta talked about the distinctions between AT&T and Crown Castle, a major corporation which builds and operates cell tower infrastructure, asking how the project was framed when presented to owners of the alternative sites. (I'm just referring to the applicant as AT&T to keep things simple, but note that it is a more complex case of ownership/operation). Acosta would also mention his doubts that noise studies during summer are valid (AC units may raise ambient noise levels such that the noise from a tower wouldn't be as notable as it would be during AC-free winters). He spoke so much that Councilmember TimBen Boydston said, jokingly, "You spent quite a bit of time on that, and that can be troublesome for you here," hinting at how Councilmember Bob Kellar has often criticized Boydston for speaking too much.

McLean said that conflicting information on the coverage gap, conflicting information on the availability and suitability of alternative sites, aesthetic concerns, and noise concerns meant she would be unable to make a decision that night. Kellar actually spoke directly to the applicant, telling them the item would be continued and asking they get their facts straight for the next meeting (Kellar was sympathetic to the need for the tower, and said it was worth the likely small impact it would have on the community; he quite correctly pointed out that there was a giant water tower on top of the hill anyways, so a cell tower wouldn't be besmirching an otherwise pristine view). Everyone seemed to know that this hearing was going to be continued to another meeting, but it took a while to get this foregone conclusion to a vote.

The motion slowly took shape. The public hearing would be re-opened, there would be time for the applicant to address questions and present more information, and staff would prepare a recommendation should the council wish to vote for denial of the project. This wasn't available at the current meeting, so those who wished to deny it outright could not. Everyone but Kellar voted in favor of the motion. What does this mean for AT&T? They have to have everything in order by next meeting or they'll have to start from scratch. And given the tone of Acosta, Boydston, and McLean, I think there are three councilmembers more than willing to have their votes back up the threat. The meeting ended shortly after 11.

[1]May I offer you the agenda?
[2]According to Mayor Laurene Weste, Barn Owls and Great Horned Owls are the two species of owls living in Santa Clarita. I believe the Spotted, Northern Saw-whet, Western Screech-, Northern Pygmy-, Short-eared, Long-eared, and possibly Flammulated and Burrowing Owls that hang out in Santa Clarita would beg to differ.

McLeaning House; or, the Night of the Great Disrespecting

The Santa Clarita City Council spent most of tonight dithering about the micromanagement of Old Town Newhall. But the dreary bulk of the meeting rendered the finale incandescent by comparison. It started when Dante Acosta expressed an interest in representing Santa Clarita on SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments). After Mayor Pro Tem Marsha McLean scolded Acosta for wanting too much too soon, clashed with Councilmember Bob Kellar about her irreplaceability on SCAG, and said any attempt to replace her on SCAG would show utter disrespect, they went ahead and replaced her. By the vote of her fellow councilmembers, Marsha lost this, one of her ten appointments, so that Dante could have three. She took the shake-up very personally and is unlikely to forget the affront any time soon. It's probably much too early to say for certain, but instead of 4-1 (everyone vs. Boydston), it's looking a bit like 2-2-1 (good ol' boys Kellar and Acosta, grand dames McLean and Weste, and black sheep Boydston).

Inspiration, Retirement, Blockers
 
Marsha McLean delivered tonight's invocation. "I found something that was very inspiring to me," she said, speaking about a women's building event to help Habitat for Humanity build homes for local veterans. After the flag salute, there was a nice tribute to Luz Medina, who is leaving after having taught Santa Clarita's Ballet Folklorico since 1994. Medina called her departure "bittersweet" but said a very capable former student will be taking over.

Public Participation followed. Cam Noltemeyer encouraged taxpayers to protest the proposed increases in sanitation taxes that will cover chloride treatment (Bob Kellar would respond, saying the City doesn't have much other choice). One local man asked the City Council to pass an ordinance to allow homeowners to install water-saving synthetic turf, even if their HOA forbirds it (City Attorney Joe Montes would respond, saying state law can trump HOA codes, but city ordinances cannot). Patti Sulpizio came up to speak about collecting 18,000 signatures for the electronic billboard referendum. But she did not choose to gloat, instead asking that councilmembers "put egos and alliances aside" to deal with the issue of petition blocking. She was quite passionate as she spoke about the blockers hired to disrupt efforts to collect signatures; it was a ploy, apparently, to ensure Allvision's advertising revenue by smothering efforts to challenge the billboards. She mentioned that an official from Metro said he was disgusted by the blocking tactics. Michael Oliveri would speak on this same topic, and his words for the City Council were less let's-come-together-on-this, more you-guys-messed-up-big-time. He said of their inaction to blocking, "When things got violent most of you [i.e., everyone but Boydston] sat home like the cowards you are." He even said that local resident and Allvision lobbyist Arthur Sohikian passed his group, saying angrily "How dare you screw up this deal!" Oliveri claimed Sohikian said he had been working on it for years, and asked if there had been improper behind-the-scenes discussions between Sohikian and certain councilmembers. As for these comments, literally no councilmember but TimBen Boydston would respond; City Manager Ken Striplin did, however, say there had been no improper collaboration involving Sohikian and that the proper blocking investigations were taking place. After these investigations, the City Council will have its only remaining chance to say that it's not so keen on doing business with a company that trucks in and pays petition blockers to block the apparent will of local residents.

