Rumor has it that the project is tapped out. No money, Busted. Now the developer is even demanding that the City refunds permit fees already paid. So, residents get no landscaping, no homes, no road, nothing. Plain and simple. The oak trees are gone and the dirt has been graded so that a landing strip now sits 30 feet above the freeway at the gateway to the City. As I recall, only Councilmember Williamson voted against this project. Perhaps the other Councilmembers would like to explain to us what has gone on and why the community is left with this white elephant.

Was this another one of Dean Kunicki's self serving projects? Replace that Smiley Face with the Tears of a Clown.

No, I don't think it was. I believe Elaine Freeman, who is on the Park District Board, was the consultant on this project.

Whoever was behind it, expect the silence that follows to be deafening.

For the record, you are correct, I voted no on this project. However, I really like the design and all the "nooks and crannies" that Larwin built into this project. I would have voted in favor of this development had it been located somewhere else in our community. I just didn't like this being in what I considered a "view shed" and a wildlife corridor...This also had an "affordable" compoment that was available to first time homebuyers, which is a benefit to our community as well.
It is my sincere hope that Larwin, AKA Mr. Keston will do the right thing and at least landscape this property to some extent out of respect for the residents of Simi Valley who will have to look at this eye sore as they drive to and from work each day.

This project was a sham from the beginning and the Council pulled a fast one to get it in. Only one member voted against it the second time (Barbra). The first time it came through it got a slim 3-2 approval vote, no doubt thanks to the lobbying of the Park Board member mentioned above. It was rebuffed and sent back to the staff by Council in front of the public and then it mysteriously came back through Council and was approved on a 4-1 vote, with only Barbra voting to oppose.

This was a terrible project from the start. They took acreage that had never been built on before (except for the really old home that must have burned and left a chimney there for 20 years) and decided it was a great place for condos. Welcome to Simi, enjoy the view of condos as you come down the hill. This is the same City Council who wouldn't put apartments on Tapo Street, because of "community concerns", but here on unbuilt land was an appropriate spot for high density development.

We can thank our lovely Park Board member/Developer's best friend Elaine Freeman and her handshake deals for this one.

What will happen to the trees that were removed and were to be put back on the site? Can another developer get some off site mitigation credit for arranging to replant the trees there or elsewhere?

They can really leave it just like it is now? There isn't a bond or something to repair the property?

This is Larwin Company (developer) and the Mount Sinai group (owners?) together. I don't think this is first, out of money and second, going to be left like that. There are 4 Councilmembers who stand to be drawn and quartered if it is.

It is still a piece of garbage project, but it will get done.

Has there been a story in this paper about it yet? (I do not recall seeing one, but I may have missed it.)

Perhaps - just a suggestion - a smart editor might assign a hungry reporter to find out what really happened here and get a meaningful quote or two from the principals involved (developer, contractors, council members who supported it, city manager, etc.) since none of them are likely to post something here under their own names.

Some answers that might be included: What did the city planning commission recommend on this? Did the council follow that recommendation? Was any real thought given to the ability and willingness of the developer to see this through? Did someone just decided to take a walk when the realty market took a dive and leave the city with a mess on its hands or was there some other reason? What are the estimated costs here of such a fiasco - in dollars and whatever else - for the city?

Inquiring minds might want to know.

I'd like to hear from Bubba Kidd (Elaine?)

Wanna bet a third party steps in and offers to fix things if it can build MORE units than the existing permit allowed?

Let's hope the City got the required completion bonds for roads and landscaping. Otherwise, the project may be vested and can sit like this for eternity. Great place to put the new $150,000 "Welcome to Simi Valley" sign.

So where is the proof that the project has stopped and that they are out of money?

I saw tractors belching out smoke somewhere behind the hills of the main project area today. I think the work is still going on. They have other things to put in, besides an ugly project. There is a new road that is going to go from the Mount Sinai cemetery out to Kuehner - so they could be doing all the toad, sewer and drainage work out of site (as you see the pipe is sitting out on the freeway side).

Oops, my Freudian slip is showing... I meant road not toad...

