« Several Shots Rang Out | Main | Big Turnout For Today's Study Session »
November 12, 2013
DHS City Council Study Session, November 6, 2013
Skyborne developers are keeping an eye on the market and considering when they should start building homes again. It's my understanding that they expect that date to be sometime about 9 to 18 months away. There is a Development Agreement between them and the city. The city's zoning code requires the City Council to review all Development Agreements annually. Skyborne's has never been reviewed, so this is clearly something that needs to be done before they start anything. At the same time, staff saw that the City Council had never performed the annual reviews of either of the other two Development Agreements: Rancho Del Oro (originally Arroyo Vista) and Highland Falls. The Rancho Del Oro Development Agreement has expired, but they've got other issues the city still needs to deal with. So the plan was to bring all three Development Agreements before the City Council for a good, clear, business-like review. But nothing goes quite as planned.
The agenda was revised to move the Rancho Del Oro discussion to last because several council members had possible conflicts of interest there.
Highland Falls
Martín Magaña handled the staff report. This Development Agreement was approved in 2002 and will expire in 2028. The only change the city has made since 2002 was to reduce the bonds for grading from $1 million to $100,000 because the graded area had crusted over thoroughly and there was no dust to blow.
Highland Falls is the colored area in this aerial view. It's northwest from the intersection of Pierson and Highway 62. As you can see, a little less than one-half of it was graded. The line cutting off the corner at lower right is the Colorado River Aqueduct. Go here for the Google map.
It's 970 acres and was to have included 2,145 single-family homes, 1,342 multi-family units, a 500-room hotel of about 60,000 sq. ft., two golf courses, and retail. In June 2013 the project was purchased by The Walton Group.
The Development Agreement required them to have completed Phase I of their infrastructure in 2009 and by 2013 there was supposed to be one golf course and 200 homes. None of that was done, of course.
The Development Agreement was not filed with the county. It is the developer's responsibility to see that is done. Failure to record it does not invalidate the agreement. Other elements of the development, the tract map and the specific plan for example, are still valid. The Walton Group is planning to make changes in the plan, the most notable change being the elimination of one golf course. To make those changes the whole project has to come back before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Magaña said the Development Agreement included a force majeuree clause that allows the suspension of obligations. The unexpected severe collapse of the real estate market constitutes a force majeure. In addition the State of California has extended all development tract maps for 7 years during the recession.
Councilmember Betts asked if the Development Agreement required a traffic signal at Pierson and 62. Mr. Magaña said it does. Mayor Parks pointed out that this requirement is in the conditions of approval, not the Development Agreement. Mayor Pro Tem Matas asked if that was required at the time of building, saying there are three projects in that area. Mr. Betts said that as soon as one of the developments starts in that area, there will be so much traffic the signals will have to be installed immediately. Mr. Magaña answered "I would imagine so." Councilmember Pye pointed out that the requirements are listed on page 77 of the agenda packet. It says "At such time approximately one-third of the entire project, or one-half of the single-family residences, is built" then signals should be installed at Pierson and 62 "primarily" by the developer.
Mr. Betts asked if was "prior to occupancy." Ms. Pye said she was just reading what the Development Agreement said. Mr. Betts repeated his question if that was prior to first occupancy of the first home, or is it after 50% of the homes are built. Mr. Magaña said he would consider built to mean "issued a certificate of occupancy." Then Mr. Betts said "on the first home or all of them?" The answer in the text was "one-half." A simple one-half is 1,073 single-family homes. Mr. Magaña interpreted it as 300 homes. In either case, that threshold is much too high. It will be revised when it comes back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Magaña said the revisions to the project may require a new or supplemental EIR as well.
Mr. Betts asked if this Development Agreement was just going to go out the window. "Pretty much," was Mr. Magaña's answer. Mr. Betts asked why it was being discussed, as if he thought the status of this large pending project was none of the City Council's business. Mr. Magaña explained that the Development Agreement was in force. Mr. Betts said he saw no point in discussing it. Mayor Parks explained to him that the City Council needed to be aware of where the project stands right now.