After public comments, the members of council went around to share updates. Notably, Councilmember Acosta spoke about a recent charity golf event wherein his performance left much to be desired. He and Councilmember Kellar shared a good chuckle about how many golf balls he lost. Both men speak more readily when it comes to positive topics than, say, thorny issues like petition blocking.

Consent Calendar

The Consent Calendar passed without much discussion or comment. Lynne Plambeck did come forward to speak on Item 7, which was approval for submitting a grant application to enhance the wildlife corridor in the southern SCV. Plambeck thought it "schizophrenic" to seek such a grant for an area in which the City Council recently approved installation of a large electronic billboard (Elsmere Canyon) and OKed the cutting down of oaks (Gates-King). A more pragmatic critique was her observation that the grant application hadn't been made available for review.

This and the other items on the Consent Calendar--library trustees (re)appointed; commission and panel vacancies identified; road work; and submission of community development block grant 5-year plans--were approved unanimously.

Old Town Newhall

Under the heading of Public Hearings, there was an item to alter the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan. It seemed like a lot of window-dressing: some slight changes in zoning, often to correct previous mistakes or oversights; allowing for bed and breakfasts to be built in certain areas (lolz, right?); altering civic designations, which don't mean much to begin with. But this item consumed the City Council for quite some time. Some Newhall residents expressed considerable concerns that their neighbors' homes might be lost to more profitable ventures with zoning changes. The Assistance League was out in force, expressing support for changes to protect their resale operation and their ability to expand or move in Newhall.

Mayor Weste had to recuse herself from the discussion for living too near the area. This happens rather a lot, which allows Weste to avoid many contentious debates and, further, shows Santa Clarita remains acutely focused on a very small bit of Claritan real estate, addressing matters facing Old Town Newhall over and over again. This left Marsha McLean and TimBen Boydston to carry out most of the discussion. There was a lot of talk about the particulars of zoning, and whether conditional permitting could allow the City Coincil to essentially micromanage which types of business come into Newhall (they can't really, clarified City Attorney Montes). Frankly, it was boring, and it resulted in few changes to the original language. Ultimately, City Manager Ken Striplin ran through a list of what the City Council would be approving, and it consisted of updating and tightening up language (e.g., references to San Fernando Road updated), changes to zoning, OKing of B&Bing, more public parking designations, and sending a letter to concerned homeowners that they would continue to live in an area zoned residential. There was unanimous support.

McLeaning House
The City's committee appointment list for councilmembers was the last item up for discussion. Councilmember Dante Acosta pointed out that he was only a member of two of these committees--though he was an alternate on several more--and wanted to be more involved. Councilmember TimBen Boydston actually did the counting, and he found that of 37 positions, Marsha McLean held 10. If divided equitably, each would hold only 7 or 8. (Some of this is clearly a legacy of form Councilmember Frank Ferry's enthusiasm for avoiding committee work--McLean was all too happy to pick up the slack).

Acosta suggested some appointments he wished to take on including SCAG, the Southern California Alliance of Governments. McLean has been quite active in this appointment, and she would not give it up without a fight. Her tactics were many, varied, and, at times, ferocious. She offered him some of the crappier appointments she had, like education. She mentioned that freshman councilmembers could take some time to learn the ropes and respect the senior members before taking such prestigious appointments. Weste even helped her a bit, speaking for Acosta ("I think he feels fine") when Boydston suggested Acosta might not feel as though he were getting his fair share. But Boydston and Kellar, rarely on the same page, both pushed to let Acosta have a turn. Boydston savored a delicate reminder that things don't always go people's way when it comes to committees and commissions, hinting at McLean's rejection of his commission appointees in the past. What was far more surprising was Bob Kellar telling McLean she had too many big appointments and needed to share some. This conflicted with McLean's own self-affirming thesis that she needed to be on all of them because all of them were relevant to one another.

As it became evident that McLean was going to get booted from SCAG, she made a last-ditch play to say appointing Acosta in her place would make her feel "100% disrespected." She would say it again: "I am being disrespected!" Of course, McLean is too confrontational to make a very convincing victim. Ultimately, she lost so that Acosta might gain, and she can take some comfort in the fact that she still has more than twice as many appointments as he does. After the updating, Lynne Plambeck made a comment about suspicions of unlawful grading and filling of the floodplain by a landowner in the Elsmere Canyon area, and at this point, the feed cut out, but I am told little else happened.

