When it comes to the proposed five-story mixed-use apartment and commercial building in Old Town Newhall, we don’t really have a dog in the fight.  We generally favor the rights of property owners to build and enhance their property, while we also generally favor the preservation of our local history. On the surface, those two issues seem to be the ones on opposite sides of the scale regarding this project.  In fact, we’re not here to either argue in favor or against the project, nor do we presume to have the expertise to conclude whether the old courthouse/Rafters building in Newhall indeed has historical value.   But that’s not the point here. Our objection doesn’t have anything to do with those things. Our objection has more to do with how this particular sausage is being made.  And that is, it’s being made via back-room wheeling and dealing, in the shadows, and if there are no legal conflicts of interest in play, there certainly are moral ones.  The only thing missing is the dank cigar smoke. We think.  In a nutshell: The initial project proposed in May called for a mixed-used development that would have taken up the addresses of 24317 to 24321 on Main Street. When Jason Tolleson, of Serrano Development Group, spoke to The Signal about the plans then, he said he was “really excited” about the potential for a four-story, 51-apartment complex on top of 3,361 square feet of retail space.     Now, with a negotiated $750,000 impact fee, the plans call for a five-story structure with 78 units, a nearly 60% increase in commercial floor space and the demolition of a city-designated historic building that was not included in the original proposal.   The project now proposes to bulldoze the old 1931 Newhall courthouse building at 24307 Railroad Ave., which in 2012 was deemed so historic that it made the city’s short list of local historic buildings that should be preserved.  But now, all of a sudden, there’s development money to be made and an opportunity to parlay that developer’s incentive into a cash windfall for a City Council member’s pet project.  So, when Tolleson went to the Planning Commission on March 18 for preliminary approval of the project, he came armed with a city staff recommendation to approve the demolition of the building in exchange for a $750,000 fee to go toward “historical preservation.”  The developer told the commission that the fee was negotiated with a City Council member, who relayed it to the city manager.  He didn’t name the council member even though everyone who has a pulse and pays attention to City Hall knew it was Laurene Weste. Later, after dodging The Signal’s reporter for a couple of days – including two pretty rude hang-ups – she acknowledged it.  City Manager Ken Striplin sent a prepared statement, through the city’s Communication Manager Carrie Lujan, saying he wasn’t involved in the negotiations.  We tend to believe Striplin and we’ve always known him to be a stand-up guy.   But still, no one has answered the question: How did Laurene Weste’s direct negotiations with a developer – that supposedly NO ONE ELSE was involved in – result in a staff recommendation to approve the plan Weste and the developer hatched? Is the staff following directions from Striplin, or Weste, or was it just … magic?  The Planning Commission approved the staff recommendation on a 5-0 vote and it next heads to the City Council, where at least one council member is intimately familiar with the deal that has been negotiated because, well, she negotiated it.   Then there’s Weste’s conflicts of interest. Yes, plural conflicts.   She’s on the Historical Society board, and she has a keen interest in revitalizing Hart Park – soon coming under city stewardship, transferring from L.A. County in July – as well as the Historical Society’s plan to build a local history museum on the Hart Park property.   Those are both worthy goals. We have no objections to those. We would even allow, actually, for the possibility that the deal Weste negotiated could be a good deal for the city and the community.   It may very well be.   The problem is the method, as is Laurene Weste’s apparent belief that old Newhall is her personal fiefdom. This all actually tracks with what local political observers and City Hall insiders will privately share about the councilwoman who has been entrenched on the council since 1998.  Weste’s role with the Historical Society is not technically a legal conflict of interest for her backroom wheeling and dealing. But it’s shady.  We object to the behind-the-scenes dealmaking that perfunctorily deemed a supposedly historic building no longer of historical value, and that moving the building would cost too much, though no one has apparently conducted a study on what that would actually cost, and somehow a $750,000 offset fee is the magic number because, well, Laurene Weste says so.  Further, that conclusion — made absent of any studies or public record of financial analysis — somehow manages to jell perfectly with the needs of a developer and a City Council member’s current pet projects and, even, potentially her own personal profit motive, since she owns property near Old Town Newhall and it’s starting to seem like Weste’s interests could play into all city issues within a 9-iron shot of Main Street.  And now, everyone involved is ducking reporters’ calls about the project, opting either to ignore the questions altogether or to send carefully written PR flak statements.   One can only wonder why. We can’t ask Laurene Weste any more questions because her voice mail is full.   “Transparency” seems to be a lost art around here. This is no way to do business in Santa Clarita.   At least, it shouldn’t be.  The post Our View | The Problem with Weste’s Newhall Deal? It’s Shady appeared first on Santa Clarita Valley Signal. ...read more read less