By The Signal Editorial Board
There’s been a lot of turmoil lately at Santa Clarita City Hall. Over the past few months, the City Council has had some eyebrow-raising discussions and decisions, notably on questions about mixed-use developments in Newhall and the best ways to approach those projects and hold developers accountable for their impacts.
And, just this week, the council ousted a member of the Planning Commission whose capital offense, as best as we can tell, was that she somehow ticked off the council member who nominated her to be on the commission in the first place, even though she voted for the development deal that was at the center of the controversy.
The common denominator in the turmoil?
It’s Mayor Pro Tem Laurene Weste.
It was Weste who privately negotiated a deal with a developer to benefit one of her pet projects involving local historical preservation. And while her pet project itself is laudable, her tactics were not.
It was also Weste who, after that deal blew up and was revised by the council amid questions over how it materialized, then demanded the resignation of Planning Commissioner Denise Lite over what Weste described as problems communicating with, as she put it, “my planning commissioner.”
And while much has been made on social media of Lite supposedly running afoul of Weste by “asking questions” about the Newhall project, it was The Signal that first reported publicly that Weste had put the deal together.
But scapegoats must be had.
Weste, an entrenched council member who was first elected in 1998, got her wish, on a 3-2 vote Tuesday, with Mayor Bill Miranda and Councilwoman Patsy Ayala doing her bidding, ousting Lite from the commission over the objections of Councilman Jason Gibbs and Councilwoman Marsha McLean.
It was not a high point in the 37-year history of the city of Santa Clarita.
It was a bad look for the City Council to remove a planning commissioner who actually did absolutely nothing wrong. Even if Lite and Weste didn’t exactly have each other on speed dial, that’s not sufficient grounds to remove a commissioner.
Frankly, if a commissioner’s job is to just take the calls of the council member who nominated him or her, and vote 100% the way the council member wants, without asking any questions whatsoever, why even bother having a Planning Commission?
The role of the Planning Commission is — supposedly at least — to evaluate development projects, render certain decisions that are within its purview and formally recommend higher-level decisions to the council. Nowhere in the planning commissioners’ duties does it say they must have direct, private communication with the council member who nominated them, or any council member, for that matter.
They are appointed to evaluate projects and make sure they conform to the city’s planning codes. They serve at the pleasure of the entire council, not just the council member who nominated them, and the council can overturn their decisions.
It was wrong to remove Lite from the commission, full stop. And it was disgraceful of Miranda and Ayala to go along with Weste’s edict.
Miranda, in fact, did so without any comments explaining his decision. About the only times he spoke were to cut off Lite’s comments in her own defense because she hit the three-minute time limit, and to pound the gavel and call for order when the crowd in council chambers got a little vociferous.
Ayala preceded her vote with a performative set of questions for city staff and legal counsel about the process of removing a commissioner and the way the development deal sausage is supposed to be made, then said she was casting her vote after carefully considering all of the facts.
It’s not brain surgery to recognize that her decision, like Miranda’s, was made well before the meeting.
Preceding that ill-advised decision, dozens of people came forward to defend Lite, including one resident who passed along — admittedly secondhand — information about an interaction between Weste and a former city staffer that reinforces one of the worst-kept secrets of City Hall over the past 20-plus years: Laurene Weste can be a bully.
We’re not naive. We know that, in politics, you’ve got to twist a few arms and break a few eggshells to get things done.
But when you start breaking the arms and killing the chickens, maybe your power has gone to your head a bit.
Regrettably, that seems to be the case with Weste.
The record should reflect that she has done a lot of good in her years on the council. There is no questioning her passion for preserving our unique local history, and for promoting the establishment of the open spaces that so many Santa Claritans now enjoy every day. She undoubtedly cares about the betterment of the community and has done a lot to further that goal.
But at least as undoubtedly, she lacks self-awareness and seems unable to step back and recognize her own contribution to the perception held by many that she treats people harshly — especially the city staff — and that she seems as driven by her own self-interests and the value of her Newhall real estate as she is by her acknowledged interest in what’s best for the city.
Now, the city is seeking applicants to be Weste’s next nominee for the Planning Commission. She got Lite booted from the post, and just last summer her previous nominee, Dennis Ostrom, unexpectedly resigned. The term of the next appointee expires in December 2026, assuming the appointee lasts that long without getting on the wrong side of Weste.
That’s also when Weste’s current term on the council is set to expire. It should be her last. We’ve endorsed her multiple times in previous elections and we stand by the endorsements we made at the time. But, in the November 2026 election, if Weste comes asking for another four years on the City Council, the voters should politely thank her for her many years of dedicated service, and elect someone new.
As we said, and we mean this sincerely: Laurene Weste has done a lot of good for Santa Clarita in the past two and a half decades.
But it’s time.