[1]Here be the agenda.

2014 Election in a Nutshell

There were many firsts and lasts, highs and lows in 2014's council election. But the most important record is a disappointing one, as we saw the lowest voter turnout ever recorded in a Santa Clarita City Council election. The figure below depicts the rather troubling proportions. You might summarize it thus: Laurene Weste was able to finish in first place because about 1 in 20 eligible voters decided to give her a vote.

The Woman's World that is SCV Politics

It’s election day, and in the grand tradition of making predictions that others will grumble about, I’m going to guess the top 4 finishers in order: Marsha McLean, Laurene Weste, Gloria Mercado-Fortine, Maria Gutzeit. Hardly a bold prediction, I know, but it’s based on more than just my gut: it’s the result of a model built from past election results. The data clearly show that the strongest predictors for success in council races are incumbency, funds raised, and sex. The power of incumbency and fundraising are obvious, but you may not know that women routinely fare better with the Claritan voter.

 

Female candidates averaged more votes than male candidates in 9 out of 11 elections.  2004 was excluded from this chart because no women ran that year.

 

Of the 30 worst election performances, only one was a woman. If you divide the number of votes which a candidate received by the total number of voters (i.e., share of vote), many have failed miserably. But nearly all of these failures have been male.

 

In terms of total number of “term years” on City Council, women have served 50.7% of them. Half seems right, but consider that only 35 women have run for council compared with 90 men. In other words, women run at just one-third the rate that men do, but they have served on council just as often as men have.[2]

 

Of course, weird things still happen. Mayor Laurie Ender was unseated in 2012, when two X chromosomes proved little defense against TimBen Boydston. And it's Cameron Smyth, not a woman, who is the all-time most successful candidate in Santa Clarita election history. But those events were exceptional. If the results of tonight's election are of the routine sort, then the guys who are running have their work cut out for them.

 

 

 

[1]You can find past election results here: http://votesantaclarita.com/past-election-results/

[2]SCVHistory has a helpful page documenting changeover on the City Council. http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory/citycouncilmembers.htm

Everyone's Favorite Wildflower: Claspingleaf Wild Cabbage

It’s hard to walk more than a few feet into the wilds of Santa Clarita without stumbling across something special, especially at this time of year. After church this morning, I went to Elsmere Canyon to enjoy the spring show. I parked near the Elsmere Canyon Open Space sign off of Sierra Highway/Remsen Street. It's pleasantly isolated: just you, nature, the familiar roar of the 14, and a vague sense of dread over the electronic billboards that will soon be shining 50-feet overhead.

 

Among the more conspicuous wildflowers today were: (first-row) California Buckwheat, Prickly Phlox, Thick-leaved Yerba Santa; (second-row) Sticky Monkeyflower, California Suncup, Yellow Pincushion; (third-row) Coulter’s Lupine, Tansyleaf Phacelia, and Blue Witch. All of these plants are flowering within a half-mile of one another. Some grow in the sandy wash, some on the gravelly slopes, others in moister, oak-shaded margins. Our varied topography creates many unique niches, each exploited by different wildflowers.

 

 

Yeah, some are fuzzy--that's what you get for taking photos on a phone. Consider the unsatisfying clarity to be good incentive to go look at them for yourself; they're prettier that way.

 

The plant I was most excited to find, however, is called Claspingleaf Wild Cabbage (Caulanthus amplexicaulis var. amplexicaulis). It’s the first time I’ve ever seen it in the wild. Despite belonging to the genus Caulanthus, enticingly known as the jewelflowers, it’s very easy to miss. It grows on lean rocky slopes, its flowers are only about a quarter-inch across, and its leaves rise just a few inches above the ground.

 

 

So what’s special about it? It’s one of the oddly wonderful species (just look at the bizarre clasping leaves and the bulbous, deep maroon flower) found here and virtually nowhere else on earth. The entire population of this plant is confined to the Transverse Ranges of Southern California. We miss the little things like this far too often. For while the vegetation on our hills is viewed by firemen as fuel and by developers as brush, if you look closely enough, you’ll see that it’s really an amazing collection of plants.  The few Claspingleaf Wild Cabbages I saw blooming today will be dead in months; they're annuals. With any luck, however, they’ll have dropped their seeds, and after some nourishing rainfall, more Caulanthus will sprout and bloom next spring.

Happenings: E-Billboards Approved Despite Overwhelming Public Opposition

Note: To the earliest of readers, note that this was edited and bulked up with additional details earlier this morning.