Councilmember Sanchez asked why the grading bonds were reduced ot $100,000. Mr. Magaña said that it was because they weren't doing any more grading and a lot of natural vegetation has come back. The surface of the soil has been compacted. Mr. Betts said it's not blowing dust. He said that natural vegetation has not come back.
This is a photo I shot in 2009 of an area inside Highland Falls that had been graded .Click it to get the full size image and you will see that in addition to the creosote in the foreground there are other native plants growing in the background.
Mr. Betts acknowledged that there was some vegetation there, but wanted to define the terms. He defined "natural vegetation" as "virgin desert that hasn't been disturbed."
I suppose that when Mr. Betts uses a word it means just what he chooses it to mean - neither more nor less, but most people refer to virgin desert as "virgin desert," and most people would agree with the definition of "natural vegetation" as "vegetation that occurs spontaneously without regular management, maintenance or species introductions / removals, and that generally has a strong component of native species."
Mr. Magaña said he had been on the property and observed the condition of the soil and agreed that it is compacted.
Attorney Quintanilla summarized that nothing is going on with the Highland Falls development now, but if the owners come back and want to redesign the project they will need to amend the EIR, the General Plan amendment maybe, the Specific Plan amendment, the tentative tract map, and they may need a zone map amendment. Those would all go first to the Planning Commission before coming to the City Council. At that time the city could consider a new Development Agreement.
He went on to say that under the normal land use permitting process conditions of approval can be imposed only if there is a nexus between the condition and the impact of the development - for example, a traffic signal required because of the increase in traffic caused by the development. A Development Agreement, OTOH, provides assurance to the developer that the city won't change the rules on that developer in the future. In return the city gets to impose additional conditions that we wouldn't get otherwise; for example, a requirement to build a fire station.
Mr. Betts asked if the city could require a developer to build a fire station and pay to staff it. Attorney Quintanilla said the city would have to get the developer to agree to it, but yes it could be done. Mr. Quintanilla said some Development Agreements require the creation of a Community Facilities District that pays for the operation of police and fire.
Mr. Sanchez asked Mr. Magaña what the Walton Corporations thoughts are on when they will proceed. The answer was it's going to be about 18 months before they come back to the city with a new concept for the property. They will reduce the density of the plan and probably build only one golf course.
Skyborne
In 2004 the city approved the EIR, a General Plan amendment, a zoning map amendment, a Specific Plan, a tentative parcel map, and a vesting tentative tract map for Skyborne. The Development Agreement was approved in 2005. That Development Agreement was amended in 2006. In 2009 the City Council approved replacing bonds with a lien contract. The entire project is 604 acres and will have 2,140 single-family homes. Only 178 homes have been built. Skyborne Ventures LLC bought the property from DR Horton in September 2008. Skyborne Ventures has not built any homes. Grading has taken on some of the land outside of the built-up area, "but the natural vegetation has grown back and the soil appears to be stable." The developer is working to obtain permits to continue grading the area that has been characterized as a quarry or surface mine.
If the Development Agreement schedule had been followed there would 1,600 homes built and 900 more being built this year. The Development Agreement also has a force majeure clause.
The project is laid out in ten villages. Mr. Betts asked if there was phasing in each of the villages. Mr. Magaña said he didn't know, but the applicant was present for questions. Mr. Betts asked if the Development Agreement specified which order the villages would be developed in.
Mr. Magaña said that when development of the next village is to begin, a subdivision improvement agreement that would come to the City Council. Mr. Betts asked if the Development Agreement specified when these would be built "because they've mass graded the entire area." The answer was that the Development Agreement only specified the number of homes in each phase. Mr. Magaña said that the city can't expect a developer to build homes when there isn't a reasonable prospect of making a profit.
