Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-06-12 - AGENDA REPORTS - PALMER DEVELOPMENT AGMT (2)PUBLIC HEARING DATE: SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT: BACKGROUND June 12, 1990 PALMER City Manager AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval Item to be presented by: AGREEMENT George A. Caravalho As a result of the meetings of May 2nd and May 15th, the Council directed staff to meet with G.H. Palmer and Associates with the expressed purpose of providing a development alternative for the Santa Catarina Project which would have the following elements: • Limit the number of units between 600 and 800 with a mix of single-family attached, single-family condominiums, and multi -family condominium units; • Find a route for Golden Valley Road that would have as little disruption to the McCoy's and Stanford's property as reasonably possible; • Include the construction of Golden Valley Road with full improvements through the project and down to Soledad Canyon Road grading four lanes, paving two, provide a bikeway in the Santa Clara River, modify the striping along Soledad Canyon Road, eliminate the bikeway, and provide three lanes of travel in each direction; and • Include street widening at the intersection of Valencia Boulevard and San Fernando Road. • Construct two lanes of Golden Valley Road between Soledad Canyon Road and Sierra Highway. • Avoid impacting the riparian woodlands area. On May 23rd, we met with the Palmers to discuss this proposal. We suggested that the Palmers provide a project which incorporates all of the above, and to explore the possibility of a land swap with the McCoys so as to provide as little disruption through their property as feasible. The Palmers indicated that a project incorporating these proposals was no longer viable in essence because of the requirement to construct Golden Valley Road from Soledad Canyon Road to Sierra Highway as a condition of the Colony Project. They also indicated that the additional roadway improvements and realignment of Rio Vista Agenda item: Palmer Development Agreement June 12, 1990 Page 2 Road and Westcreek could not be done in view of the Council's conditions. At that time, I informed them that we seemed to be at an impasse. He suggested that the City consider two other alternatives, these being: 1. A 1,292 unit project as agreed by some of the homeowners which would include the construction of Golden Valley to Sierra Highway. 2. A 1,000 unit project under the same provisions.as the 726 units as we had presented previously. Since neither of these alternatives met the Council's direction and expectations, I directed staff to cease all work on .these projects at this time. On May 22nd, we received a letter from Nilda M. Mesa, Deputy Attorney General, with the State's Attorney Generals Office, indicating that the Santa Catarina project EIR inadequately, inaccurately, or all together failed to address a number of significant issues. BSI Consultants was requested to review the wooded area in the Santa Catarina Project. The firm has prepared a report indicating that the area is a riparian area that should be addressed -as part of the environmental impact process. The report states that this area is supported by an unknown natural water supply. The source of the unknown water supply is questioned and should be pursued and resolved prior to acceptance of the report. Should Council direct staff to proceed with the projects/development agreement, we will direct our City Attorney's office to investigate the State Attorney General's office statements as well as requesting clarification to the BSI Report. It is understood that Council also desires an update to the Colony Project EIR. I feel that it is now time to close the public hearing on the Santa Catarina project and the development agreement until we receive a proposal which incorporates the Council's specific points asenumeratedabove. RECOMMENDATION The City Council provide input and direct staff to transmit a letter to G.H. Palmer Associates indicating the Council's desires regarding the incorporation of the elements indicated above in the Santa Catarina Project. Once this proposal is received incorporating those. items, staff will submit it for a public hearing. • City of Santa Clarita Jo Anne Darcy Mayor Carl Boyer, 3rd Mayor Pro -Tem Jan Heidt Councilmember Jill Klajic ouncilmember award"Buck" McKeon Councilmember • n 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 City of Santa Clarita California 91355 June 8, 1990 Phone (805)259-2489 Fax (805) 259.8125 Messrs. Geoff .and Dan Palmer G. H. Palmer and Associates 11740 San Vicente Boulevard, 0208 Los Angeles, California 90049 Dear Geoff and Dan: I am in receipt of your letter of June 7, regarding projects which you have been trying to get approved by the City of Santa Clarita. Although I do not intend to address all of the issues you raised in this voluminous document, there are some points which are so egregious and misleading that I cannot allow them to stand uncontested. In your letter, you allege that the City has negotiated in bad faith. This is totally inaccurate, and I find it appalling that you could make such a statement. One of the basic indicators of good faith negotiations