I received a call from Signal Staff Writer Natalie Everett who wrote the article “Tesoro a step closer to joining the city” in the Signal. She had just finished reading this Beacon commentary and assured me that she would now be writing a follow-up article to her piece that would have more information! Once again, the so-called local paper of record has printed a flagrantly misleading article. No, the article is not made up like the fabricated story the Signal spun into an editorial earlier this year. Rather, it is clever in that it does not report all the facts; just the spin it wants, or should we say what the City of Santa Clarita wants! The story, “Tesoro a step closer to joining the city”, which ran on Monday, July 26, 2010, was for all intents and purposes a piece of City propaganda that was masquerading as local reporting. It was so thin on actual facts that all one could say was that it was merely a fluff piece at worst for the City of Santa Clarita or just more sloppy journalism from the Signal at best.

It did not delve into any depth surrounding the complexity and dynamics of this particular annexation. The article starts out with the statement; “A plan to annex Tesoro del Valle into the city of Santa Clarita has taken another step forward.” What the article does not cover is all of the issues surrounding this annexation and the fact that there is much opposition to it at this time.

Instead, the article quotes Tesoro del Valle Homeowners Association Board President Rick Ryan saying that the; “HOA board of directors recognizes the probability of the community annexing, but board members would like the construction of the community to be complete before annexation is pursued by the city.” 

The Signal left out the key statement by Mr. Ryan! In the letter of opposition to the City of Santa Clarita it stated; “It is the position of the Board of Directors for Tesoro del Valle Homeowners Association that any consideration of the proposed Tesoro del Valle annexation into the City of Santa Clarita should not be undertaken until the revised VTT Map #51644 is acted upon by the County of Los Angeles. In other words, the Board does not support annexation at this time as it is untimely”.

The Signal article makes the specious claim that; “A large majority of residents — 83 percent — voted in favor of annexation in 2009.” This is an outright false and misleading statement as the actual facts can be discovered by anyone willing to pick up a phone or write an email.  

Of the 1524 registered voters in the Tesoro del Valle community only 203 ballots were cast in the November 2009 advisory vote. That equates to a 13% turnout which is far from “a large majority”. Further, 158 voted in favor of annexation which is about 10% of registered voters. The other 51 ballots were in favor of staying in the County.

The Signal article goes on to claim that; “In May, the city polled residents to see what they thought of the move. A higher majority, 92 percent, supported annexation.” As it turns out the City polled residents of the West Creek/West Hills community not Tesoro del Valle. The article misleads the readers in believing that some how the City polled the Tesoro del Valle community again to show “a higher majority”.  

In fact, the Tesoro del Valle Homeowners Association did it’s own survey of its members in December 2009. The question for annexation to the HOA community stated; “Are you interested in Tesoro being annexed into the City of Santa Clarita?” 361 homeowners participated in the survey; a higher percentage than the November 2009 advisory vote for this community. 175 voted “maybe it depends” which represents 48%; 155 voted “yes” representing 43%; 31 voted “no” representing 9%; and 10 survey participants left the question unanswered. That is a far cry from “a large majority of residents” wanting to annex and goes against the claim in the article that “residents approved becoming a part of the city”.    

Another way to look at it is what a Tersor board member said; “89.6% of the registered voters in the two Tesoro Del Valle precincts did not vote for annexation. That’s 1,366 voters for whom annexation into the city was not important enough an issue to get them to vote or who voted against annexation.” As you can see, a lot of the residents of Tesoro del Valle are more on the fence about annexing than anything else. But the Board of Directors for Tesoro is not. The Board is opposed to annexation at this time.

But that is not all; the large land owners are against annexing at this time as well. The article did mention that; “Montalvo Properties LLC, owner of the remaining 1,268 acres of undeveloped land in the area, also opposes annexation”. But it left out the important fact that this master planned community has gone through a lengthy and expensive approval process with Los Angeles County that could be upended should the annexation take place prior to the completion of this project.

Further, there was no mention of other opposition to this proposed annexation.

In a letter dated July 16, 2010, to Paul Brotzman, Director of Community Development for the City of Santa Clarita, from Newhall Land it is clearly stated; “Our company still owns about 350 residential lots to be developed in the West Hills area. This property has been proceeding through the final approval process in Los Angeles County. For this reason, we oppose annexation into the City of Santa Clarita at this time.”

Even the Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment (SCOPE) has come out against this proposed annexation. In a letter dated July 20, 2010, again to Paul Brotzman at the City of Santa Clarita, Lynne Plambeck writes; “….we would like to register our disappointment at the City’s choice to bring such an inappropriate negative declaration at a time when both the City Council and the Planning Commission are in recess. It gives the appearance that it was the Planning Department’s intention to literally “sneak” the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) document through when no was watching. We find such actions disheartening and not representative of the public process that should be occurring in our City and in a democracy”.  

The SCOPE letter also points out that endangered and threatened species have been identified on the still to be built out Tesoro del Valle community. The letter states; “The County has placed numerous conditions on these projects to reduce their impacts which the City may or may not continue to require. Failure to require such conditions would increase the impacts of the projects significantly”. In essence, the undeveloped area of Tesoro del Valle has many protective measures already in place by Los Angeles County to defend the environment and still allow the project to be completed as planned.

Basically, none of that information was referenced in The Signal article; rather it was written to give the reader the impression that annexation is going forward with all the residents on board. Even the statement in the article; “Santa Clarita Planning Commission voted 5-0 Tuesday night to recommend that the City Council move ahead on annexation” leaves the reader thinking that it’s a go. This of course is regardless of all the opposition outlined above!

Once again the City of Santa Clarita is disregarding residents’ wishes and doing whatever it wants. This has been a trend all around the City as more and more residents start to question the leadership. Residents are being called “environmental terrorists” by a City Councilman for questioning development within the City; funding is being withdrawn for advisory groups like the Canyon Country Advisory Committee; and the City leadership continues to bully anyone or any group that asks tough questions.

Not only that, but the Signal continues to take whatever the City says as Gospel; printing anything the City churns out without question. Let’s face it; apparently you’re not going to get the whole story because the paper doesn’t want to offend their friends or lose any revenue, now do they?! 

Start connecting the dots!

You must ask yourself why there is so much opposition to annexing into the City of Santa Clarita in recent years. Why hasn’t the City leadership reached out to all these communities and brought them on board with annexation prior to going public with their plans? That is exactly what they should be doing.

The much talked about Hasley Hills/North Bluff/Live Oak annexation relied on the so-called land bridge of the Valencia Commerce Center to make it viable. Yet, the Valencia Commerce Center Association came out against the proposed annexation. You would have thought after all the effort the City put into that annexation attempt that they would have had the Valencia Commerce Center businesses fully behind them; they didn’t!

At this point LAFCO needs to deny any annexation applications that the City of Santa Clarita has submitted or will submit this year. LAFCO should have a serious talk with City officials and fill them in on the concepts of “building a consensus” and “positive relationships” with their neighboring communities. Until then, there won’t be any annexations north or west of the City of Santa Clarita.

I recently heard the perfect mixed metaphor from a friend describing the City’s character. “The City of Santa Clarita is the 800 lb. Gorilla in the room, but it can’t see the forest for the bananas.” (Monkey see banana, monkey want banana.)

Dave Bossert- Commentary

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