#limoneira

Operator Greetings, and welcome to Limoneira’s Fourth Quarter Fiscal Year 2025 Financial Results Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] It is now my pleasure to introduce your host, John Mills with ICR. Thank you, and you may begin. John MillsICR Inc. Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining us for this Fourth Fiscal Year 2025 Conference Call. On the call today are Harold Edwards,…

New Post has been published on http://citizensjournal.us/santa-paula-council-approves-removal-of-apartments-from-east-area-one/

Santa Paula Council Approves Removal of Apartments from East Area One

By Sheryl Hamlin 

Item D of the Consent Calendar on the October 5, 2015 Santa Paula Council meeting was the second required reading of an amendment to the East Area One Specific Plan.

The history of this amendment started at the August 25, 2015 Santa Paula Planning Commission, where Mike Penrod, Project Manager from the Parkstone Group who has been consulting to Limoneira, said that they “could not make it work” with the setbacks in the approved Specific Plan. To review this meeting, click here.

The Planning Commission approved the changes with two modifications and sent the modified text to council on September 21, 2015 for the first hearing of the amendment to the Specific Plan, which was reviewed here. It was as this meeting that the new development partner, Lewis Group, revealed the concept of Master Planned Community wherein almost all of the project and its amenities belong to the Homeowners Association rather than to the city as public streets and parks.

Two citizens spoke about the removal of the apartments on October 5, 2015, the second reading.

Mary Ann Krause, AICP, made this statement:

“The specific plan amendments that were approved and are up for a second reading tonight allow the planning director to make minor changes administratively. However, the developer mentioned at that meeting that he intends to change all of the apartments and condos to single family detached homes. This change is too significant to be done administratively. Changing housing types and ownership patterns would undermine the walkable village concept which is the very backbone of this neighborhood. In the past planners might have considered such a change minor, but fine-tuning walkable communities has taught us otherwise; even seemingly small changes can be significant. Changing housing types would alter the demographics of who will live in the neighborhood, would have implications for traffic, parking, schools, and recreation, and would increase water demand. All of these issues will have CEQA consequences and will require a separate specific plan update. I urge you not to wait until the developer has done costly engineering, but to call now for a very public review of the developer’s intentions. There are some negative comments circulating in the community; let’s get things back on a positive footing.”

To watch her presentation in its entirety, click here and go to time 34:47.

Ms. Krause also spoke about her own HOA managed community which is powerless to enforce the use of the garage for storage as well as multiple vehicles permanently parked on the streets because the streets are public.

Sheryl Hamlin spoke next suggesting that the removal of the apartments fell into CEQA categories of “change of use” or “change of intensity of use” or “significant new information”, any or all of which can trigger a new EIR. She also discussed the challenge in managing an HOA with 1500 units and said the planning documents lacked an overlay delimiting the HOA areas with the public areas including roles and responsibilities.

Mr. Penrod rose to address these issues saying that this project and amendment had already been approved once at 1500 units, but they did not know the mix. Now they are fine tuning the mix to 1490 “for sell” units versus rentals. He also said that the economics to the city were better with individually owned units rather than apartments. He said that they are not excluding a whole class of people, but are giving an opportunity to people to own homes.

He said that “only two roads are public” in East Area One, Santa Paula and Hallock so that there will not be enforcement problems as described by Mrs. Krause, because her HOA does not own the streets. He said that “we pay for maintenance and police”.

Mr. Crosby added that almost every street is private, so that the HOA can enforce the rules with an enforcement policy that covers parking issues. Saying that he understands there are bad HOA Management companies, but in reality, the larger and better HOA Management companies service the larger HOA’s and not the smaller HOA’s.

Council Member Gherardi asked City Attorney Cotti if an EIR were required. Mr. Cotti replied “No”, saying this project has been analyzed extensively with two EIR’s.