Mr. Betts said it is incumbent upon the developer to implement the force majeure clause. It's not automatic. They have to take steps. They have to give formal notice that they intend to take advantage of the force majeure clause. Then the City Council must decide if they agree. So no force majeure is in effect, he said. Then he repeated himself in entirety in explaining the force majeure process. He said the force majeure clause was irrelevant in this discussion. Mr. Magaña said in his opinion it was relevant. Mr. Betts asked Mr. Magaña if he was an attorney. Mr. Magaña said he was not, but that the force majeure clause specifically listed market conditions. He said he disagreed with the sequence laid out by Mr. Betts. Mr. Betts called on Mr. Quintanilla to describe the proper sequence to force majeure. "Is it just up to staff to make a determination that force majeure is now in effect?"
Here is the relevant clause which can be found on page 160 in the agenda packet:
11.11.2 The parties hereto expressly acknowledge and agree that significantly adverse changes in general economic conditions that, as demonstrated by Owner to the satisfaction of the City Council, prevent Owner from obtaining a commercially reasonable profit shall constitute a force majeure event.
Mr. Quintanilla read the above paragraph and said it means the City Council must agree before force majeure is in effect. Mr. Betts said that means a formal action is required.
Mr. Matas suggested they just ask the developer if they plan to invoke force majeure. Jim Kozak came to the table. He represents the developer. He said he met with City Manager Daniels in 2009 to discuss force majeure because of economic conditions. Mr. Daniels recommended that Skyborne not make a formal request because he wasn't sure how long the economic conditions would exist. Even though the economy has started coming back, he said it would be another 9 to 18 months before they could begin building new homes in Skyborne at a price within reason of the existing homes. There have been some recent sales there with prices of $170,000-$180,000 which they find encouraging. He said he had submitted reports to Mr. Magaña annually on the conditions of the project. Each report showed they had no economic activity occurring. These were a formal notification of the reality of the situation.
Mr. Betts said Mr. Kozak had confirmed there had been no specific action to implement force majeure and that they hadn't decided to do it. He went on to tell Mr. Kozak that Mr. Kozak agreed that a formal action is required for the force majeure clause to take effect. Mr. Kozak said he would have their attorney review it. He could not state a legal opinion himself. He said the opportunity still exists to invoke force majeure. Mr. Betts repeated that it had not been done and was questioning why so much attention was being given to it in the staff report. "I just didn't know why so much weight was given to it in the staff report."
Here is what was in the staff report on Skyborne in the agenda packet on the subject of force majeure:
The Development Agreement has a "force majeure" clause as well. It basically states that the changes in economic conditions constitute a force majeure which has delayed further construction of the site, and therefore cannot hold the developer responsible for meeting the performance schedule. The Development Agreement also states that in the event of a force majeure the term of the Agreement may be extended for the period of time that such event prevented continued performance. However, the extension should not be more than 5 years.
In addition to that Mr. Magaña said "The same as the last one, this one has the force majeure clause."
That's all the weight given to force majeure by staff. The greater part of the discussion of force majeure was by Mr. Betts and in response to his questions.
Mr. Betts went on to say that force majeure is not a valid discussion for this staff report. Mr. Magaña said he thinks force majeure is in effect due to market conditions. Mr. Betts interrupted him saying "I don't know why we need to go on and on and on about force majeure."
Mr. Betts asked Mr. Quintanilla for his opinion on force majeure. The attorney said that force majeure was not processed through the City Council. Mayor Parks asked what the point was to this discussion about force majeure. Mr. Quintanilla said that without force majeure there is an argument that the Development Agreement has expired.
Mayor Parks asked about the extensions of time made by the Governor. Mr. Quintanilla said that applies only to the maps. He suggested that a request from the developer to extend the Development Agreement based on force majeure should be considered by the City Council as soon as possible.