Impeach Elaine Freeman!

Besides a rumor is there any proof the project is not going to happen? Ms. Williamson is there something concrete about the project not happening? When I drive into Simi the first thing I see are all the houses already in the hills behind this project so what difference does it make at this point if this project goes through?

I say we relocate Snooky's to that site with some big neon signs that says, "Welcome to Simi Valley".

Great idea Bubba for the Snooky project. It would be a good place for the project. As I recall it had a commercial zoning until the Council changed it for Larwin to high density residential. Snooky's would be even better than the relocation of the $150,000 Welcome to Simi Valley sign.

This seems to confirm the rumor that BubbaK is a dancer at Snooky's.

The difference is, that good development would put medium to high density housing in the heart/core of your City and you put your Single-family homes to the outer regions of your city.

Oh and the fact that it took 30-feet of fill, across a wide expanse, to create a flat parcel to build 70 some-odd units of condos on. Single family housing, if anything was to be put there, wouldn't have required the mass fill that had to happen with this ridiculous project.

Stupid project - shame on the 3 Councilmembers and the Mayor.

Actually "Horrible Project" the General Plan calls for high density to be placed along the freeway corrador and medium to low on the valley floor. High density meaning appartments.

Barbra, the General Plan is what it is. The real problem with the project, once approved by the City, is did the City condition the project adequately so that bonds were in place to address restoration or, in the alternative, landscaping/irrigation beyond just slope stabilization. If not, then the community will stare at this man made slope and mesa for God only knows how long as it weathers, degrades, and grows non-native weeds.

OK then - Horrible Project and Horrible General Plan. The relative peaceful look of Simi Valley is disappearing - one hillside at a time.

Please Barbra - keep bucking the trend of a Council with little forsight.

Correct my memory but wasn't there a big sign during the BOS elections on this hillside?

Yes, this was a Supervisor Foy sign site as were most of the developer owned parcels in the District.

Why do people who already own a home fight so hard to prevent others from having a home?

It is a concept called planning. Otherwise we would breed like mice in a cage and eat our young when we over populate. Take a vist to Calcutta and see what development can look like.

It really isn't too difficult a concept to understand.

Well Councilmember Williamson then since we are doing our general plan update we should look at not putting people near the freeway. You realize how bad the pollutants are coming off the freeway - you may want to amend that thought.

Second, why would we want multi-family housing so far from transit and services? We are forcing many people to get in their car and drive for services rather than putting them in the heart of the City where they can walk or at least drive where there are many access points to infrastructure a very short distance. Let's not make the same mistake LA makes, in creating traffic choke points.

Finally, to BubbaK= I have no problem people with people having homes, but let's not create health/traffic issues at this location, let's give them twice the density on Tapo and Cochran or at Erringer and Los Angeles or at First and Los Angeles - places with transit (or what Simi Valley currently calls mass transit - buses), but at least has the services/infrastructure to handle it.

So CAP-608 you are saying that housing creates people? Don't people create people? If you build a trillion homes will you get a trillion people on earth instantly? I find more often than not that people buy a home in a project that the people who lived nearby protested, then a new project goes in and the people in the project that had been protested then become the protestors at the next meeting and on and on.

Odd concept. People want to protect the neighborhood in which they live. How strange to comprehend.

Simi Valley was never intended to be urban. It was a rural/suburban community and the hillside ordinance was to protect that overall quality. Elaine Freeman's unHappy Face project is just one of many to find loopholes (and chummy council members) to get around what the people who live in this community desired - a city that maintained its beauty and quality of life - even as it managed its growth. Too many of our local leaders have ignored that, allowing developers to dictate our future. They deride SOAR and ignore the hillside ordinance.

For all those that like to sit back and whine about local development projects, how many of you attend City Council meeting, or Planning Commission meetings, or County Supervisor meeting, or Neighborhood Council meetings? The city is currently in the process of re-writing its general plan. How many of you volunteered to participate in the process or attend GPAC meetings? How many of you have taken the time to meet with your Mayor, City Council members, the City Mananger, or with City Planners. That is how decisions get made in this city. Sitting at your computer blogging has no impact. I have met many people who, after the fact, bitch and moan about local development, but never get off their butts and participate in the process. This is no different from people who choose not to vote but complain about who gets elected.