Council Member Crosswhite asked Mr. Crosby to define a Master Planned Community (MCP) and how it integrates into the Community. Mr. Crosby said that Lewis, his company, did not bring the concept of an MCP into the project. Limoneira had already wanted a Master Planned Community. He said that Lewis builds a “sense of place” and not a subdivision with just a map and streets with homes. East Area One will have a school, open space, parks and a protected habitat. He said it is a place where people will want to live, play and enjoy the network of neighborhood parks and paths.

Council Member Crosswhite asked about policing the private streets. Mr. Crosby said that SPPD and SPFD will still be used for general health and safety, but the HOA will be responsible for illegal parking, code enforcement, nuisances and maintenance. The HOA will call owners to a hearing with a fine policy of $50 to $100 a day. In his experience, a strong HOA will help maintain property values.

Council Member Crosswhite asked about how to achieve a more diverse population and what would be the price of an entry level home. Mr. Crosby responded with a value of $300,000 to $400,000, but he couched this by saying that it was two years to deliver buildable lots, so it is all a function of timing.

Council Member Crosswhite said that she understood that rents can be equivalent to mortgage payments, but that it requires a down payment to get into a house, which many young people don’t have. Mr. Crosby said that young people share rent to save and will figure it out if they want to buy a home.

Vice Mayor Hernandez reiterated that the community is passionate about inclusion.

Council Member Tovias mentioned that none of these objections were brought up at the Planning Commission, forgetting that the public comments occur before the applicant speaks, so there is no opportunity to bring up issues based on the applicant’s comments.

Mr. Tovias moved the motion which approved unanimously on a roll-call vote.

Notes to the discussion

As to the use of the term and concept, Master Planned Community, here are a few facts:

The term “master plan” was used in a memo between Limoneira and Santa Paula in 2004 as follows:  *Letter of Cooperation between Limoneira and Santa Paula was established to master plan East Area 1 and 2 as a community development project“

Sargent Town Planning, who produced the promotional material in 2006, never used the phrase “Master Planned Community. To view their work, click here or here.

In 2010, East Area was presented to LafCO as a “Master Planned Community”, according to the 2010 Limoneira Annual Report.

The 2015 East Area One Specific Plan SP-3 does not use the phrase “Master Planned Community” nor do either of the EIR’s.

The text of the 2008 ballot Measure G read as follows:

Measure G: “Shall an ordinance entitled the “East Area One Project Approval Initiative” be adopted?”

As to the inclusivity of the project to which Vice Mayor Hernandez referred, the East Area One Specific Plan Amendment 2015 says this in Section 1.6 paragraph F. This means that rather than building affordable units within the project, monies will be given to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund in lieu of building these units. Such units will be build outside of East Area One.

  Additionally, Section 8.7 of the 1255 Restated Development Agreement 2015 calls for a Public Benefit Housing Program of 100 Market Rate Units, within the project, as follows. Note that these units will not be spread throughout the project, but be in the more dense areas closer to 126.

So without the rentals, the only “affordable units” will be the 100 units in the Public Benefit Program. There could be rentals if the investors buy blocks of homes to rent, but these will be market rate rentals. Read about such investments here.

Why is parking important? With multi‐generational purchases representing about 20% of real estate sales according to a recent NAR report, where are the extra vehicles to park but on the street? There is nothing in the Specific Plan Amendment about a deeded restriction of cars per unit. The Specific Plan Amendment Section 5.5 says “This includes the acknowledgement that on‐ street parking suffices for guest parking along with the need to minimize curb cuts to maximize on‐street spaces”, which means that dangerously, crowded streets will be the norm. Is the HOA experienced in multi-generational situations? Stratis Perros, Assistant Planning Director, seemed to think that the 20 foot driveway associated with each unit would suffice for all parking.

Although his words went by quickly, Mr. Penrod’s statement about single family homes providing more economic benefit to the city were the real basis for the decision, as well as his August 25, 2015 statement that “we can’t make it work” without the setback changes and the mix change from 1250 homes and 250 apartments to 1500 homes. This entire exercise was not about planning, but budgets.