Ms. Pye asked if the process that would be followed is the one described in 6.3 of the Development Agreement (page 155 of the agenda packet).
6.3 Procedure.(a) During either a periodic review or a special review, Owner shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the Agreement. The burden of proof on this issue shall be on Owner.
(b) Upon completion of a periodic review or a special review, the Planning Manager shall submit a report to the City Council setting forth the evidence concerning good faith compliance by Owner with the terms of this Agreement and his or her recommended finding on that issue.
(c) If the City Council finds on the basis of substantial evidence that Owner has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the review shall be concluded.
(d) If the City Council makes a preliminary finding that Owner has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Council may modify or terminate this Agreement as provided in Section 6.4 and Section 6.5. Notice of default as provided under Section 8.3 of this Agreement shall be given to Owner prior to or concurrent with, proceedings under Section 6.4 and Section 6.5.
Mr. Betts said this depends on whether the developer wants to invoke force majeure, and then defined force majeure as the developer wishing to stop all activity due to economic conditions. Mr. Betts said Skyborne is going to seek a grading permit which indicates economic activity. Mr. Quintanilla said the force majeure issue had to be resolved first before proceeding to consider the grading permit.
Mr. Betts then went on to explain the process of scheduling grading and reviews of that grading by engineers. He went on to say that we all wake up at 7 o'clock and hear "this beautiful sound of the housing market coming back." But residents must know they will have to tolerate that only for a while, a year or six months. Then he said they would hear some hammering and pretty soon he would hear children playing. That's what would be taking place on a grading plan, he said. But force majeure and proceeding ahead are two separate directions.
Mr. Quintanilla speculated that the developer's counsel may advise them to request the City Council to make a determination of force majeure retroactively. Then the later request for a grading permit will be based on a decision by the council that the Development Agreement is valid and the entitlements are still intact. But it's a two-step process he said. First a determination on force majeure, then after that on a grading permit.
Mr. Matas said the reason for this study session is so that the City Council knows the issues involved in the Development Agreement, so when the matter comes before them in a formal meeting the council will know the process and be able to vote. Mr. Betts said we didn't know if the developer would request force majeure. Mayor Parks agreed, but said the developer knows the situation and will consult with his attorney and then make a decision.
Mr. Betts said this did not satisfy the requirements of a review of a Development Agreement. He had asked staff for more information and was advised there was not time to get it for this meeting. Mr. Quintanilla said he thought the direction the council should consider is to direct staff to discuss the force majeure issue with the developer and to come back with further information as deemed necessary by the council to allow them to make a decision as to whether the developer is in compliance with the Development Agreement.
Mayor Parks suggested that be brought to the meeting on November 19. Mr. Betts said that another study session would be needed to review the Development Agreement. He then explained that if the developer wanted to change anything in the Development Agreement then it would have to come before the Planning Commission and the public would have to be allowed to give their opinions on the matter. Mr. Quintanilla agreed that any changes have to go back through the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Betts explained some economic factors that could be weighed by a developer such as the cost of a door, plate height, lot size.
Mr. Quintanilla asked the council if their consensus was to do as he had suggested. Mr. Betts said the council didn't know what the developer wants to do. Mr. Quintanilla and Mayor Parks said that at this point the developer is proposing no changes. Mayor Parks said a force majeure decision would apply only to the original Development Agreement, which would then stay in effect until the developer comes to the city to ask for changes. At that time the request would go through the full planning process. Mr. Betts said times have changed. "All I saw in the staff report was a couple of pages of force majeure discussion which is like 'What is this here for?' It doesn't fit. The time we spent on force majeure I didn't see any of my questions answered."
Of course, it was Mr. Betts who led the discussion on force majeure. In the 178 page agenda packet there were four sentences on Skyborne's force majeure clause, aside from the content of the Development Agreement itself.
