Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-09-08 - AGENDA REPORTS - RPT GVR RD ASMT DIST (2)City Manager Item to be presented Ken R. Pulskamp NEW BUSINESS DATE: September 8, 1992 CA(CA SUBJECT: Status Report on Golden Valley Road Assessment District DEPARTMENT: City Manager's Office BACKGROUND The above district involves the grading and new roadway construction of Golden Valley Road between State Route 14 and Sierra Highway. Five developers, including Percy Vaz of AMCAL, Steve Krueger of Showcase Homes, Watt Parker, Hunt Heeber, Dan Palmer of G.H. Palmer Associates, and the City are the participants. This District has been in the formation process for over two years. Staff feels it is time to review these proceedings and, inform the City Council of increasingly vicious correspondence and threats of litigation by Mr. Dan Palmer. The City Clerk has prepared the attached listing of City Council actions taken to date. On June 23, 1992, the City officially formed the District. The final step would be City Council action for approval of bond sales. This approval request has been delayed several times at the request of the developers because of the need for developers to provide sureties guaranteeing the value of the property and improvements. The developers have been given several deadlines to meet this requirement. The current deadline is September 7, 1992. All staff and consultant time spent on the District to date has been paid for by the developers. STATUS The establishment of the District and the sale of bonds require mutual cooperation, good faith and understanding between all the parties. City staff and consultants have made this a priority project for over two years. The City, in its pledge of cooperation and good faith, has made several significant concessions along the way in order to facilitate and finalize the District to roadway completion. These include: ■ repeated changes in administrative deadlines ■ granted a reduction in the adopted public financing guidelines from 3.5:1 to 3:1 ■ agreed to support phased district as proposed by Dan Palmer in February, 1992 rather than a single district as originally envisioned ■ agreed to capitalize interest for a period of 12 months instead of 6 months as originally discussed ■ granted one year tentative tract map time extensions for each developer after having previously stated no time extensions would be granted unless the District was complete APPROVED Agenaa item: ■ granted vesting status to the Hunt Heeber tract thereby conferring additional property rights ■ agreed to an innovative approach suggested by the developers to meet the surety requirements ■ hired bond underwriters and bond counsel at key points during district formation to facilitate completion ■ postponed public hearing dates on at least 4 occasions at the request of the developers. DISCUSSION/CONCERNS When originally envisioned as a cooperative district, the five developers designated Mr. Steve Krueger of Showcase Homes as their spokesperson and Cox, Castle and Nicholson as their attorney. Regardless of this, one developer, Mr. Dan Palmer, has repeatedly written directly to the City, either personally or through a company attorney not associated with Cox, Castle and Nicholson. This correspondence has increasingly complicated the flow of information and further, in staff's opinion, impeded, even obstructed, the progress of district formation and the sale of bonds. Staff has attached several of these writings. Each time correspondence and communication was received, staff was told that Mr. Krueger and Cox, Castle and Nicholson continued to represent all 5 developers and further, that, in spite of the tone of these letters, Mr. Palmer was also pledged to maintaining mutual cooperation. Staff is concerned these written communications and not the verbal assurances will be setting the tone for a future long-term relationship. The most recent letter of August 14 resulted In a staff response (also attached) expressing great concern over the direction Mr. Palmer is taking, and further notes this matter will be brought before the City Council on September 8, 1992. 