Applicant Letter to City Council
Writer’s email: [email protected]
October 15, 2024,
VIA EMAIL:
[email protected]
Mayor Cameron Smyth
City of Santa Clarita
23929 Valencia Blvd., Ste 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Re: October 22, 2024 Council Meeting. Continuation of August 27, 2024 Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Harvard 826 Property, LLC Master Case 21-086 Santa Clarita Plaza 26111-26135 Bouquet Canyon Road
Dear Mayor Smyth and Members of the City Council,
I am submitting this letter on behalf of the applicant Harvard 826 Property, LLC for Master Case 21-086 for your consideration at the Appeal Hearing from the approval, by a vote of 4 to 1, of our project at the June 18, 2024, Planning Commission Hearing.
As you know, this Hearing was originally scheduled for August 27, 2024, but prior to the Public Hearing and consideration of the Appeal, Councilmembers Weste and McLean requested a continuance to explore with the applicant potential changes to the project. The Council then continued this Appeal Hearing to October 22nd.
We testified against the continuance because no specific changes had been presented to us as part of the Appeal or by the councilmembers requesting the continuance. The response from some members of the City Council that night was that there was tremendous opposition to the project, that the Planning Commission had a lot of issues (even though they approved the project 4 -1), that the continuance would allow for consensus and was the best way to make the project better. The rationale for the continuance was not based on any of the items which had been raised in the Appeal.
Since August 27 the applicant has waited patiently to hear what specific changes to the project councilmembers and Planning staff would propose. On October 9 th the Applicant and I met with Councilwoman Weste and City staff at her request to discuss potential changes to the project. At this meeting we were presented with the potential for increased residential units and the concern of the future of the existing IHOP restaurant. There was no discussion regarding any of the issues raised by the Appellants. Rather for the first time we received a proposal for more residential units and to replace the existing IHOP restaurant building. The applicant gave these potential changes very careful consideration and balanced the costs of additional residential development with revenue from
October 15, 2024
Mayor Cameron Smyth
L:\Client Files\1005\2070 - HARVARD 826 PROPERTY, LLC\CORRESPONDENCE\Final Leter Mayor Smyth Promenande Letter 10-15-24.docx the existing restaurant. However, it believes strongly that the existing proposed project will complement the existing commercial center and that the IHOP restaurant, either with the existing tenant or a new tenant, will be able to be successful in the fu ture. We understand that there is disagreement about the future viability of the restaurant, but at the end of the day it is a business decision by the Applicant to deal with the risk of the future of all its commercial property.
The continuance of the Public Hearing by the City Council without any specifics suggested changes has caused hardship to the applicant in spite of representations that was not the goal of the continuance. The facts are that the applicant has invested a large amount of funds in this project for the past 4 years and the appeals of first the Administrative Hearing approval and then the Planning Commission approval and now the Council continuance has caused the unnecessary delay resulting in the Applicant incurring additional interest, legal and consultant fees. In addition, these delays put the project at risk to a change in market conditions which will adversely affect them financially.
As a result, we will be proceeding with our project as approved by the Planning Commission and will once again ask the City Council to deny the Appeal and affirm the Planning Commission’s approval of this project.
The entitlement being requested is a Minor Use Permit, Architectural Design Review and Development Review. Your Planning staff has consistently recommended approval of this project and these entitlement requests are usually approved administratively. The staff report for the Planning Commission Hearing stated that this project was first submitted to the City for consideration for a One Stop Review on June 6, 2019, and that the formal application for the MUP was submitted on April 3, 2021. After the City sent the Notices of its plan to approve the MUP, it was appealed by the adjacent property owner Cinema Park.
The City then held an Administrative Hearing on April 17, 2024. After testimony the Hearing Officer approved the project and included an additional Condition of Approval regarding parking safety which the Applicant agreed to.
The Applicant subsequently met with Cinema Park in an attempt to address their concerns regarding parking and the IHOP restaurant’s affect on their property. We were unsuccessful and Cinema Park appealed the project to the Planning Commission without spec ifically citing how the project was deficient in parking.
The Planning Commission considered this appeal on June 18, 2024. After hearing extensive testimony and discussion the Commission denied the appeal and approved the Project on a 4-1 vote.
This support counters the representation at the August 27 City Council meeting that the Commission “had a lot of issues”. The issues the Commission had were addressed with the additional Conditions of Approval which are outlined in the Council’s Staff Report and which the Applicant has agreed to.
October 15, 2024
Mayor Cameron Smyth
L:\Client Files\1005\2070 - HARVARD 826 PROPERTY, LLC\CORRESPONDENCE\Final Leter Mayor Smyth Promenande Letter 10-15-24.docx
APPEALS
On July 1 st Cinema Park once again appealed this project. In addition, another adjacent property owner the Las Flores Apartments appealed the project.
The Applicant met with the Las Flores Apartments and their counsel and had numerous discussions. As a result, Las Flores was satisfied that their concerns about the project and their continued easement access through the Applicant’s property had been resolved. As a result, Las Flores withdrew their appeal and sent a support letter which is attached.