is willingness to stand behind agreements which have been reached. Staff has consistently and unequivocally stood behind every agreement reached with Palmer and Associates. This, however, cannot be said for Palmer and Associates. There was an agreement reached between staff and Palmer and Associates' to construct 726 units on Santa Catarina. This is largely consistent with the parameters that were established by the City Council. You, however, have withdrawn this proposal from the negotiating table. This, in my opinion, is indicative that Palmer and Associates has been dealing with the City in bad faith and certainly not vice versa. You also allege that you were told by the City Council Subcommittee, the Planning Commission Subcommittee, the City Manager, the Assistant City Manager, and the Director of Public Works, that the City would approve a development agreement. This is patently erroneous. None of these people ever said that the City would approve any development agreement. Certainly, developers who are as experienced as yourselves fully realize that. no subcommittee or staff has the authority to make such a statement. You indicate on page 5 of your letter that you believe you are "entitled to the 1,452 units on the basis of past assurances." Developers such as yourselves should simply know better than this. A comment such as this is presumptuous and naive. Developers are not entitled to develop until they receive entitlements from the governing body. With regard to Santa Catarina, this has not happened. Your project Messrs. G. and D. Palmer . June 8, 1990 Page 2 requires a zone change. Clearly, you understand that. staff cannot approve a zone change nor can any type of subcommittee. This can only be done by .the City Council. You are not entitled to develop whatsoever until you have this approval, thus the term "entitlement." The same applies with regard to the General Plan Advisory Committee. They are merely a single purpose advisory body to the City Council. They have no approval powers whatsoever. With regard to zone changes, these powers are exclusively given to the City Council. On page 7 of your letter, you lambaste the City for having written to your lender to help with an extension. First of all, it should be clearly understood that the City did this as a favor to you and at your request. We were reluctant to do so, but capitulated to your desires to help advance this project. That this favor is now being used against the City is reprehensible. You indicate that "Only because we believed your repeated assurances to us, your written pleas to our construction lender at Westcreek for our collective, continued patience while the City concluded its processing, and your reaffirmation that the benefit to .us will be 'very significant' have we continued to postpone construction of our Westcreek project ... First of all, there were no written pleas, . there was only one letter to your lender requesting patience. Your synopsis of the letter is considerably misleading. When you say that the benefit to Palmer and Associates will be very significant, you leave off the word that was actually included in the letter which states that the, "potential" benefit both to Mr. Palmer and the City of Santa Clarita is very significant. This is certainly a major difference. You indicate in your letter that you were stunned that the City Manager circulated a memo to City departments directing that all work on the development agreement and related projects be stopped. This should not have been any surprise to you whatsoever. In our last negotiating session, we came to a complete impasse. We reached agreement that we were at impasse. I told you that I could only negotiate within the parameters that were given to me by the City Council. You indicated that there was no way an agreement could be reached consistent with these parameters. At that point, there was no point in continuing negotiations since it did not look like an agreement would be reached if you were not willing to negotiate within. the parameters of the City Council. There was no point in spending additional taxpayers' dollars by having staff spend time on this project. Furthermore, the public. hearing had already been .continued to June 12, and you have an opportunity to discuss this project with the Council at that time. • 9 9 0 Messrs. G. and D. Palmer June 8, 1990 Page 3 Finally, you mention that G. H. Palmer is not a charitable foundation. In closing, I should mention that the City is not a charitable foundation either, in business to make money for developers. We are in the business of approving projects that are well-planned, environmentally sound and that will work to the benefit of the community at large. Projects that do not comply with these standards are not approved. The City stands firm to negotiate an agreement with Palmer and Associates if you feel you can deal within the parameters given to staff by the City Council. Unless those parameters change or you reconsider your position, there is no point in meeting or in.having staff work on your projects. Si e ' ly, eorge A. Caravalho City Manager GAC :sk CC: Honorable Mayor and City Council City Attorney Director of Community Development Director of Public Works