14618111iIdJ1:111(o7erIGI1 The City remains poised to approve a bond sale within the parameters, previously discussed and made known to the developers in writing. The most recent deadline given to the developers for posting of adequate sureties in order for bond sales to occur is September 7, 1992. Staff recommends the City Council discuss the above and indicate the City's intent to withdraw all previous agreements and negotiated concessions for the bond district if either of the following occurs: 1) Evidence of needed sureties has not been posted as of 5:00 p.m. September 7, 1992, or; 2) Sureties received by the September 7 deadline are not to the satisfaction of the City, finance consultants and attorneys. LMH:jcg gvcc9-B.Imh GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT January 9, 1990 Authorizing the acceptance of deposit of developer fees in order to prepare necessary documents relative to the Community Facilities District; authorizing Willdan Assoc. to provide the feasibility study and to file feasibility study. (Council approved) June 12, 1990 Preliminary report of .feasibility study; staff requested direction to include roadway stabilization, backbone utility improvements and the park site in the feasibility report. (Council approved) July 24, 1990 Resolution appointing the bond counsel, appraiser and absorptionist and to sign agreements with consultants. (Council approved) September 25, 1990 Public hearing for the negative declaration for Golden Valley Road between Antelope Valley Freeway and Sierra Highway. (Council continued to a date indefinite) January 28, 1992 Funding and acquisition agreement (Amcal Golden Fund); requested direction from Council to continue processing modifications for the other four developments; continue processing the formation of the Golden Valley Rd. Assessment District. (Council approved) March 24, 1992 Funding and acquisition agreement; vesting tentative tract maps nos. 43145, 45022, 48892 & 48893; requested Council approve funding and acquisition agreement with each of the other four developers. (Council continued to April 21, 1992) April 2, 1992 Funding and acquisition agreement; vesting tentative maps nos. 43145, 45022, 48892 and 48893; agreement language changed; requested Council approve funding and acquisition agreements. (Council approved and authorized Mayor to sign) April 21, 1992 Adopt resolutions to appoint consultants; begin the process of creating the new. district; determine that at least 60X of the area has asked for the assessments; giving tentative. approval to the Engineer's Report.' (Council adopted resolutions) May 26, 1992 Public hearing for the formation of the assessment district and levy of the assessments. (Council continued to June 9, 1992) June 9, 1992 Was to be continuation of May 26th public hearing. Five . developers requested another continuance. (Council continued to June 23, 1992) h Golden Valley Rd. Assessment District Page 2 June 23, 1992 Adopt resolutions to order changes and modifications in the engineer's report to.reflect revised amount of work needed to complete improvements; adopting Engineer's Report confirming the assessment, ordering the work and acquisitions and directing staff file necessary maps, etc., determining unpaid assessments, authorizing issuance of bonds and providing execution of fiscal agent. (Council adopted) July 14, 1992 Report that developers were not able to come up with sureties that guarantee the shortfall between the assessed valuation and the City's 3:1 value to lien ratio. (Council continued for 60 days and directed staff to continue negotiations. August 25, 1992 Golden Valley Rd. Assessment 'District Assignment Agreement. (Council approved) 8/31/92 DMG:1044 RUG -27-1992 16:1? FROM G H PALMER ASSC. TO CITY STA CLRRIT V i G. H. Palmer Assorietes 1 ! Real Estete DevcIOPment 26 August 1992 LeJ Mr. Kenneth Pulskamp CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 City of Santa Clarita, CA 91356 Re: Golden Valley Road Assessment District Dear Mr. Pulskamp: If an apology is what it takes to get you to focus on the issues, then I apologize for the emotional pitch of my previous correspondence. I only speak for myself, and Cox, Castle, and Nicholson speaks for the group. Should the City discriminate against us -or the other property owners, we will utilize all legal remedies to preserve our Constitutional rights: We want to take this dialogue off the emotional level and deal with the substantive issues. We await your response to the numerous unresolved substantive matters detailed in our previous letters. We, along with our lawyers, will attend your City Council Meeting and be available to answer any questions. ura:p lAWW2 Jr. cc: � �nA r>r't t7 OPJER ND EGISTERED__l The Honorable 1111 Klajic, Mayor of the City of Santa Clarita Councilmember Jo Anne Darcy Councilmember Jan Heidt Councilmember Carl Boyer Councilmember George Patterson Mr. George Caravalho Ms..Lynn Harris Mr. Tony Nisich Mr. Jeff Kolin Mr. Richard Ashburn, Jr. Mr. Robert Poor David Oster, Esq. P.15 11740 SAN VICENTE BLVD., surrE 209 LOS Ar MELF-a. CALIFORNIA 80040 (3101207.3100 FAX l310)?