Tonight's meeting was an odd one because I attended in person.[1] I saw Gail Morgan and Ken Striplin peeking timidly through the glass doors of City Hall to glimpse the anti-billboard protest before the meeting. I sat within spitting distance (not that I would, of course) of many city council hopefuls, observing their meeting-watching tics.[2] I even got to shake hands with one Steven Petzold, legendary local punctuation activist, during a casual introduction. But the most lasting impression was something rather bleaker: a sense of the profound disconnect between the sentiments in the cheap seats and the actions of those at the dais. Indeed, despite a protest, a petition drive, dozens of public comments, and an exhaustive effort by Councilmember TimBen Boydston, the vocal public's will was ignored, and the ordinance to swap existing billboards for digital billboards was approved 3-1.

The single most asked question of the evening--what's the rush?--never received a response from the 3 councilmembers voting in favor. Instead, they justified their decision by claiming that those against digital billboards were misinformed and that a silent majority was likely in favor of the deal. It may sound like I'm painting with broad strokes, but they're only as broad as the generalizations tossed out by members of the council. Apart from final approval of the billboard contract, this was also a night where we said goodbye to Frank Ferry, a night that saw a significant change in red light camera policies, and a night that moved council elections from April to November of even-numbered years. With so many substantive topics, speakers, and discussions, the meeting stretched on until 12:40.

Later, Frank

After a thorough thanking of the folks and organizations involved in the Every 15 Minutes program, it was time to say farewell (or good riddance, as some whispered) to 16-year Councilmember Frank Ferry.  There wasn't as much spectacle as I would have anticipated. It was mostly just Frank nodding a lot as people heaped praise upon him for what he had done for the community's youth. Indeed, Mayor Laurene Weste cited youth advocacy and transportation advocacy as Ferry's major achievements while on council. CLWA, COC, William S. Hart and Saugus School Districts, representatives of George Runner and Fran Pavley and Mike Antonovich, and several others lauded Ferry's career in public service.

Councilmember TimBen Boydston was generous and sincere (apparently) in his comments to Ferry, thanking him for building programs that serve local teens so well. Boydston noted his own daughter was now entering the "age of danger" and might well benefit from these programs. Mayor Pro Tem Weste said, "Frank, Frank, Frank," which Frank immediately responded to with the amusing "Marsha, Marsha, Marsha!" She thanked him for speaking frankly--though she didn't use that most appropriate adverb--and said that he said the things others thought but dare not say themselves. Councilmember Kellar called it an honor to have worked with Ferry. Mayor Weste said "I don't think too many people have Frank's sense of humor," which she cited as the reason for his success with educating youth.

When it was Ferry's turn to speak, he recalled having a passion for governing since his elementary school days. He recalled working tirelessly during his early bids to be elected to the city council, scribbling down voter names from city records in pencil for hour after hour. That hunger, which regular viewers will regard as long gone, was somewhat reawakened during tonight's meeting. Vacillating between pride and humility, he cited some of his prouder accomplishments while also freely admitting, "I don't know how to run a city." He remembered conversations with Buck McKeon about how serving on city council is one of the hardest government jobs, because you have to interact with friends and neighbors even after unpopular votes--there's no isolation like that encountered in Sacramento or D.C. He closed by framing his decision to re-invent himself around the mid-century mark in a positive light: he is looking forward to marrying his fiance in June, and he said that his near-death hospitalization in 2010 let him realize what was truly important in life. Applause followed. People in the audience wondered aloud whether the thunderous applause was for the man and his career or the man and his departure. The answer, obviously, was both.

Public Participation

Former Mayor Carl Boyer was the first public speaker, and he succinctly advocated for exploration of countyhood as a means of keeping the governance of the SCV local. Cam Noltemeyer asked why there was no campaign number on a mailer published and mailed on behalf of Marsha McLean. Glo Donnelly mumbled in her usual, semi-coherent way about being sad to see Frank Ferry leave. Sandra Bull asked why some small portion of $80M in unrestricted funds couldn't be used to shore up things at the Senior Center, which she contended is sadly neglected. Ray Henry spoke out about mobile home park issues, per usual. Lynne Plambeck worried about oaks being improperly trimmed, which risked the health of the tress. And Dennis Conn jumped from topic to topic in his usual, extremely erratic (but, at moments, glimmering with the promise of genius) style.

Consent Calendar

The Consent Calendar had a number of items that might have received more discussion on a less packed night. An item presenting the high-speed rail draft financial plan for 2014 was briefly examined, but so much is so tenuous that it's hard to say what it all ultimately means for the people of Santa Clarita. The Senior Center received almost $30,000 to meet a budget shortfall that would have prevented them from delivering meals to seniors in need. Alan Ferdman and others said that even more needed to be done, noting that "seniors eat on weekends too" in light of the lack of weekend meals. During a response from City Manager Ken Striplin, the audience was reminded that the City spends some $600-$700K per year in support of the center, and the possibility of a new (or additional) facility near the cross-valley connector was mentioned. An item addressing the regional water management plan was met with skepticism by speaker Cam Noltemeyer, who said she was aware of many (or the threat of many) deleterious substances in our water supply. Councilmember TimBen Boydston also had some questions about the water supply item, but since it was more of a summary than a legally-binding future plan, he didn't pursue it for too long. Ultimately, the City Council approved the consent calendar with the recommended actions on all items.