Bubba , why does Blogging not have an impact? Do letters to the editor?

City council meetings can be nothing more than a kow tow. You go speak, then if someone deems interested they might respond. If they do, it is later and you can't ask follow up questions.

Is it just our city or are you claiming that all elected officials pay no attention and won't respond to voters unless it is in person? What century are they from?

You also forgot the supervisors who get paid a very high salary have their meetings during the day when only the rich, special interest groups, and retired people can go. We pay them over a $100,000 grand a year and they meet during the day to avoid us working stiffs.

Then if we complain in any format except in person it doesn't count ad they ignore it?

I appreciate Foy trying to change this somewhat.

Actually Bubba that is what public hearings are supposed to be about.

Oh if only " That is how decisions get made in this city." Sadly, it is too often not. They are often discussed and made beforehand, Brown Act be damned.

You should know better than anybody that more times than not, many on the governing body defensively go into those meetings with a preset agenda, voting to approve a project that they have already agreed upon beforehand.

I've been to those public meetings with you and I'll bet many of the more knowledgeable bloggers here have as well. (God knows how many meetings GS has attended only to be rebuked) I've seen and heard representatives compelled to "defend" a project rather than listening to the real concerns of the community.

As for Neighborhood Councils, they are effective only when Freeman and Co. are not the leaders of those groups - too chummy with their council cohorts for any unbiased "hearing" to take place.

Admittedly, I have seen Planning Commissioners vote with independence on these issues, sometimes in contrast to the very council member who appointed them. But even they are often outnumbered, despite the good arguments they raise, to allow for more time on a project to be rethought.

The other way "decisions get made in this city" (or county) is via the developers pocketbook. Sometimes those development projects are good ones (e.g., Gorian-Kunicki's Tapo St. project). Sometimes they are disasters (e.g, Gorian-Kunicki's Santa Susana or Elaine Freeman's Happy face fiasco).

As for your comment on non-voters - we couldn't agree more.

Brian, I don't think that blogging has an impact on the decisions of politicians. It is emerging as a tool to reach out to voters, especially young voters. However there is no evidence that elected officials pay much attention to blogs when making their voting decisions. Politicians who have mastered the blogosphere use it mostly as a tool to send out campaign propaganda. So my point is that some politicians are beginning to use blogs to disseminate information, but they really don't use them to receive information.

The same applies to letters to the editor. Elected officials are not going to give much weight to a handful of letters written to a newspaper. However, they are likely to respond to piles of mail sent directly to their offices.

And in spite of living in an electronic information age, most serious business is still done the old fashioned way. There is simply no substitute for access and face-to-face contact with elected representatives. If you ever go to D.C. or even Sacramento what you will see is masses of lobbiests walking the hallways arranging face-to-face meeting with elected representatives and their staff.

For the average person your access is limited to a few minutes to present at public meetings. But this can also be used effectively so long as individuals present their case in a way that is sensible. If you show up at a City Council meeting screaming and yelling you are probably wasting time. But if you present a reasoned argument you can still have an impact.

I ageee that most decisions are pretty much decided by the time they come to a final vote. Don't expect to kill a development project that has been in the pipeline for years by showing up to the final meeting. If you want to change things you need to be involved further upstream in the process.

Bubba Kidd...I can't speak for any other elected official, but I can honestly say that when I read the agenda packet I usually have an idea as to what I would like to see, and how I feel, but I always wait to hear from the general public and Neighborhood Councils before making that final decision. I have changed my mind on several issues after listening to the public imput...Take Runkle Ranch for instance..the entire council requeted that more investigation be done before a final vote and I can think of lots of times when the Council has listened to the public and requested that the developer go back and work more closely with the neighbors...Gary Gorian's project on Tapo Street/ Eileen come to mind, as does Casden at Madera and Los Angeles...I agree with face to face contact, but for some reason alot of the public are not aware that they can pick up the telephone and call any of us....