_07'21a2 City Of Santa Clarita 23920 Va encia Blvd. Phone Suite 300 (805) 259.2489 City of Santa Clarita Fax California 91355 (805) 259-8125 August 19, 1992 I have received other cocky lettersfrom your group's attorney. This has led me to the conclusion that Mr. Rreuger, who has consistently conducted himself in a professional and constructive manner, does not, unfortunately, represent the group of developers. I have been resolving issues verbally with Mr. Rreuger, and am then lambasted in writing by you and the group's attorney. It is apparent to me that these letters are written for litigation purposes. This causes me great consternation. I do not care to put the citizens of Santa Clarita in a position of having to work on a long term partnership with you or being sued by you. Furthermore, I do not care to put my employees or myself in the position of .having to take further abuse from you. V Mr. Dan S. Palmer G. M. Palmer, Associates Jilll0ailc Mayor 11740 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 208 Los Angeles, CA 90049 Jan Heidt Mayor Pro -Tem Dear Mr. Palmer: Carl Boyer Councilmember I am in receipt of your letter to me dated August 13. 1992. This is the latest in a series of distasteful, unprofessional JoAnne Darcy Councilmember and inaccurate diatribes from you. Your antagonistic approach is extremely disconcerting to the City. George Pederson Counralmember I have chosen to ignore much of your insulting correspondence because I have been spending my time dealing with the person you and the Golden Valley developers have designated as your representative. Vhile you have been cranking out this repugnant correspondence, Steve Rreuger and I have been resolving issue after issue. I have received other cocky lettersfrom your group's attorney. This has led me to the conclusion that Mr. Rreuger, who has consistently conducted himself in a professional and constructive manner, does not, unfortunately, represent the group of developers. I have been resolving issues verbally with Mr. Rreuger, and am then lambasted in writing by you and the group's attorney. It is apparent to me that these letters are written for litigation purposes. This causes me great consternation. I do not care to put the citizens of Santa Clarita in a position of having to work on a long term partnership with you or being sued by you. Furthermore, I do not care to put my employees or myself in the position of .having to take further abuse from you. V Mr. Dan S. Palmer August 19, 1992 Page 2 After consulting with the City Manager, we are taking this matter to the City Council meeting of September 8, 1992, and request.. direction as to whether or not they desire to continue to do business with someone who conducts themselves as ill-mannered as you. I am distraught over the impact of this decision on the other developers, but since most of what I see in writing is from you and your attorney, I must assume you and not Steve Kreuger are representing the group. Please feel free to attend the above-mentioned City Council meeting. Yours truly, gKenne Pulska Assistant City Manager KRP:mat.2310 cc: Mayor Jill Klajic Councilmember Jo Anne Darcy Councilmember Jan Heidt Councilmember Carl Boyer Councilmember George Pederson Mr. George Caravalho ijMs. Lynn Harris Mr. Tony Nisich Mr. Jeff Kolin Mr. Richard Ashburn, Jr. Mr. Robert Poor Mr. David Oster Mr. Mark Adler Mr. Richard Kopecky Ms. Maryann Goodkind Mr. Steve Kruger Dr. Xavier Mendoza Mr. Percival Vaz 14 August 1992 Mr. Kenneth Pulskamp CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 23920 Valencia Boulevard Suite 300 City of Santa Clarita, CA 91356 Re: Golden Valley Road Assessment District Dear Mr. Pulskamp: G. H. Palmer Associates Real Estate Development t2k:.i..E IV ED AUG 19 1992 Coti+MUNffY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SANTA CIAP.ITA REVISED I am in receipt of your letter the first two pages of which are dated July 10, 1992 (The third is dated July 2, 1992). I vehemently resent your statement that my letter to Lynn Harris dated July 2, 1992, "misrepresents past directions and decisions for the Golden Valley Assessment District and focuses on non-productive exercises". I made NO misrepresentations of the facts. I tell it like it is. It is clear, not only by your letter, but by your own verbal admission that you are merely attempting to orchestrate a false paper trail which attempts to reflect the City's purported "good faith" efforts to make this District work. We demand that you desist in not only attempting to hinder our first amendment rights, but in also mischaracterizing our statements for your own benefit. Contrary to your allegations the facts reveal that it is the Oly who has behaved in an unreasonable, unjustified and totally illogical manner. FACT: The developers have done whatever the City has asked them to do to make this District work at considerable expense to the developers. FACT: The City has done whatever it can do to create additional stumbling blocks for the developers at considerable expense to the developers. With respect to your input from the County of Los Angeles regarding the Baldwin