Billboards: The Public Speaks

The big item tonight, of course, was billboards. Council had its second reading and considered formal adoption of the ordinance removing dozens of conventional billboards in exchange for erecting three large digital billboards along our freeways. The profits are split amongst LA Metro, the City of Santa Clarita, and Allvision. As you'll recall, everyone except TimBen Boydston was in favor of the deal at previous meetings, so the hopes of digital billboard opponents weren't particularly high going in. The strategy seemed to be asking for a continuation.

There were nearly 30 public speakers, and with few exceptions, they were against the electronic billboards swap.  Gloria Mercado-Fortine delivered a thorough, logical explanation of her opposition to passing the deal tonight. As one of the more polished public speakers (whether you like her or not, she can certianly orate) she was particularly effective, asking "What's the rush?" repeatedly. This question became the common refrain heard throughout the evening. And when it was revealed that the County wouldn't even review the contract until late April, the answer was apparent (i.e., there was no need to rush at all). Mary Smith gave a dramatic reading of a narrative about how startling and out of place electronic billboards can look, disrupting views and changing the atmosphere of whole communities. Tony Newhall wondered why there had been so many clandestine meetings and no public forum on the topic. He also noted that a 50-year contract is a very long time indeed. ("Why 50 years?" was the night's other common refrain). As he terrifyingly phrased it, that contract duration was like 3 back-to-back Ferry council careers. Stephen Daniels condemned the council, asking them to prove their confidence in public support for the contract by waiting until after the election to see if pro- or anti-billboard deal candidates would be elected. Reena Newhall and a local attorney both spoke about major concerns over the City's supposed indemification in lawsuits over accidents caused by the billboards; it wasn't the airtight protection many hoped for. Michael Oliveri asked why the public had to so stringently follow norms and procedures when the City apprently did not, noting a violation of the rule to stop new business and adjourn at a certain hour of the evening. Alan Ferdman wondered if people could trust the SC City Council that they would keep land preserved as open space when they promised to do so. He was addressing the fact that an area that was zoned as open space would have to be re-zoned to allow for a billboard to be erected. 

There were many, many additional comments, but two really stand out. Mid-way through, Cam Noltemeyer came up and asked Frank Ferry very purposefully, "Do you meet the legal definition of residency, yes or no?" Ferry would not reply in what has become his typically evasive style. He makes it seem as if he's not answering to goad the combative Noltemeyer, but one wonders why he doesn't simply affirm that he lives in Santa Clarita. Cam repeated the question later in the evening, but this first query provoked the most audible gasps from the audience, so bold and unflinching was it in its directness. The other memorable speaker was Larry McClements, who wore a shirt with a ridiculous image of Frank Ferry as "Mayor Dude" (his skateboarding, youth-directed persona from a few years ago) below the text: "Normal???" (This was a reference to the last meeting, where Ferry said normal people don't attend council meetings and would be in favor of the billboard deal).  McClements' comments exceeded his shirt in hilarity. He noted that Arthur Sohikian, who has been hired as a lobbyist for Allvision, threw Marsha McLean and Laurene Weste a fundraiser just days after the first yes-vote for the billboard deal from which Allvision will reap many tens of millions of dollars. He said this had made him realize that billboard opponents needed a new strategy--passing a hat around until they collected enough cash to throw a McLean fundraiser of their own. Of course, it was a lot funnier when he said it than now, when I'm rather clumsily paraphrasing it. It tickled the audience with the right amount of brashness, humor, and condemnation. Despite the edgy comments, Ferry left the dais to take a selfie with McClements and the MayorDude shirt. 

Some speakers liked the billboards--most came off as angry or slightly spacey. Richard Green said people had it all wrong and electronic billboards were much better than the conventional ones, and he ruefully recalled earlier tangles with the City's sign ordinances. Glo Donnelly rambled on about how her husband had pushed for cityhood (a very pertinent fact in this discussion) and that people only show up if discontent. A man whose name I did not catch gushed about the wonderful service of the council and said electronic billboards were amazing, recounting a story of watching one change again and again and again right before his very eyes, a childlike sense of wonder in his voice. Berta Gonzalez-Harper was the most capable speaker, but so complete was her preference for the digital billboards that she sounded like a hired lobbyist for Allvision. She also played up intra-city rivalries, somewhat, noting that she lives in Canyon Country and doesn't deserve to be stuck with the blight of billboards that other parts of town don't have to endure.

But ultimately, it was clear from public participation that the idea was unpopular overall.