Mr. Kozak informally described the direction Skyborne is considering: first a request for force majeure, the Development Agreement allows for a 5-year period, but the economic downturn has lasted longer than five years, so Skyborne might suggest going back five years and toll the time in terms of the performance schedule of home construction, they may ask for more time than five years. Some municipalities have used a 7-year period to match the time of the map extensions provided by the Governor. There are still 216 finished lots at Skyborne where homes will be constructed. Due to continued good pricing they may choose to do grading on other parts of the project so those areas can be sequenced after the 216 lots are built up. They may want include some additional product types. He acknowledged that would require a Specific Plan amendment and take that through the Planning Commission and City Council. There are recorded maps on villages 3 and 10, so those will probably not be changed, but they may consider changes in other areas.
Mr. Betts said the force majeure process didn't allow the City Council to pick and choose. He has a problem with a retroactive force majeure. He repeated that force majeure must come to the City Council for discussion and public input. He explained the downside to the grading process: dust and noise. The duration of that must be minimized. He explained that Highland Falls and Tuscan Hills are stalled and said we don't want those green fences to be their forever. "Not be bring up a sore subject," he said as he brought up a sore subject, "Thank God, Palmwood got stopped before we had another graded mess up there." He repeated that force majeure does not allow the city to pick and choose. Either all activity must be stopped or they must proceed according to the Development Agreement. Mr. Kozak said Skyborne does have CC&Rs signed by each homebuyer that disclose that construction will be continuing in Skyborne for some time, so the downsides to construction are to be expected.
Mr. Betts said the CC&Rs apply to the homes within the subdivision, "but you also have many homes that abut your property ... that are just private residents out there who have put up with a lot." Mr. Kozak said that's about seven homes in what they call the "keyhole area." Mr. Betts said the whole Western Avenue area is downwind from Skyborne. He said he was getting calls from people out there while this was still a DR Horton project. "It stripped the paint off of my car chasing down all the dust clouds," Mr. Betts said.
Mr. Matas said the City Council had nothing to refer to because these have been unforeseen times. Every economist has said this is something new and the city has to work with developers to make sure projects are reviewed right. "All the residents need to be listened to also." He said it sounded like Mr. Betts is trying to put up more roadblocks. Mr. Betts said that was an unfair characterization. Mr. Betts began to explain his point; Mr. Matas asked to be allowed to continue to make his point, but Mr. Betts continued to speak over him. Mr. Matas said the City Council should get this project in front of them for a review and should review the other projects. When housing prices reach $100/square foot developers will begin to build again. The city needs to be prepared for that and Skyborne will be the guinea pig.
Ms. Pye said that while Skyborne has been reporting to staff on an annual basis including a report on the status of the economy, staff has not been bringing those reports forward to the City Council for their review. Mr. Betts said he didn't see where she was going. Ms. Pye explained that Skyborne did what they were supposed to do, but the city didn't do what it was supposed to do. She agreed with the attorney that the City Council must assure that all parties are in compliance with the Development Agreement.
Mr. Betts said he thinks the meeting where they review the Skyborne Development Agreement will be a long one. He suggested another study session first.
Mr. Betts said there was a road that was supposed to be paved all the way to Indian. Former City Manager Jerry Hanson had property along there. There was supposed to be a $600,000 contribution toward the paving of Indian "from the project all the way down." He said the payments were to be made in installments. Mayor Parks asked Mr. Betts when he moved here. "I don't know. What's that got to with anything?" Mr. Betts wondered if the $600,000 had been paid. Ms. Pye said $400,000 had been paid. Mr. Betts said there's $200,000 that is way past due.
The Development Agreement says the $600,000 is for improvements to Pierson Boulevard. The $200,000 installments were to be paid every other year, the last one being on the sixth anniversary of the Development Agreement which would put it in January 2011.
The attorney listed some of the items in section 4 of the Development Agreement, where the $600,000 contribution is listed. One of the items is Karen Park. Mr. Betts grabbed hold of that saying that the City had agreed to wait on that, but now Well 34 has been put "right in the middle of where Karen Park is supposed to be."