District, I would not have expected the Countv to tell you anything differently. Our information comes directly from the purchasers themselves, who have no motivation other than to state the ,true facts. The fact that any governmental entity is satisfied with its underwriters would never impressme anyway. Mediocrity seeks out mediocrity. We have no quarrel with the fact that the surety bond is to be a cash-flow surety bond consistent with Exhibit "F" of the Funding and Acquisition Agreement; however, as we have explained to the City, on. numerous occasions, including in my letter to Lynn Harris dated July 2, 1992, and in Mr. Umport's letter to you dated July 10, 1992, it is 11740 SAN VICENTE BLVD., SUITE 20B LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90049 (310) 207-3100 PAX(310)2C37-2152 Mr. Ken Pulskamp 14 August 1992 Page 2 the methodology which the City has been employing in calculating the amount of the surety bond to which we have objected. I do not know how much clearer we can be. FACT: The methodology recently proposed by the City is NOT the methodology normally used for cash-flow bonds. FACT: The methodology which we have proposed is the standard methodology used for cash-flow bonds. When we agreed to the language in Exhibit "F" of the Funding and Acquisition Agreement, it was our intent to use the standard methodology used for cash-flow bonds, not some cockamamie methodology conjured up by the City and designed to levy severe financial burdens on the developers and to hinder the progress of the District. We now understand that the City has finally agreed to live up to its agreement as drafted. Requiring us to post a surety bond before the sale of the bonds is putting the cart before the horse. The amount of the surety bond cannot even be determined accurately until the actual close of the bond sale, as it is dependent upon the interest rate of the bonds sold. FACT: The City has N_Q basic understanding of public bond financing. Requiring the sale of the bonds nine to twelve months. before the construction of the improvements to be financed is even ready to commence, is crushing the horse with the cart! FACT: The City has NO basic understanding of the relationship between financing and the commencement of construction of the improvements being financed. Your comment that my assertions on plan check procedures is "a transparent attempt to confuse the subject at hand", only exposes either the City's total ignorance or its arbitrary and illogical behavior. My assertion is Q an attempt to confuse the issue. It is the issue! The fact that the City continues to delay the approval of the plans necessary to construct the very improvements which the District will be financing is the exact reason why any reasonable, sophisticated and educated city would NOT be requiring such a premature.bond sale. A present bond sale just makes NO sense given that construction of the improvements being financed cannot commence. Furthermore, the fact that the fi-ty is the cause of the delay of such commencement of construction, and it then looks around sheepishly surprised, hands to its chest, exclaiming "moi"? just adds insult to injury. Moreover, to then hold out the possibility_ of pnly thirteen months of capitalized interest as a carrot and to use such issue of capitalized interest as a club Mr. Ken Pulskamp 14 August 1992 ED Page 3 against the developers in an attempt to force the developers to a present bond sale, is mind boggling. The law permits up to twenty-four months of capitalized interest. To withhold the full amount of the statutorily permitted capitalized interest also makes IMf sense given that construction of the improvements being financed cannot commence. Surely the legislators do not intend to permit a city to abuse such law by using it as a threat against the developers, but intends instead for a city to be motivated by reasonable and logical factors such as market conditions for the bonds, and the nature and timing of the construction of the improvements being financed. Get serious, any potential purchaser of the bonds will surely be looking for the protection of the full twenty-four months of capitalized interest. Surely you cannot expect the developers to come out of pocket to cover the carrying charges. No financing are done that way. Interest is always calculated in as a budget item until construction is completed. Using the capitalized interest issue as a club, to coerce the developers into submitting to the City's whimsical demands not only clearly undermines any alleged indicia of "good faith" the City purports to have, but is clear evidence of its willful bad faith. FACT: The City continues to behave in an arbitrary and capricious manner, to employ strong arm tactics, and to flaunt its "take it or leave it