TimBen's Last Stand

TimBen responded for in excess of an hour. He started off strong. One of his clearest arguments against the electronic billboards was a suspicion that their construction would likely violate the Highway Beautification Act, which forbids "spot zoning" to convert land use type expressly for the purpose of building advertising structures. One of the proposed signs is not near any commercial zones, and so it appeared to meet the very definition of spot zoning to the benefit of an advertiser.

He tried asking some very direct questions to City Manager Ken Striplin and City Attorney Joe Montes, but it was hard getting a clear response. For example, he asked Montes if they were preparing to violate the Highway Beautification Act by allowing for the rezoning, but Montes would only say that arguments could be made on both sides. He could not be compelled to offer a legal opinion clearly stating whether they were or were not preparing to violate the act. Boydston had some less successful moments, as when he went on a long discussion about how much profit the billboards would make, and how it being a lucrative deal was somehow undesirable. I believe his point was that this contract was more concerned with generating profit than with thinking about the viewsheds of Claritans, but it was a bit hard to follow at times.

When Boydston said he had questions for Allvision, a Metro representative came up and a very awkward exchange ensued. Boyston re-stated that he had questions for Allvision and asked if someone from the company was present, and the rep made him undergo a mini screening process, if you will, asking if it was a key question before letting Boydston actually address the person he needed to.

When Bob Kellar spoke on this issue--he had spoken earlier as well, but only to complain about how much TimBean talks--he said his mind hadn't changed. He invoked the idea of misinformation, claiming that people were told billboards would go up but not that dozens of conventional ones would come down. Frank Ferry waxed idealistic about being an elected official and not governing by popular vote, though this suggested more stubbornness and close-mindedness than true leadership ability. Marsha McLean also went on a disinformation rant. It's hard to know what a person's to do: don't show up and be counted among the informed-but-silent, or do show up and be counted among the misinformed-fringe. TimBen said he was sad to see the government taking away such a large chunk of the private sector for it's own gain, and he said he was sad to see the council doing this "to the people." Mayor Pro Tem McLean harshly replied "It's not to the people, it's for the people." It went over about as well as you might imagine. Ultimately, the vote passed 3-1, with Boydston as the sole dissenting member. McLean closed by warning us that a hit mailer is coming out because of how she voted tonight (she had received a threat-by-phone earlier in the evening, she said), and this made her awfully upset.

Edwards Family Bought Off, and Other Items

It was late at this point, so there needed to be a 4/5 vote to continue the meeting. Mayor Pro Tem McLean asked, rather amusingly, how many of them that meant (to be fair, fractions are hard after midnight). The meeting was extended to address a contract item with the Edwards family, which was being compelled to accept a little over $1M as compensation for taking down their billboards. Frank Ferry postured as some kind of hero to the tearful Edwards matriarch, saying they needed to give her peace of mind. As Boydston would point out, she was all but coerced (she said that word was a bit strong, but in the right direction) to sell as part of all the billboard goings-on, but Frank tried unsuccessfully to smear electronic billboard opponents as first championing the Edwards family and then turning against them. I report this not because it made any sense, but because Ferry said it. After the compensation deal was approved, a few items remained.

A deal to modify red light cameras--longer turn window and, most critically, month-by-month renewal of the contract with the company that provides the service--passed, as did an item to switch elections to November, in response to a voting rights act lawsuit. The meeting ended after midnight, and I might type up more tomorrow because it's really late, so for now, this is all.

[1] Here's the agenda.
[2] Maria Gutzeit has frequent opinions which she whispers to her chair-neighbor for the evening, Nate Imhoff; Gloria-Mercado Fortine is tied to her phone and watches with a poker-face; Berta Gonzalez-Harper turns to scowl at people talking/enthusing out-of-turn; Al Ferdman plays it cool, his posture slowly eroding over the course of the evening; Dennis Conn is just, well, Dennis Conn; Sandra Bull sits up front and offers warm and immediate shows of approval to speakers who've just presented--and with whom she agrees; Stephen Daniels starts getting a bit fidgety when it's getting to be time for him to speak; and I didn't see the other hopefuls there, apart from the obvious two on council. As for the journalists, Perry Smith of KHTS arrives a bit late and Luke Money spills things, but they seem to be otherwise firmly in control of their domain.