The water district board had a discussion about these wells in April 2011 and some maps were handed out.
Here's an old DR Horton plan for Skyborne. Click it for a larger version and you'll be able to find "Community Park" identified on Karen Avenue just north of the fire station. Click here for a water district map that shows Skyborne in red. The type is very small, but indicates that Well 34 is the one at the extreme northern end of Karen Avenue at 10th Avenue, as seen in this Google satellite view.
This view shows Well 35 which is the one in what was designated for Karen Park. A disagreement between Mr. Matas and Mr. Betts as to whether this was "in the middle" or off on on side of the Karen Park site. I think it's not in the middle.
Mr. Betts said that Mr. Daniels had suggested the park could just be moved 100 feet or 300 feet down the road. When Mr. Matas disagreed, saying it was not in the middle, Mr. Betts insisted it was "right in the middle of the park. It takes up a whole ball field that's supposed to be there." Does a change of that plan have to go back to the Planning Commission, Mr. Betts asked. "There's a lot of issues that have to be dealt with." It's fine with him if the City Council does it, "but I need staff to cooperate to provide me the information and the answer I got back was there just wasn't time to get it."
Mr. Kozak said his understanding of the park is that it is required to be 5 acres. He said a 5 acre park can be delivered that includes the necessary ball fields even with the well located where it is.
Mr. Betts said the characterization that there's been no work out there is ridiculous. There's been mass-grading. You can see road cuts.
I hadn't heard anyone at this meeting claim there had been no work done "out there."
Mr. Betts said the wider area of Promenade near the fire station is intended for parking for the park. "I don't agree with you that it just says 'I can build a park anywhere I want.'"
No one had claimed the agreement said "I can build a park anywhere I want." Here's what the Development Agreement says about Karen Park:
(a) Karen Street Park. Owner shall contribute the 5-acre site identified in the conditions of approval incorporated in the Development Plan, and improve said site in the manner also described in the conditions of approval incorporated in the Development Plan or as otherwise approved by the City Manager at a total cost not to exceed $1,200,000, not including land value. Owner shall complete construction on Karen Street Park before date that Certificate of Occupancy for the first residential unit is issued.
That last sentence has been changed since the original agreement. The conditions of approval which may describe exactly where the park is supposed to go are in a separate document that was not included in the packet for this meeting.
Mr. Betts said the wells didn't meet the requirements of Mission Springs Water District. Mr. Kozak disagreed with some of the specifics and Mr. Betts acknowledged that Skyborne and MSWD had worked out a later agreement. Mayor Parks interrupted to try to say something, but Mr. Betts raised his voice and directed the conversation at her, saying that if she wanted to gloss over these significant issues... Mayor Parks said they couldn't be determined. Mr. Betts said that was exactly his point. Mayor Parks explained she interrupted because she had a suggestion. She suggested another study session one week later. Mr. Betts said that was not enough time for staff. Mayor Parks asked Mr. Magaña if he could prepare in a week. Mr. Magaña said the majority of the material was already together. Mr. Betts interrupted to ask "Why didn't I have it tonight?" Mr. Magaña said it had been presented before, referring to the park. Mr. Betts said it had not. Even though Mr. Daniels said he had given it to Mr. Betts, Mr. Betts said he never got anything. "You guys are crazy," Mr. Betts added.
Mr. Sanchez had said he had some questions and now insisted on speaking. Words were exchanged between Mr. Matas and Mr. Sanchez and Mayor Parks called for a recess.