Regarding Cinema Park, the Applicant’s efforts to try and resolve any of their issues were unsuccessful.
The Applicant believes that the Staff Report provides a clear explanation why there is no basis for the Appeal and that this Project meets all of the requirements for approval by the City Council. I have provided our analysis below.
PARKING
The arguments contained in the appeal and some other communications center almost entirely on concerns with adequate parking. These included:
• There is not sufficient parking.
• The new Residents of this project and customers of the center will park at the appellant Cinema Park shopping center.
• Concern regarding customer and employee safety
• Concern regarding traffic through the project site as well as traffic safety entering and existing the site.
The Applicant had the well respected firm LSA perform a traffic analysis which confirmed that the existing commercial project along with the new residential and commercial project provided the required 249 parking spaces which are provided. The applicant is providing 41 new spaces on a vacant parcel in the southwest corner of the property. The project provides required code parking for the new residential units. LSA provided a Parking Demand Study which found that at the peak hours there would be surplus parking.
Although the project meets the City’s Parking requirement and the Parking Demand Study confirmed there would be surplus parking even during the busiest time periods, the applicant has agreed to a parking management plan (Condition of Approval PL 5 ) to further ensure that there is October 15, 2024
Mayor Cameron Smyth
L:\Client Files\1005\2070 - HARVARD 826 PROPERTY, LLC\CORRESPONDENCE\Final Leter Mayor Smyth Promenande Letter 10-15-24.docx sufficient parking. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT PLANNING STAFF HAS
INDICATED THAT THIS CONDITION HAS NEVER BEEN IMPOSED ON ANY OTHER PROJECT, INCLUDING THE MALL.
This plan will in part provide the following:
• Residential and Commercial spaces will be clearly designated and restricted for that use. • That the residents of the new residential complex will have a parking permit only to park in the residential spaces.
• Guests of the residential complex must have passes and park in the designated guest parking spaces.
• Have implementation plans which can result in the towing of any vehicle improperly parked in a residential or commercial designated space. This would include any vehicles belonging to the adjacent apartment complex.
• Work with the tenants of the center to have its employees park in the new 41 space lot and provide security and lighting for that area.
Although Cinema Park claims that IHOP patrons and the new residents will park within their lot, they have provided no studies or evidence that it is currently occurring or is likely to occur in the future. The studies conducted on behalf of this project and the Parking Management Plan they will provide and implement will deal with any of the concerns about parking which have been made.
UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT CODE CONSISTENCY
The Staff report correctly points out this project falls under the provision of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Senate Bill 330) and the objective standards review required by the City has been met.
As a result, the Council has no discretion but to approve this Project since it meets the objective standards of the City. Nothing in the Appeal counters this determination which has been consistently made by City Planning Staff and the City Attorney.
CEQA
This is an in-fill project and as a result is exempt from CEQA.
CONCLUSION
The Staff Report and this letter have clearly shown that none of the issues raised by the Appeal are valid. The Parking has been sufficiently dealt with and in fact we have not heard from any councilmember since the continuance that Parking needed to be resolved. Rather the sole focus was on the future viability of the IHOP restaurant, either with the existing tenant or a future tenant. The October 15, 2024
Mayor Cameron Smyth
L:\Client Files\1005\2070 - HARVARD 826 PROPERTY, LLC\CORRESPONDENCE\Final Leter Mayor Smyth Promenande Letter 10-15-24.docx Applicant has met with IHOP and its representatives and reached an agreement regarding its lease and the proposed construction. While the Applicant appreciates the point of views which have been expressed by the City regarding the restaurant, once again it has made the business decision to proceed with this project.
For the reasons stated in this letter, the staff report, and various studies and analysis provided, the City should approve the requested entitlements for this project.
Sincerely,
Hunt C. Braly
Cc: Andy Olson, Associate Planner
Harvard 826 Property, LLC
Karen Hallock, Of Counsel, DLA Piper LLP
LUNA & GLUSHON
A Professional Corporation
16255 VENTURA BOULEVARD, SUITE 950
ENCINO, CALIFORNIA 91436
TEL: (818) 907-8755
FAX: (818) 907-8760
August 21, 2024
VIA EMAIL ([email protected])
Patrick Leclair, Planning Manager
City of Santa Clarita
Community Development Department
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Re: Appeal of Master Case 21-086
Dear Mr. LeClair:
Our law firm represents Las Flores Apartments , LLC (“Las F lores Apartments”), one of the appellants to the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project (MC21-086) (the “Project”). Our appeal is scheduled to be hear d by the City Council on August 27, 2024.
After meeting with the owners/developers, Harvard 826 Property, LLC , and reaching an agreement regarding our client ’s concerns, Las Flores Apartments no longer opposes the Project and no longer wishes to pursue the appeal.
Please let us know if there is anything else you need from us.
Very truly yours,
LUNA & GLUSHON
A Professional Corporation
KRISTINA KROPP
cc: Andy Olson, Associate Planner
DENNIS R. LUNA
(1946-2016)