_________________________________________________

For more information about the author, visit sheryhamlin.com

Get Citizensjournal.us Headlines free  SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE

New Post has been published on http://citizensjournal.us/santa-paula-east-area-one-becomes-master-planned-community/

Santa Paula East Area One Becomes Master Planned Community

By Sheryl Hamlin 

On the city council agenda for Monday, September 21st, item number 11 described modifications to the East Area One Specific Plan. The Specific Plan was approved earlier this year. Notices were mailed per legal requirements. Such a notice means that the council will take an action to modify a previously approved action involving a specified legal procedure, in this case an amendment to the Specific Plan for East Area One. The pink notice alerted citizens that “a public hearing will be held, as provided by law…”

A summary of the requested modifications was presented by the Planning Director Jana Minsk:

A detailed discussion of these changes had been considered by the Planning Commission on August 25, 2015 and summarized here where Limoneira requested changes to reduce the setbacks between the houses.

The Planning Director, Jana Minsk, presented an overview of the proposed changes saying the need for “flexibility” was driving the reduction in setbacks. Note that reduced setbacks increases the density by minimizing space between the homes.

Prior to the presentation, Council Member Gherardi stated that she understood all high density housing and condominiums had been removed from the project making it entirely single family. In the ex parte declarations, she had declared a meeting with Limoneira and Lewis, as did Vice Mayor Hernandez and Council Member Tovias.

Mr. Penrod of the Parkstone Companies, who has been working with Limoneira on this development since the initial stages, stated that Limoneira has found the “exact perfect partner” in the Lewis Group. He reassured the council that Limoneira was not selling out, but would be a 50-50 partner with Lewis. There would be an Executive Committee for decision making purposes. Lewis provides expertise in development of schools, downtowns, job creation, and development. They are not homebuilders, he said, but will work with homebuilders. Originally the plan called for 1254 single family units and 250 apartments/condominiums. The changes now under discussion represent a “new idea” of single family homes on small lots as a condo alternative, which according to market studies are preferable. He then introduced Glen Crosby with Lewis.

Mr. Crosby introduced himself as a Vice President of Lewis Operating Group saying that Lewis builds “Master Planned Communities” and will market to builders providing all infrastructure elements. He emphasized that this is not a “large subdivision” but a diverse community with different types of housing “products”, private homeowner amenities such as a pool, a Park House, a Club House and an HOA which with enforceable codes.

Mr. Crosby showed several slides from the Chino Ag Preserve, as an example of a Master Planned Community (MPC) where the houses have two-car garages accessible from the rear creating a pleasant streetscape without driveways.

Note: there is no mention of the development of a Master Planned Community (MPC) in any existing planning documents. This is new with the Lewis relationship and the first time an MPC was proposed for East Area I. No one questioned if changing East Area I to an MPC with HOA’s required another EIR.

It is important to understand that a Master Planned Community (MPC) has a specific meaning in the planning vocabulary:

Master Planned Community (MPC) – The term Master Planned Community is commonly used for a PUD (Planned Unit Development) that is larger than 2,500 acres. The MPC was spawned by the desire for suburban retreats in places where land could be aggregated to create a self-contained suburban environment. The development type may comprise tens of thousands of acres and numerous individual subdivisions that include both single-family and multi-family homes. The master developer generally allocates the subdivision development to individual builders thus creating “neighborhoods” within the MPC. The MPC typically has an abundance of recreational and social amenities that are usually restricted for use by residents, exclusively.

Source: http://www.privatecommunities.com/second-home-buying/glossary/community-planning-and-development-terms.htm#4

Sheryl Hamlin spoke in Public Comments referring to a document provided to the council earlier containing many concerns. Two of the concerns stated at the council meeting were parking and rentals. The entire document can be downloaded here. Additionally, she questioned the need for the setback reduction if it was merely a matter of “flexibility” in light of the fact that the September 10, 2015 staff report failed to indicate Mr. Penrod’s statement to the Planning Commission that Limoneira “could not make it work” without these changes. Was it “flexibility” or necessity?

