A back-and-forth between The Master’s University and Placerita Canyon residents led to more threats of legal action over correspondence between TMU and the Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association.
PCPOA residents have taken to City Hall on numerous occasions over the past 18 months to repeatedly complain the Santa Clarita City Council has failed to direct staff to rein in TMU’s attempts to “turn Placerita Canyon into a college campus.”
There have been rumblings from residents about how both sides appear to be heading for a court battle. Now, TMU has put the canyon homeowners’ association on notice — that if it keeps things up, TMU will be the ones filing a lawsuit, with an April 10 threat letter.
“The purpose of this letter is to: (1) place PCPOA and its counsel on notice of anticipated litigation arising from PCPOA’s course of conduct toward TMU … (2) demand that PCPOA immediately preserve all relevant documents and electronically stored information that may be relevant to the anticipated litigation; and (3) request that an objective risk assessment—together with this letter—be disclosed to all PCPOA’s stakeholders …,” according to the correspondence from TMU’s attorneys at Dallas-based Munck Wilson Mandala.
Both sides appeared to be striking more diplomatic tones this week. TMU issued a statement seeking cooperation, as did the PCPOA.
But serious concerns linger as TMU’s expansion plans continue, and the city remains under a potential threat of legal recourse no matter which direction it goes.
Two of the residents’ biggest gripes remain. The city has allowed dozens of residential high-occupancy permits in homes that TMU owns, turning the homes into dormitories. Residents have said that the situation creates circulation and traffic concerns, among others. The second issue mentioned in the PCPOA’s letter is changes in the new proposed master plan, including to a 55,00-square-foot chapel.
February council meetings
The most recent public disputes began about two and a half months ago, when several officials from TMU appeared before the Santa Clarita City Council at its Feb. 10 meeting.
During that meeting, a handful of campus leaders, including James Bradley, TMU’s director of community engagement and student-parent relations, spoke about their effforts at being good neighbors and addressing PCPOA concerns.
But the latter has been increasingly problematic, despite decades of amicable cooperation, Bradley told the council.
“Even though we have been in this valley since 1961, over the past 12 to 18 months, there’s been a steady stream of mostly negative statements about the university,” Bradley said, adding he and his colleagues were there to offer “a more accurate understanding” of what has actually taken place.
He said he’s met with the PCPOA eight times since August of 2024, primarily with the board president and two members, an “intentional structure,” he said, “And it allowed is to lower the temperature, separate the issues and address concerns methodically, rather than emotionally.”
He also said that during those talks, it became clear that residents were “conflating issues,” he said, including student behavior, the Dockweiler Drive extension and homes being turned into student housing.
Two weeks later, Linda Towsley, a PCPOA board member who said she was not speaking for the organization, and Cheryl Childs, a Placerita Canyon resident, showed up to share their perspective on TMU’s outreach, also saying that a few things were being “misrepresented.”
“I could make a long list of things that the TMU employees said at the last meeting that my neighbors would dispute, but I only have three minutes — just finally to say TMU’s reality is not our reality,” she said.
She added that her final point was that TMU was not communicating with the community, alluding to Bradley’s acknowledgement that the university’s communications have been limited, alleging that it’s because the university hasn’t liked what residents have had to say.
“We residents are fighting for our homes,” she said in her closing.
March PCPOA correspondence
In November, a letter from residents circulated on social media. In March, the PCPOA put the Santa Clarita City Council on notice with a letter from the association’s law firm, Hepner & Myers.
The letter to city leadership spells out the claim in bold type: “Placing interim student housing in Placerita Canyon is outside the scope of the Master Plan and is prohibited,” according to the PCPOA letter.
“Currently, it is our understanding that TMU has 25-27 RHOP applications for the next 12 month period and owns up to 38 family home properties in Placerita Canyon. The city’s permitting process requires applications and approvals to occur prior to use,” according to the letter. The letter also says the city doesn’t follow this process with the RHOPs.
The letter also states that the master plan extension TMU is operating under hasn’t considered the impact of all this new student housing.
The letter also calls on the city to complete a more thorough environmental review of the new plans being proposed, which are expected to be reviewed by the City Council again. That would likely add months of delay to a project TMU originally had planned to complete for its centennial next year.
April’s back-and-forth
The letter from its neighbors was not appreciated by TMU, which sent a response from its law firm.
The purpose of the letter was three-fold, according to a copy shared with The Signal. The university wanted to put the PCPOA on notice that its actions — including the “interference” with TMU’s various permits, would create a lawsuit that the PCPOA would have to address.
TMU’s firm also wrote that it expected the homeowners association to share a risk-management analysis with its members before proceeding, and an order to preserve any and all electronic stored information from the PCPOA regarding TMU situation, including emails, texts and “inputs to and outputs from artificial-intelligence tools and large-language-model applications,” such as ChatGPT and Gemini.
TMU’s attorneys mentioned religious rights and federal court. The residents’ side raised California Environmental Quality Act requirements that include religious institutions.
The PCPOA’s attorney called the request for so much preservation “overbroad,” in expressing “disappointment over TMU’s response to the residents’ letter.
The city has heard the legal threats before, from the residents’ online letter, and back in 2022, when the college first threatened the city with legal action over state housing laws, when residents began to first grumble about the rise in TMU’s student housing permits.
City stance
For its part, the city has been largely supportive of the university’s plans, with residents previously raising concerns about a council bias. Councilwoman Marsha McLean has questioned the changes, but she hasn’t always had company.
Councilman Bill Miranda has worn a TMU hat on the dais and spoken about how he doesn’t like the phrase “in perpetuity” when it comes to special standards districts. Placerita Canyon is a part of one intended to preserve its rural, equestrian appeal, according to residents.
Mayor Laurene Weste has property right near the Dockweiler Drive extension, which is part of a TMU-city partnership that’s likely to significantly increase that property’s value.
Both sides seemed to have cooled since the initial salvos, with the PCPOA ending its response Monday with, “PCPOA remains committed to returning to the process it previously enjoyed with TMU to work through remaining differences about TMU’s proposed amendment to the Master Plan, and to reaching agreement about a CEQA and legally compliant development that meets TMU’s needs,” according to the letter. “With open minded dedication to addressing PCPOA’s concerns and TMU’s needs, we believe that this result can readily be achieved.”
The president of the PCPOA indicated Thursday evening that the organization was not commenting further at this time.
TMU officials issued a statement via text message Thursday.
“We understand that changes in Placerita Canyon can bring a sense of hesitancy, and we recognize that some concerns are deeply felt. The canyon is a special place — one we’ve gratefully called home for more than 60 years — and we remain committed to preserving its unique character, maintaining open communication with our neighbors, and faithfully serving our neighbors and our students,” according to an email from Mason Nesbitt, spokesman for the university. “We will continue to work closely with the city as we move through the master plan revision process. As we enter our centennial anniversary in the coming months, our mission will remain to equip students to live in a manner pleasing to Jesus Christ, which in turn benefits the community and the world.”