attitude". FACT: Such behavior flies in the face of our constitutional and statutory rights. Your analysis that the City should withhold the benefit of capitalized interest from the developers, because it translates into additional cost for future homeowners and represents significant benefits to developers, not only is absurd, but is totally contrary to the very concept of the statutory scheme for benefit assessment districts. The reason why benefit assessment districts are formed is so that only those property owners who are benefitted bear the burden of the cost of the improvements; Q the developers. The fact that this city happens to disagree with the spirit of the law does not give this City the privilege of re -writing the law to accommodate its renegade and discriminatory wishes. You rant and rave that providing capitalized interest at thirteen (13) months would add a whole hundred dollars a year to each property owner's assessment; the mere cost of $8.33 per month. One cannot even buy a hot dog and a coke for $8.33. People pay five times that much a month for pay T.V.! For the price of one annual dinner for two at a decent restaurant, each property owner is getting the benefit of a four lane divided highway connecting Sierra Highway, a major thoroughfare, to the Antelope Valley Freeway. Time is money, and people wouldIE adlX pay much more to obtain easy access to their commuting routes, thereby shortening their commutes and providing them with more leisure time; a rare commodity in the rat race of the 90's. Mr. Ken Pulskamp 14 August 1992 Page 4 FACT: The City is totally ignorant of the underlying reasons for the statutory scheme of benefit assessment districts. Yet, nothing in your letter shows that you are farther offbase than your assertion that it is obvious that we are "unwilling or unable to now perform, as previously agreed, by providing adequate surety in order for the District to proceed." There is only one way for you to possible come to that conclusion: A. If the Cityof tally misunderstands the bond market. B. If the City totally misunderstands the cash-flow sureties and their methodology. C. If the City totally misunderstands the reasoning behind providing capitalized interest in the maximum amount permitted by law. D. If the City totally misunderstands the relationship between financing and the commencement of construction of the improvements to be financed. E. If the City totally misunderstands the reasoning behind benefit assessment districts. F. If the Cityof tally underestimates the Palmers. G. All of the above. FACT: In the City's case, its "G" - "All of the above". FACT: One obvious fact is the City has no idea what it is doing. The-City-of-Santa-Clarita. What a misnomer! It is more appropriately named the City of Santa Un-Clarita, for the City is UNclear on all of the important issues. For those running the City to be so unsophisticated as to invite the City's hairdressers to a City Council meeting in order to get their fingers on the "pulse" of the community, they must have been left under the hair dryer too long, had their hair braided too tightly, or inhaled permanent wave fumes. The positions taken by the City are way beyond the realm of human comprehension or reason! Just admit it! In addition to not knowing what you are doing; you just do no like the Palmers, and you intend to continue your obvious pattern of discrimination and attempts to run us into financial ruin. You have made that clear at every possible occasion. Mr. Ken Pulskamp 14 August 1992 Page 5 It is time to put your personal feelings aside. It is time to hold your enormous power egos at bay. It is time to stop your ostrich -like behavior and to pull your heads out of the sand into the real world of r n i le public finance. A governmental entity has a duty to act in a reasonable manner to do what is best for the City's residents and not to take action upon personal vendettas or to take arbitrary and capricious positions which would expose the City to potential liability in much greater amounts that the cost of a hot dog and a coke. Very truly yours, The Honorable Jill Klajic, Mayor of the City of Santa Clarita Councilmember Jo Anne Darcy Councilmember Jan Heidt Councilmember Carl Boyer Councilmember George Patterson Mr. George Caravalho /1C4s. Lynn Harris Ms. Andrea Daroca Mr. Tony Nisich Mr. Jeff Kolin Mr. Richard Ashburn, Jr. Mr. Robert Poor David Oster, Esq. Mr. Mark Adler Mr. Richard Kopecky Maryann Goodkin, Esq. VIA TELECOPY Mr. Steve Kruger Dr. Xavier Mendoza Mr. Percival Vaz DSP.dv;pubkemp July 2, 1992 VIA TELECOPY AND REGISTERED MAIL Ms. Lynn Harris Deputy City Manager/ Community Development CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Re: Palmer-VTTM 45002 Dear Lynn: 1 G. H. Palmer Associates Real Estate Development `JUL 07 1992• CC ,111;)Oy GCVCLOPMEkT OT" " {1 n"ITA Catch 22. It is the City of Santa Clarita's favorite game, and you are at it again. The City has demanded that we post a cash-flow surety bond by July 2, 1992; however, it still remains a mystery as to what the amount of the surety bond is supposed to be. In addition, as recently as yesterday, the City's formula for calculating the amount of the bond is based upon a principal payment bond rather than a cash-flow bond, which is expressly contrary to the Funding and Acquisition Agreement executed by the City just a few months ago. The bond provision was highly negotiated, and the City should not now attempt to renegotiate a provision to which it agreed. There is no basis to differentiate between the term required for the Palmer bond and the term required for any other property, as the properties will appreciate at the same rate. The City's concern that the fair market value of a piece of property will have to be discounted because it has a larger lien on it than another property, merely reflects the City's total misunderstanding of simple real estate concepts. The City bases this view on the fact that the bond for the Baldwin District did not sell because of the amount of the bond; however, the City is misinformed. Such bonds did not sell because of the questionable practice of the underwriters shopping the bid of the most likely prospective purchasers of the bonds who, upon becoming wise to such shenanigans, refused to bid bonds marketed by underwriters using such tactics. In addition to continuing to set conditions for us to meet and then making it impossible for us to meet them, the City continues in its coercive tactics and its "take it or leave it" attitude. the law allows for twenty-four months of capitalized interest. We do not understand why the maximum amount is not being permitted by the City, especially where construction not only has yet to commence, but is being hindered by the City. The City Engineer in his report originally provided for fifteen months of capitalized interest, and yet the Assistant City Manager now attempts to argue that the City Engineer was not authorized to provide for such amount, despite the fact that the City Council adopted the City Engineer's report. Continued... C) 11740 SAN VICENTE BLVD.. SUITE 208 LOS ANGELES. CAUFORNIA 90049 (310] 207-3100 FAX (3101207-2152 Ms. Lynn Harris July 2, 1992 ff0J Page Two During our meeting Monday morning, June 29, 1992, the Assistant City Manager attempted to lower the capitalized interest to a maximum of thirteen months, but only if we provide the cash- flow bond by July 2 and agree to go forward with AMCAL in the fust phase of the District. At the same time, the Assistant City Manager threatens to lower the capitalized interest further to only six months if we fail to succumb to such strong-arm tactics. As described above, providing any bond when neither the method of calculation nor the amount has been agreed upon is impossible. We have no obligation to go forward with AMCAL. To the contrary, it is the City who is obligated to proceed with AMCAL alone, independently of the other developers. More importantly, the City's claim that it has proposed a viable mechanism for an assessment district consistent with the "Palmer Plan" is untrue. Our plan made specific provision to move forward immediately andui4 ckly on the approval of the hydrology and the storm drain plan checks for the road project months ago so that we would be ready to commence construction as soon as the bonds were sold, yet the City still refuses to commence plan check on the storm drain despite the fact that the hydrology has been approved. The City farms out the hydrology and storm drain plan checks to the County. The County's storm drain plan check could take from four to nine months. There is no reason why the City cannot request the County to allow the plan checking to proceed while other requirements are being met concurrently, or do the plan checking itself. It does not take a genius to realize that a street cannot be constructed .until the storm drain which goes under the street can first be installed. It appears that the City is not only putting the cart before the horse by attempting to. force the non AMCAL developments into an earlier phase than makes nny logical sense, but is at the same time hindering and impairing our progress on the construction of the very improvements for which the District is being formed. It is obvious that the City is but a wolf in sheep's clothing as it continues to impede the formation of the District while espousing its purported "good faith" efforts. I trust a judge and jury would see clearly through such a translucent disguise. Very truly yours, C- Dan S oJPer, Jr. DSP.