Bubba,

Many issues are opinions but your idea that personal letters are more powerful then letters to the editor is simply wrong.

I have worked in numerous elected officials offices and I will tell you the standard procedure. Letters and phone class are mostly compiled into a spreadsheet to tell the elected officials what their voters are interested in. A few choice ones make it through. But every letter to the editor is kept on record and forwarded up the chain.

One personal letter might be read by one person, but a letter to the editor could have hundreds or thousands of readers.

Barbra and Bubba...

Do you really believe the average voter has a real opportunity to voice their concerns before a public hearing - which occurs late in the process? If you are an insider - and both of you are - you are aware of plans LONG before the general public has the slightest inkling. If you are a simply responsible Simi Valley voter, who would like their vice to be heard, you hope to be made aware of plans in their community before it gets to that point. But that "upstream" process just is not open to public input. In fact, I know there are bloggers here who have shown up at early meetings for developments in their community only to be told that they must wait for the public hearing to take place before their input is even allowed. That of course depends on the elected representative they approach - but the upstream process is simply unfriendly to anyone but those lobbying from the inside. It is the real reason "lobbyists" are viewed with such scorn. They have behind the scenes access to that which we do not, and we can only hope and pray they are making our voices heard.

Brian, I simply don't believe that in most cases letters to the editor are taken that seriously. Especially in light of the fact that there are many obvious orchestrated campaigns to write letters to local newspapers. For instance, whenever the teachers union is negotiating a new contract it is not uncommon for teachers, union representatives and family members of teachers to deluge their local paper with letters in support of their position. Although this is a common tactic I don't believe it carries much weight in influencing the votes of elected leaders since the tactic is so transparent. And individual letters to the editor only reflect one opinion, which isn't necessarily that of the majority of constituents.

I do agree with Sham that lobbiests often have access that is unavailable to the general public. Still, there are many opportunities for members of the public to influence decisions. Unfortunately in my experience I've often witnessed little or no involvement by the public in important local issues. Most public meetings are sparsely attended by the public, often with the only participants being the commission or board itself. Even when there is turnout it is usually the gadflys that have no real credibility anyway. Sit in on any school board, neighborhood council, planning commission, or any other type of public meeting and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Gopher alert. Gopher out from under rock. Grab your traps and poison. This is an official gopher alert.

Shameful

Your insertion about the average voter being absent of voice before public hearings is vexatious. Your thinking represents the death of the American will to govern by the people for the people. You aren’t entirely wrong; I’ll speak to that in a moment. But you are wrong to surrender the spirit, further eroding the constitution of our forefathers who endeavored to create a system where even Shameful could be heard with a clear voice that would resonate with our elected leaders. And you’re wrong to advance the notion of despair.

Barbra Williamson tells Bubba Kidd on November 4th, “I always wait to hear from the general public and Neighborhood Councils before making that final decision.�

Brian, on the same day, represents that he has worked in numerous elected officials offices and tells us letters to editors are indeed taken into account.

In recent years blogs such as this one have gained notoriety for their measured influence over paramount corporate choices. While many politicians might shrink from admitting they follow blogs I’m certain the more relevant politicians are wise enough to do so.

You are right in the sense that many of us common folk have given up on the belief we are heard. Our consolidated news media, once an important check and balance, is now riddled with fluff stories while the Washington Watchdogs have been beaten on the nose with the very newspapers they once wielded and sent outside. But we’re in Simi Valley. And everyone who chooses has the opportunity to be heard here if they wish to get involved.

Getting involved seems to be the clog for most of us today. We want a voice but we aren’t willing to extend effort. If we could only use our TV remotes to vote on issues then perhaps more of us would take the single most important step we can exercise within our free system – the simple vote.

Use all the tools you have at your disposal Shameful. Talk to enlightened officials such as Ms. Williamson who make themselves available through blogs. Write letters to your editors. Show up to public hearings. Get involved. Fight tenaciously to correct the discrepancies. And for God’s sake, vote.