After the recess Mr. Sanchez asked Mr. Quintanilla if the city was in such a crisis that dates had to be set right away to resolve this issue. The attorney answered "Not that I'm aware of," and went on to explain that the reason this came up was because an issue came up with Skyborne and he found out there was a Development Agreement and no annual reviews had been done, so he recommended they be done as soon as possible. Mr. Sanchez addressed the Mayor, saying there was no reason to rush this. Staff is busy and councilmembers are asking for information that will require staff time to assemble. Mayor Parks said it was Mr. Betts who wanted another study session. Mr. Betts countered that he didn't want it next week.
Mr. Matas said he had had most of his questions answered. If Mr. Betts has questions, he could go directly to staff or the developer, he said.
Mr. Betts said staff issued an unauthorized mass grading permit that was used to go to the state board of mining and geology. Mr. Matas said he mischaracterized it. Mr. Betts said that's one of the issues that would be examined. He said the mass grading permit must come back to the council.
Mayor Parks said Mr. Betts should be prepared for the meeting of November 19. He should have his questions ready and try to get staff to answer them in advance. Mr. Betts said he's prepared, but it's staff that is not prepared. He said the council is rushing staff and he doesn't know the reason.
Mr. Matas said that Mr. Betts doesn't accept the answers he's given. As an example, he said that Mr. Kozak had said they would still deliver a 5-acre park as required by the Development Agreement despite the well. Mr. Betts said Mr. Kozak is wrong. "He has to move the well." Mr. Matas said that if Skyborne could deliver a 5-acre park on Karen Avenue, that would satisfy him. Mr. Betts said that if the park had to be moved due to the presence of the well, it would have to go back before the Planning Commission. He said "We have a process up here that we are obligated to follow. It is not just our choice to just throw that process in the air to accomodate a developer." Mr. Matas denied saying that. Mayor Parks laughed and told Mr. Betts not to be so dramatic.
Mr. Betts agreed that Skyborne could deliver a 5-acre park.
Mr. Quintanilla read from the Development Agreement that description of the park that I quoted above, placing emphasis on "or as otherwise approved by the City Manager." He said that this will be one of the issues examined when this comes back. They'll look at the Development Plan and see if the City Manager approved any changes.
Mr. Kozak cited a letter from the City Manager to DR Horton before Skyborne changed ownership that said the due date for the park is no later "than the date of issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for any unit in villages other than 1 or 2." He said that means Karen Park is a non-issue until Skyborne gets a certificate of occupancy outside of villages 1 or 2. It's nothing that needs to be decided today.
Mr. Betts asked what would be considered on November 19. Mr. Kozak said possibly they would have a force majeure request or they may request issuance of a grading permit. That would be for villages 8 and 9.
Mr. Sanchez asked how many homes were left to build in phase 1. The answer is 122. Mr. Sanchez asked if he foresaw the park coming in 2 to 3 years. Mr. Kozak said probably so. Mr. Sanchez asked why the well was put there when there already was another well. He said an agreement between MSWD and DR Horton required a second well.
Ms. Pye said in response to the question of why the rush, is that Mr. Kozak has been waiting for City Council approval since he requested a grading permit in July. The city required that Skyborne be bonded for that grading as well as the company doing the grading. The attorney's examination of that issue was what led him to the discovery of the unreviewed Development Agreement. So, Ms. Pye explained, it may appear to be a rush to the City Council, but Skyborne has been waiting since July.
The conclusion was to make this an action item at the regular council meeting on the 19th - no additional study session.
Mr. Betts asked how far in advance notice of the public hearing must be issued. The answer is 10 days. Mr. Magaña said the notices to property owners would be mailed out the next day and the published notice in the paper would appear on Saturday.
Rancho Del Oro
Mr. Betts owns property in Rancho Del Oro, Mr. Matas leases property in Rancho Del Oro, and Mr. Sanchez chose to recuse himself because he lives next to Rancho Del Oro although he is farther than 500 feet from Rancho Del Oro. Attorney Quintanilla brought up an exception that I hadn't heard of before. If a council member has a month-to-month rental situation, then it is NOT considered a conflict of interest. A lease longer than a month, however, still conflicts. Straws were drawn and Mr. Sanchez got the short straw, so he stayed. Mr. Betts and Mr. Matas left the meeting.