Voting Rights Settlement, Billboards Back, Ferry and the "Normal People"

Surprise! Billboard Deal Survives

"How very convenient this is," said Alan Ferdman. "I see here a bait-and-switch," said Cam Noltemeyer. These and many other speakers used their comments at tonight's City Council meeting to address the frustratingly convoluted developments in the LA County Metropolitan Transportation Authority billboard deal[1]. As you'll recall from two weeks ago, MTA wants to install 3 big digital billboards along SCV freeways. In exchange, they'll share the advertising profits with the City and remove dozens of conventional billboards in town. But the deal went from on to off to on again at the last minute, and this ruffled some feathers. Briefly:

*At the last meeting, nearly 30 people showed up to voice their opposition to the City accepting the MTA billboard deal.
*Despite the protest, the City Council (minus Boydston) approved the deal. One of their conditions was that the MTA indemnify the City in lawsuits relating to accidents caused by the billboards.
*In the days after the meeting, MTA said it would not accept the provision to indemnify the City.
*On the original agenda for this meeting, the recommended action was not accepting the deal, since MTA refused to indemnify the City.
*At the last minute, MTA said it was actually OK with the indemnification.
*At tonight's meeting, fewer people showed up than might be expected because the original agenda had strongly implied that there would be no deal.
*Consequently, the people who did show up weren't at all pleased. It was a case of fewer, madder people commenting tonight rather than a big crowd, but the opposition was there all the same.

To jump ahead, at tonight's meeting, everyone on council (save Boydston) said the deal was OK, so there will be a second-reading for final passage at the next City Council meeting. Fireworks are likely. And Mayor Pro Tem Marsha McLean, who leads these discussions since Mayor Weste must recuse herself from them, will probably need to clear the room when people get worked up and cheer or clap at that meeting. Indeed, just a few clappers led to her calling a 10-minute meeting recess tonight. But we'll get to her power trips in a moment....

California Voting Rights Act Settlement Costs City $400K (for now), Saves Millions(?)

The meeting began with an announcement from City Attorney Joe Montes. He said that after a discussion in closed session, the City Council decided 4-1 to settle on the California Voting Rights Act challenge facing the City. Mayor Pro Tem McLean was the dissenting vote. The action arises from Santa Clarita's at-large elections, which some have argued have the effect of preventing Latino voters from being able to elect Latino representatives (i.e., their voting power is diluted). Lawsuits filed on these grounds against other cities have been costly if the city chooses to mount a defense. So, on the grounds of a poor chance for a successful defense and an excellent chance for millions in legal expenses, the City is settling. $400,000 will be paid for legal fees, and the City of Santa Clarita will plan to move elections from April to November (which should lead to higher voter turnout) and implement cumulative voting. This voting system would let a voter cast as many votes as there are open seats, but the votes could be used on the same candidate if so desired. For example, if there were three open seats, someone could give all three of their votes to one candidate, two to one candidate and one to another, one each to three candidates, etc. Mayor Pro Tem McLean explained that she voted against the settlement because it was simply wrong. Later in the meeting, Councilmember TimBen Boydston would also express his dismay with the settlement, but he explained that he thought it was the right thing to do for "pragmatic reasons." He also suggested that the main effect of Voting Rights Act lawsuits was "enrichment of the attorney class at the expense of the taxpayers."

The invocation followed, provided by Boydston. He read some words from Pope Francis on the general topic of Lenten sacrifice and poverty, tying the theme to a recent photography exhibit that featured portraits of Santa Clarita's homeless. Then he asked that God bless Santa Clarita. Before getting much further into the evening's business, Mayor Laurene Weste noted that the Senior Center was facing a financial crisis--it couldn't afford to keep up its program of providing meals for seniors for much longer without more cash. She asked that an item to split funding costs with the County be agendized for the next meeting.

New Sheriff in Town, Public Participation Part I

Santa Clarita's new Sheriff Captain Roosevelt Johnson introduced himself to the community and council. He had some interesting words--speaking of a love affair with Santa Clarita, vowing to fight to keep Santa Clarita the safest community there is (are we?)--and was well received.

During Public Participation, former Mayor Carl Boyer expressed his disappointment in the City Council for its inaction with regard to City-County relations. Boyer said that more must be done to ensure that Santa Clarita's residents aren't ignored, brought up the idea of "Canyon County" again, and suggested that a commitment to these issues would be important in the upcoming council election. Alan Ferdman used his 3 minutes to suggest that not enough was being done and/or said about the important issues of chloride treatment and Whittaker-Bermite clean-up. Sandra Bull commented on the sad state of the senior center ("in disrepair", she said), wondering why some would brag about serving on its board when they clearly haven't left it in a very strong state.

Consent Calendar

Apart from the usual stuff (approving minutes, checks, tree trimming contracts, etc.) the Consent Calendar contained an interesting item: approving a 2014 legislative platform. This platform essentially articulates and prioritizes some specific legislative goals of the city. Legislative interests included everything from film industry incentives to grants for alternative fuel stations to opposition to unfunded mandates on local governments. With a few modifications to the language, the legislative platform and other agenda items passed with the recommended actions.

Following those items, the council received a brief presentation on the priorities for support from the Community Development Block Grant which Santa Clarita receives. Job creation, anti-crime programs, and youth activities were ranked as the highest priorities by the hundreds of residents completing surveys.

