Anderson-Hagaman project voted down by council without prejudice
April 22, 2016
By Peggy Kelly
Santa Paula News
After a long hearing a split City Council voted down the proposal to build 79-single-family hillside homes just west of Peck Road north of Foothill Road, although they encouraged the developer to try again.
The Planning Commission approved the Anderson/Hagaman Project nearly a year ago; voters initially approved it in 2003.
Since then the project has been going through official channels and due to strong opposition from nearby neighbors, the council asked that issues be the focus of a joint study session.
After a dozen speakers objected to the development at the April 18 meeting, the council voted 4-1 against it with Councilman Jim Tovias casting the lone yes vote.
At the top of the agenda item Keith Hagaman told the council the study session had been a “very fruitful situation and we got a lot accomplished…”
Four items of concern — grading, density, visualization and traffic — have been addressed including adding lighted beacons to calm Foothill traffic as it approaches Peck Road. In addition Hagaman said other traffic issues including access would be studied and mitigated after annexation.
The houses, he concluded, would be a “higher end product, there’s a lack of that in Santa Paula,” to attract business owners who then might want to move their enterprise to the city.
Richard Main said the new development would not be executive level homes, which would warrant only about 25 homes on the hillside.
Executive homes must have room for swimming pools and “I don’t see anything like that on the drawing board…where is the city going to do that if not on the hillside?”
The 32-plus-acre parcel will be further reduced by a 5-acre park which could attract criminals.
Building true executive housing, said Main, “Would frankly be a much better credit to the city.”
“Arabs say history is read by the light of many lanterns,” Mike Dalo told the council. “We’re seeing two different perspectives…we can’t build ourselves into prosperity.”
Much of the opposition to the project is “The ungodly amount of dirt that has to removed,” calculated by Dalo as being a mound 8-feet high by 8-feet wide that would stretch from Santa Paula to Fillmore.
Two-million cubic yards of dirt would fill the Rose Bowl several times over said Russell Fox who urged the council to choose responsible growth.
Ken Chapman said trying to fix runoff issues that plague those living on the south side of Highway 126 would lead to battles with regulatory agencies.
President/CEO Fred Robinson told the council the board of the Chamber of Commerce and the Economic Development Committee met with the developers and endorses the new development.
“We gave it very careful consideration,” and believes it is a project that offers the city quality, sustainability and financial benefits.
“We need the jobs, we need the housing,” but Robinson said what the city doesn’t need is LAFCo being in the position of denying annexation to Adams Canyon due to development inactivity.
“I know they would love to get that canyon back in their jurisdiction,” circumventing the will of voters that Robinson noted had approved development.
Robinson’s remarks were the only ones in support of the proposed project.
After about an hour of testimony Councilwoman Ginger Gherardi said she had “grave concerns” about the grading and wanted assurances that the city would not be liable for property located outside the Geological Hazard Abatement District that would be created for the project.
She also questioned the lack of traffic study.
Councilman Jim Tovias asked for clarification on water availability and Mayor Martin Hernandez addressed water need for dust control during construction as well as runoff.
Development Consultant Mike Pfizer, Interim Public Works Director Brian Yanez and Planning Director Janna Minsk answered council questions including dust control.
Gherardi also questioned the project’s Specific Plan being able to supplant General Plan guidelines.
Yanez noted water and slope grading but “Grading, yes it does exceed municipal code and the city could would be waiving that,” an issue previously addressed.
City Attorney John Cotti said water issues are simpler: “Before any work would be done on the property or anyone lives on the property,” all water requirements would have to be satisfied.
Pfizer said the company has gone “above and beyond” in adding mitigation measures throughout the process to allay the worries of residents.
“We don’t like the grading,” said Hagaman, “none of us do,” but he noted that the same amount of grading would be required for fewer executive homes.
No matter how many homes would be built “There’s not an alternative here for the grading…it’s a very unusual site,” and “we’ll do what we have to do,” to correct and stabilize the hillside.
Councilmembers were not convinced: “I would feel a lot more comfortable with less homes,” said Martinez.
Gherardi made a motion to deny the project but Tovias countered “I think we need to look at this from a different perspective…”
He noted that voters not only approved the project but that also was the stance taken by the city when LAFCo tried to remove the voter-approved Adams Canyon from the city’s sphere of influence.
“How can we ask LAFCo to honor the will of our voters?” he asked.
Tovias listed benefits of the project detailed to him by the city’s last deputy planning director, “The completely objective opinion of someone that was leaving the city…
“I would support it because the voters supported it,” and Tovias said although those living near the project would be “inconvenienced” the building of their homes impacted those living below them.
Councilman John Procter said, “I’m bothered by the lack of flexibility and the responsiveness from the developers,” as well as potential impacts on the neighborhood.
“I’m not against the idea of anything being up there,” said Vice Mayor Jenny Crosswhite, “but I’m not sure if is compatible…”
Crosswhite also questioned the specific plan overruling the General Plan as well as the 200-foot wall that would be required for the project.
“This is more dirt than any land project I’ve ever heard of in the county,” said Hagaman.
Procter said he did not want to deny the project outright but would rather see changes.
“I would like to approve a project in some form,” but he noted, “This is not it as far as I’m concerned…”
After some discussion about continuing the process Gherardi said the neighbors would be kept “in an uproar…I think it’s cleaner to make the break,” and the developer to return with a new project.
In the end the council voted 4-1 to deny the project without prejudice, allowing the developer to return to the city with a similar proposal for the parcel within a year.