=.6nrti3.6 cc: VIA TELECOPIER AND REGISTERED MAIL The Honorable Jill Klajic, Mayor of the City of Santa Clarita Councilmember Jo Anne Darcy Councilmember Jan Heidt Councilmember Carl Boyer Councilmember George Patterson Mr. George Caravalho (cc's continued on next page) WE A March 26, 1992 VIA TELECOPY AND REGISTERED MAIL Ms. Lynn Harris Deputy City Manager/ Community Development City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Re: Palmer-VTNIM 45002 Dear Lynn: G. H. Palmer Associates Real Estate oevelopment ME 3 01712 CjUI.NAl:Npt )- VLLUPME I CItY CF SANTA2LARITA I cannot tell you how disappointed we were by the City Council's decision to continue the agenda item regarding the approval of our Funding and Acquisition Agreement (the "Agreement"). You asked that we sign the Funding and Acquisition Agreement by a certain time deadline last week. We signed the Agreement. You asked for a letter by 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 24. We sent the letter You asked. for some language changes to the letter that same day. We changed the letter. We have done everything we have been asked to do, no matter how reasonable or unreasonable; no matter what the time constraints. We have bent over backwards to meet all of the City's requested deadlines. The agreement was not approved on March 24th because Councilmem..her Boyer raised a concern that the Agreement did not contain a provision indicating that assessments will not increase on individual lots after the lots are sold to individual homeowners. We predicted that the council might be concerned about this issue, and our attorneys directly addressed this issue with the city some time ago. The City told us not to worry about the issue; not to be concerned about the issue; the City told us that the Agreement was an inappropriate place to address the issue; that the issue would be addressed in the bond resolution. Yet the staff did nothing to assure Councilmember Boyer. What are we to do? We ask the City what is necessary to get a task accomplished. You tell us what to do. We do it. 11740 SAN VICENTE BLVD.. SUITE 208 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90049 (2131207-3100 FAX [2131 207-21.62 i • `' Ms. Lynn Harris March 26, 1992 Page 2 You ask us for more. We do it. You ask us for something different. We do it. Yet still the task is not accomplished. We grow tiresome and weary from this belabored process. We feel so frustrated. The financial and emotional burdens are taking their toll on us. Perhaps we could understand, if we did not do everything that was asked of us. Perhaps we could understand if we did not jump through hoops at lightning speed as each Commission and Council hearing approaches. It is sad to think that a property owner who is only trying to make a living in a very risky business has to go through such dilatory process, has to risk so much, just to provide homes for the families in our community. Even as I write this; our respective attorneys are diligently working to provide the language that will satisfy Councilmember Boyer's issues. It is a fairly simple concept, and the language could be agreed upon very quickly. We had relied upon the City's assurances that this issue could have been addressed in the bond resolution, and the Agreement was not approved because of just this issue. We think it only fair, given that we have done all that has been asked of us, that the City place the matter on the City Council's special meeting set for April 2, 1992. As you are well aware, throughout this process it has always been a major concern of ours that the sweat, investment and effort put into this transaction over the past several years would fall victim to a new City Council who is unaware of our efforts to accommodate the City and to build the City a road. A continuance to April 21st does just that. It would be the final blow; the last nail in our coffin. We have done everything that you have asked of us. We now ask of you but one thing: to put us on the April 2nd City Council agenda. Very truly yours, 3 Dan Saxon Palmer, 11 DSP:m haffM cc: VIA TELECOPY AND REGISTERED MAIL Commissioner Jerry Cherrington Commissioner Jack Woodrow (cc's continued on next page) Commissioner Pat Modugno u' Commissioner Louis Braithwaite 01 Commissioner Dave Doughman Coucilmember Jo Anne Darcy Councilmember Jan Heidt Councilmember Howard McKeon Councilmember Carl Boyer The Honorable Jill Klajic, Mayor of the City of Santa Clarita Mr. George Caravalho Mr. Ken Pulskamp Ms. Andrea Daroca Mr. Jeff Kolin Mr. John Medina Mr. Richard Ashburn, Jr. Mr. Richard Kopecky Maryann Goodkind, Esq. VIA TELECOPY Mr. Steve Krueger Dr. Xavier Mendoza Mr. Percival Vaz Mr. Hank Heeber Mr. David Hunt Mr. Joel Silverman Gary Smolker, Esq. Kenneth B. Bley, Esq. Lewis G. Feldman, Esq. Stanley W. Lamport, Esq. Lee Silver, Esq. Linda A. Kirios, Esq.