Billboard Opponents Misinformed or Abnormal, Acc. to some CC Members

Since I summarized the billboard deal background information above, I'll jump right into what people had to say about things. Generally, speakers were upset that residents hadn't been informed that a deal was back on the table. Alan Ferdman observed that people thought the issue was all but dead, so they hadn't bothered to show up and voice their opposition. Steve Petzold said that he hadn't planned to speak on the topic, but the turnaround and threat of view-marring digital billboards had upset him, offending both his "aesthetic" and "spiritual" sensibilities. He explained that, when driving north on the freeway, the beautiful view of the hills signaled an escape from LA/The Valley, but billboards would blur that line. Michael Oliveri shamed most members of the council, asking why Ferry derided Boydston for "filibustering" when Boydston's questions had revealed some important legal liabilities (i.e., thank him for talking, don't insult him). A man from Clear Channel asked why his company had been left out of all negotiations. He said that if the City just waited on the deal for a couple of months, they could offer much better terms for the City with regard to profit-sharing from advertising.

As speakers came and went, there was occasional applause. Mayor Pro Tem McLean was acting as mayor (Mayor Weste had recused herself, as usual, since the billboards were too close to her property and she had a conflict-of-interest), and she had little patience for the clapping. "If you continue to applaud after I've asked you not to, I will clear the room," she threatened. After a couple of people clapped for an anti-billboard speaker, she made good on her promise and called a recess. Whether she wanted to punish people for "disrupting" the meeting or was merely seeking an excuse for the usual mid-meeting bathroom break, we may never really know. After the clapping incident, however, she instructed people to shake their hands in the air (the American Sign Language sign for applause, sort of) if they felt they needed to show support. This led to an even greater disruption, as she couldn't keep herself from giggling at the hand-shakers as Petzold spoke, and she had to explain the reason for her amusement when he asked if she found his comments humorous. Objectively speaking, this discussion, her warnings to the audience, and the recess she called took up far more time than any amount of applause was likely to have.

After public comments, the councilmembers explained what speakers had gotten wrong. Mayor Pro Tem McLean said, "There is a lot of misinformation out there," and asked various officials to explain how the signs wouldn't be like Las Vegas flashing billboards, wouldn't use land bought with Open Space Preservation District monies, and so on. She ignored the fact that most people who attend City Council meetings are informed on these issues (that's why they attend) and simply disagree with her on the value of trading conventional billboards for electronic ones. As with the library issue from a couple of years ago, however, the main reason McLean thought people disagreed with her was because they were misinformed.

TimBen Boydston spoke next. He had real problems with the government taking such an active role in local business (i.e., picking which advertising businesses win and lose). He forced City Manager Ken Striplin to admit that one of the billboards would be built on a parcel currently designated as open space. Just as at the previous meeting, he wondered what the rush was, and he really emphasized the need to get the absolute best deal possible by, variously, negotiating with Clear Channel, having more talks with MTA, and including a gross profit sharing (versus just net profit sharing) agreement in the contract. His words fell on deaf ears, because when he motioned to deny the billboard proposal, he could not get a second.

Councilmember Frank Ferry spoke next. He said that he couldn't believe how good a deal this really was--getting rid of conventional billboards and making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on digital ones. Ferry likened those opposed to others who had been too near-sighted to see the future value of the cross-valley connector and other major city projects. Then, Ferry said that he represented the 99.5% of people who tell him, "We are just normal, we don't come to the meetings." He essentially promised that they'd be thrilled with the deal--that is, if they weren't too busy being normal to not have any idea it was happening. As you might have predicted, the audience reacted loudly and negatively to Ferry's remarks, but he was unapologetic. He then made a motion to approve the contract and pass it to a second reading at the next meeting.

Boydston tried to continue the discussion, but his fellow councilmembers wanted him to wrap up his comments and pushed a vote through after there was a second. McLean, Ferry, and Kellar (who was silent throughout) approved the new deal, and Boydston voted no.

Ferry Hides From Cam

The second-round of Public Participation followed. Berta Gonzalez-Harper ignored the rudeness of the City Council in favor of condemning the rudeness of the audience. She also spoke about her disappointment in the settlement for the California Voter Rights Act lawsuit, saying that the new system amounted to "block voting" and meant that a candidate like her (i.e., unconnected to special interests) would have a hard time getting elected.

Dennis Conn gave one of the most utterly incomprehensible comments I've ever heard, speaking about "the guy on the $20 bill", solar panels, drugs, calling Marsha Michele, and more. Finally Cam Noltemeyer came forward and asked if she could wait for Frank Ferry to return so that she could confront him (presumably about his residency, which she had brought up at the last meeting), but he chose to scamper into the backroom rather than face her, returning only once her comment period had finished.

[1]Here's the agenda. Enjoy.