The Rancho Del Oro Development Agreement, the city's first, was approved in July 1992. It was originally called "Arroyo Vista." The original development was to have included the area north of Avenida Jalisco where the middle and elementary schools are located now. The Development Agreement had no performance schedule, but the developer was required to create the assessment districts which would have maintained the perimeter landscaping and retention basins. However, the city has been doing that without an assessment district.
Mayor Parks said that since this was the city's first development, city staff didn't know how to do anything and lot of stuff fell through the cracks.
The wash was deeded to the city to be used as a park. Mayor Parks said the city has been "good guys" by taking care of the perimeter landscaping for years. Someone in the audience said "Mayor Pisha said the city would take care of it."
Mr. Magaña said that in addition to setting up an assessment district to pay for landscaping, the developer was required to contribute toward a traffic light at West and Mission Lakes, which he did not.
Steve Sobotta, a resident of Rancho Del Oro, said it was the city's error that it approved the Development Agreement and final map before an assessment district had been set up. He believed the only legal way to handle this now is to put to a vote of the residents. He suggested that the residents could be offered a choice of three levels to vote on: minimal, medium and full-Cadillac.
Karen Pacheco, a resident of Rancho Del Oro, said her understanding was the city dropped the ball.
John Ruggs, a Rancho Del Oro resident, said he has lived there for two years. He asked if the city has been picking up the tab for the irrigation. He wondered if the school district could pick up some of the expense of the landscaping.
Steve Sobotta said that an analysis by Webb Associates determined that an assessment district for landscaping would cost $32-$37 per month per home. That's $384 to $444 per year. Mayor Parks observed "That's a lot," adding that she pays a couple hundred dollars year where she lives.
Herb Moen, a long time resident of Rancho Del Oro, said he had real problems with the staff report. He said the city owns everything on the west side of West, and everything from the east lane of Cholla over to the west side of the wash, and everything along Mission Lakes Boulevard up to a line about 11 feet from the wall. The line of trees along Mission Lakes are on city property. They are all 12½ to 13 feet from the wall. He said he met with City Manager Daniels last November to review the whole situation. Several times they have been promised the matter would come before the full council. Finally, the city decided to accept the streets that it had been maintaining all these years. But the landscape issue remains unresolved.
Mr. Magaña suggested that staff sit down with some of the Rancho Del Oro residents and try to resolve conflicting information about the landscape perimeter. He said the county map shows the perimeter is owned by the "successors." Mr. Moen insisted that the land is owned by Sandberg. He said no property owner in Rancho Del Oro was granted an easement over any of those areas. Residents are trimming bushes along Cholla.
Mary Isabelle, a resident of Rancho Del Oro, said there are two dead trees along Mission Lakes that are on city property and she wants the city to cut them down. She asked for realistic numbers for an assessment district.
Rudy Acosta said that Webb Associates could re-evaluate the expense of a landscape assessment district by considering lower cost vegetation.
Mr. Sanchez asked if the tract map was actually recorded. The answer was yes. The tract map expired and Mr. Sanchez wanted to know if we had proof of that. The answer was yes.
Mayor Parks asked the Rancho Del Oro residents in attendance if they would select some people to form an ad hoc committee that would meet with city staff.
Mrs. Moen asked the city to continue to maintain the landscaping as it has until the matter is resolved. Mr. Acosta said the city has been and will continue to do so.
Filed under Desert Hot Springs | permalink | November 12, 2013 at 01:20 PM
Comments
"Thank-You" Ron for your time & efforts in recording and writing these meetings.
I do appreciate it.
Posted by: Russ A. at Nov 12, 2013 7:50:45 PM
Thanks Ron for that detailed info. What a shit show.
Posted by: Doug at Nov 12, 2013 6:33:13 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
