By Carrie Lujan
City Communications Manager
In the editorial article written by Mr. Ferdman, he talks about misdirection, while providing misinformation. Please see the corrections below.
In regards to the billboards, the proposed plan would have generated significant revenue to the City, over $1 million annually. These funds would have allowed for the City to purchase and remove additional billboards throughout the City, not just on the Metro right of way. This would have resulted in a significant aesthetic improvement for many areas, including Canyon Country.
The agreement with Allvision, which is mentioned, was proposed for the City and Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (Metro), not the County of Los Angeles.
The City did NOT force a local small business out of business. The City purchased the company through a voluntary, mutual transaction.
The City did remove 47 billboards over a three year period.
The City already owned the land that was proposed for billboard locations
The State of California did NOT mandate a plan to accommodate 500,000 residents.
The City has always used peak hour analysis for traffic studies and the traffic section of Environmental Impact Reports (EIR). The City follows standard industry practice in this regard. The traffic study prepared for the EIR for the updated General Plan (formerly OVOV) used peak hour analysis. The City’s policy regarding peak hour analysis did not change with the adoption of the current General Plan in 2011.
There is no way to sugarcoat it, the City of Santa Clarita simply does NOT have jurisdiction over which development projects are approved by Los Angeles County.
The One Valley, One Vision plan was a joint effort by the City and Los Angeles County. The planning and coordination involved significant input from residents and business owners. It includes a guide for growth, circulation, housing, infrastructure, conservation and open space, economic development, and safety.