Council delays decision on mixed-use project in Old Town Newhall
Santa Clarita Mayor Pro Tem Laurene Weste recused herself from the City Council’s discussion Tuesday of an agreement for a five-story building in Old Town Newhall that she privately negotiated with the developer.
At the top of the discussion, Weste said her move was made out of an abundance of caution due to perceived potential conflicts of interest, citing recent newspaper articles.
The council voted 4-0 to hold off on the project in light of some of the concerns mentioned by Councilman Jason Gibbs regarding the process behind how the deal for the project was put together.
“I feel that there’s pieces of this project that need to be vetted more before this project came to us,” Gibbs said, referring to the Planning Commission’s review of the project in March. He added that the developer was still mentioning deal components that were being sent to him the day of the meeting.
Councilwoman Marsha McLean also expressed concerns about the plans, including the size of the development, the available parking and its aesthetics, saying she wasn’t sure if the design matched the rest of the area.
“We just need to make this thing better,” McLean said, hoping to discuss more development alternatives. “I think we need a whole lot more discussion and study on this.”
About 150 came to City Hall, more than 40 of whom filled out comment cards that were somewhat split: Fifteen were in favor, 14 opposed, a half-dozen neutral and some who declined to state.
The hours-long discussion touched on the impacts to surrounding businesses, the project’s potential to further the area’s upward trajectory and what can be done about the 90-year-old courthouse recommended for demolition in order to make the plan possible.
The Hartwell is the name announced for the 78-condo project where Main Street, Market Street and Railroad Avenue intersect, across the street from the Jan Heidt Metrolink Station. The first floor would be about 5,200 feet of retail, with underground parking part of more than 120 spaces planned.
Weste has been criticized for her role in the city staff recommendation for the project, which included allowing a $750,000 developer payment in exchange for the ability to demolish a 90-year-old former courthouse building that was on the city’s list of historic buildings.
Mentioning recent Signal articles that detailed her role in the negotiations prior to the council’s discussion Tuesday, Weste said she spoke with the city’s legal counsel, which cleared her of any potential conflict of interest. That being said, Weste added she didn’t want to distract from the project’s potential.
“Only a judge can determine whether I would have any type of conflict in terms of my actions today,” Weste said, prior to the council’s discussion of any items on the agenda. “I believe that I have acted in the best interest of the city. However, I am concerned that my participation tonight will shift the focus of the discussion away from the merits of this project, which I believe is a very good project. Therefore, with an abundance of caution, I am choosing to not participate in tonight’s agenda item No. 1.”
Weste did not reference what potential caution or conflict of interest she was specifically addressing.
Both city staff and Weste said there’s nothing improper or illegal about a council member meeting with a developer and negotiating on behalf of the city. Weste has previously recused herself from the dais during the discussion of other projects in the area, including an extension of Dockweiler Drive, due to her ownership of about 7.5 acres south of Placerita Canyon Road and west of Aden Avenue.
Jason Tolleson, The Hartwell’s developer, said the project he’s planning has the potential to be another award-winning plan for the neighborhood, similar in quality to Newhall Crossings, a mixed-use project his company built at the other end of Main Street, near Lyons Avenue.
Tolleson said at the Planning Commission meeting in March that he had not studied in-depth the prospect of moving the courthouse, but he had cost estimates and added that if he knew the building would have to be moved, he never would have included it in his plan. The figures shared during his presentation indicated such a move would cost in the area of $2.7 million to $4 million, which he indicated would be cost-prohibitive.
Weste acknowledged that she negotiated on behalf of the city for the $750,000 fee, which was to be earmarked for historic preservation efforts. She also sits on the governing board for the Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society, which issued a letter stating the historic courthouse eyed for demolition was no longer historic.
Tolleson said he came up with the $750,000 figure that was agreed upon by Weste because it was what he could afford for the project.
The Signal obtained videos on Monday that showed Weste in 2011 and 2012 council meetings had argued in favor of the former courthouse’s preservation, calling it one of the city’s “most intrinsic valuable properties.”
City officials referred inquiries Monday regarding its conflict-of-interest policy to state law, which is overseen by the Fair Political Practices Commission.
The FPPC’s stated role is to “promote the integrity of state and local government in California through fair, impartial interpretation and enforcement of political campaign, lobbying and conflict-of-interest laws.”
One of the businesses impacted by the project was local radio station KHTS, which operates on Main Street next door to where the project would be constructed. Tolleson mentioned that he was negotiating a mitigation deal with the owners of the radio station. Carl Goldman, one of the co-owners, asked the council Tuesday to pause its approval until their deal was completed.
One of the major hangups discussed was the required parking for the project, which was a nuanced area due to Assembly Bill 2097.
The state law intended to encourage more home construction and density states a developer does not have to provide parking for a project if it’s within a half-mile of a transit center. However, the city can require a study for parking, and if the study indicates a “preponderance of evidence” that adding no parking would have a negative impact on an area, then the city can require parking. The developer’s proposed number was 122 spots.
Mayor Bill Miranda expressed frustration with the delay Tuesday, mentioning that in his hometown of New York, things get torn down “every single day.”
“There’s construction, major construction, going on every single day in every single neighborhood. Get over it,” Miranda said. “If we want to have progress in our community, if we want our community to grow, if we want to have a more vibrant community, an economically vibrant community, get over it. We got to build, OK?”
The hearing was continued until the May 13 Santa Clarita City Council meeting. +
