The speed limit on Driver Ave is now 35 miles per hour instead of the previous 30 mph limit.  This is preposterous!

I was told the reason behind the increase is that too many people were speeding on Driver.  There is some kind of ordinance that says if everyone is breaking the speed limit - it must not be a reasonable limit.   

I won't comment on the absurdity of THAT particular law  However,  in an equestrian community, special circumstances MUST apply! 

I was riding my horse from my house on Lewis Lane, and I turned right onto the Driver bridle path.  Before I entered the Bridle Path, my horse spooked and jumped sideways onto Driver, in front of oncoming traffic!   After a close call with a car,  I was chillingly reminded of the new speed limit and wanted to scream!

Get real folks... do we need a fatality before the speed limit is rolled back to a barely acceptable 30MPH?

A picture of a ramshackle barn and bent pipe stall appears in the ACORN newspaper with the caption "Back Yard boarding isn't pretty". 

Someone evidently has an ax to grind.  The ad was an insult to all horse people.  It was also an elitist comment about those who have less than the writer.  Very inflammatory.  The ad went on to warn people that their community may look like Chatsworth if commercial horse boarding is allowed in the Santa Monica Mountains.   Maybe the writer should apologize to the people of Chatsworth for posting this ad.

I figure some folks are prideful.  Maybe they are living like kings on the property they inherited without having to make ends meet while some of us need to board a horse or two to help pay the mortgage since horse property takes a kings ransom to buy these days.  That is no excuse to disparage the less fortunate.

Anyway, I smell an ulterior motive....  anyone have an idea what the writer has to gain by her inflammatory ad?

Nona,

While I was quite surprised by many aspects of your blog position on Heschel, I would point out that your comment on Frank Angel being "ill prepared" is factually incorrect. The text of the North Area Plan DOES NOT make exception for "a school" but rather ONLY "a local school" which Heschel clearly is not. Heschel students come from Malibu to Santa Clarita and all over the San Fernando and Simi Valleys and as such it is not accurate to call it anything but a "regional facility". 

You might also consider those who would be "thrown under the bus" who are within view of the campus which will require bright lights at all hours, massive parking etc. While we might not "need" more homes, the 14, five acre "ranchettes" which are what the property is zoned for would generate "max 150" cars as opposed to Heschel's soft peddled figure of 2,700 which relies on unenforceable promises to carpool etc.

I think you might want to rethink some of these positions if you care as much as I think you do about Old Agoura remaining an equestrian community.

Sincerely,

Larry

Hi Larry,

WHAT are you talking about?

I have done as much work as anyone to thwart Heschel's plans to build behind Chesebro I strongly oppose.  I have testified at the LA Planning commission public hearing downtown against Heschel's said plans.  I have written NUMEROUS articles for public distribution that express the many negative consequences of building the school on that site.  I have paid every contribution to the legal fund that was asked of me.  My position has not changed since day one! 

Please do not continue to twist my words and take them out of context.  It's harmful.

I choose to believe you simply made a mistake and misunderstood me in spite of my clarity.  The alternative is a maliciousness on your part.  Correct me if I'm wrong but I have never stepped on YOUR toes. Even your preceding e-mail asking me to 'rethink' my position seems to part of a smear campaign - like the headline news:  Politician denies wrongdoing - when there was never even the slightest wrongdoing, just so the public will BECOME suspicious.

So Larry - what gives?

Yours, Nona

P.S.   Were you at the hearing that preceded the granting of Heschel's C.U.P.?  I didn't think so.  I realize that Zev was quite the bulldog, bordering on disrespectful to Mayor Kuperberg and Frank Angel.  Regardless, Frank's testimony left a big whole that Zev managed to stick his fist through.  Read the transcript and you may find the part in the hearing that I am referring to.  Frank may have done his homework, yet his presentation left something to be desired.  I also believe that no matter how stellar the presentation, there was nary a chance that Zev would nix Heschel's plans.

NG

November 27, 07

Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors granted a Conditional Use Permit to Heschel West Day School to build a campus behind Chesebro Rd. just outside the Old Agoura boundary. 

Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky posed 29 conditions on the approval, including that Heschel come up with an emergency evacuation plan that meets with Fire Dept. approval and a traffic mitigation plan (either a signal or a round-a-bout, that meets with Agoura Hills Public Works and CAL TRANS approval.

The Old Agoura Homeowners Association, in a meeting prior to the hearing, in anticipation of LACBoS decision, asked for $100,000 ($250 from each resident) to file a lawsuit against the County. 

QUESTION? Is it possible that Heschel will not be able to meet the conditions?  It doesn't seem likely that anything they come up with , short of maintaining a fleet of helicopters at the ready in case of a fire, will prevent gridlock at the gate of Old Agoura in a mandatory evacuation situation like the one that happened two years ago.  Old Agoura's only hope would be that the evacuation happens when school is not in attendance.

Agoura Hills Engineering department would have to approve the construction of an access road.  That may prove to be an insurmountable obstacle given the existing limits imposed on residential property such as a maximum of 6 feet for retaining walls, etc. 

My point is - maybe prior to an expensive lawsuit, first the city can tell us how the new school won't see the light of day.

Nona,

In answer to your question, I was unable to attend the last Heschel hearing downtown because my Mother in Law who lives with us was released from the hospital the day before the hearing and could not be left alone. You will please note that it is the first and only of the many hearings that have been held downtown or otherwise that I have been unable to attend in the many years that this has been transpiring.

I have always considered you a friend, no, you have never "stepped on my toes" whatever that means, and I always presumed that you were opposed to the construction of the Heschel School on the proposed site which is exactly why I was perplexed by your comments.

I do not believe I "interpreted OR misinterpreted anything and/or took anything "out of context".  If you meant to say something other than what you posted I am glad to give you the benefit of that doubt too, however what was posted there (and I will copy and paste it from your own blog so that nothing is open to interpretation or out of context ) is the following:

 "Truth be told, I never was opposed to Heschel, provided that they have their own entrance off 101 freeway rather than Palo Comado Drive. I personally would rather have a school there than large estate homes or McMansions."

If I'm not mistaken it says in your own words you would rather have a school there than the 14 homes it is zoned for. It does not say "I would support Heschel in a different location" which of course I think we would all do, but rather specifically that you would prefer a school in the currently proposed location as long as they entered from the 101. This means that the first row of homes on Chesebro and Colodny would be looking at a 30 foot berm with two story buildings on it and that the pristine valley  behind homes would be filled. Again, I do not know how else the above copy and paste in your own words can be interpreted to mean anything but what they state.

The other part of the post that I commented on was the following and again, I copy and paste from your own blog:

As Zev Yaroslavsky put it, the HOA was "barking up the wrong tree" as he read the text of the North Area Plan - where it listed acceptable projects to include schools! Bottom line, when you are given only 3 minutes in a public hearing venue to summarize your case - for all the money that's spent, it would be nice to be better prepared!

If I am misinterpreting that statement I will be the first to apologize however the comment about Zev saying that "the HOA was barking up the wrong tree and "the NAP permitting a school" would seem to endorse the accuracy of that comment in that it suggests  "the HOA was unprepared" rather than simply not allowed to rebut.  As I understand it, the NAP does not even state that a LOCAL school is allowed but only that a local school would be eligible for consideration and again, one can hardly call Heschel "a local school" when their entire appeal has been on behalf of "the broader community" which as we all know refers to "the Jewish community" from the entire region as only a tiny percentage of their students come from Agoura while most come from everyplace from Malibu to Santa Clarita.  The perceived  "needs of the broader community"  was a redundant theme at all of the hearings along with statements that we are "the fastest growing Jewish community in North America" etc. I would point out that "BROADER IS THE ANTITHESIS OF LOCAL".

It is not my intention to be in any way malicious however it is my aim to use every means at my disposal to stop the Heschel School or any other school from being built on that site, therefore the accuracy of your blog was of great concern to me and those who brought it to my attention.

Again, I am sorry if this caused any discomfort and nobody has to pay attention to my words. I would encourage anyone who believes I am being malicious to read the blog for themselves and they can "interpret" what is stated therein for themselves.

Sincerely,

Larry Brown