Responding to Public Comments, Mr. Crosby responded to the parking issue saying that they have solved the parking problem by requiring residents to register cars with the HOA and that garages cannot be used for storage. In other words, there cannot be cars permanently left on the streets in the HOA rules which the HOA can enforce with fines.  In a separate conversation at the break, Council Member Tovias said he would look into the RV street parking issue also mentioned by Sheryl Hamlin.

Planning Director Minsk responded to the Public Comments by saying that the setbacks were required for flexibility in order to get closer to the 1500 units. She did not appear familiar with the issue of investors buying large blocks of homes for rentals, as described by Sheryl Hamlin. As to parking in the streets, she felt that with more garages this should be less of a problem, not acknowledging the multi-generational family home purchases also mentioned by Sheryl Hamlin.

Mr. Crosby returned to the podium indicating that his company “removed risk” by providing an embryonic environment for the home builders: CalTrans changes, schools, parks, water infrastructure, landscaping, open space, corridors, rough grading, utilities and storm drains.

Council Member Gherardi asked if the homes were all two story. Mr. Crosby replied affirmatively, unless the builder wanted to provide a single story at a different cost. Council Member Gherardi also asked about budget implications and in particular when would they pull permits.

Mr. Crosby indicated that the first project, the water tank and pumping station, is underway. He said the water tank alone is $3 million, so the city would presumably see permit revenue from this activity.

Council Member Gherardi asked about the relationship to East Area II. Mr. Penrod replied that they are waiting for infrastructure. Retail clients are interested but need water, storm, sewer and traffic changes at Hallock to proceed. He estimated that this would occur in 2018, about the time the first homes would be ready.

Council Member Crosswhite asked about Lewis’ commitment to the use of local labor. Mr. Crosby said that they will put all homes out to bid and that a lack of affordable housing will create a big demand. Lots of history will be brought to the project from the community. Council Member Tovias said that this project represented 7 to 10 years of work for people who live in town. Based on the previous date of a 2018 start for the first homes, this would equate to the time period of 2025 through 2028 for such construction jobs, a point not stated at the meeting. There was no mention about using local labor for the infrastructure projects.

Council Member Crosswhite asked about the community area. Mr. Crosby responded that 2 ½ acres will be devoted to a “Harvest” Community garden to encourage people to grow their own produce “Farm to Fork”. He also described the community center for meetings.

Council Member Crosswhite asked if the community areas thus described were private to East Area 1 HOA members? Mr. Crosby responded affirmatively. Council Member Crosswhite asked about the pool and its size. Mr. Crosby replied that it would be a ½ or full Olympic sized pool for HOA use only, but perhaps the sports park could have a pool. Council Member Crosswhite asked what is in the plan for “this side” of the city?

Council Member Gherardi asked about restrooms for the soccer area.

At this point, Mr. Penrod interjected that there is a major effort to create something for the city, in the area of public parks and trails. There are 50 acres in the plan and $5 million for the city to add any amenity, appearing to answer Council Member Crosswhite’s question about “this side” of the city.

Council Member Hernandez asked about Public Safety, particularly in the areas to the rear of the development away from the main area. Mr. Crosby said he would get feedback from the police and that in the Chino Ag Preserve, a mini-substation for police was built. The cost of such a station was not discussed.

Council Member Tovias moved to approve item 11 without reading the text and Council Member Gherardi seconded the motion. A roll call vote was unanimous. Mayor Procter had recused himself from the room due to conflicts.

During the Consent Calendar portion of the meeting, prior to the discussion of item 11, item I was approved (Mayor Procter abstaining) to “Consent to the Assignment and Assumption of the Amended and Restated Development Agreement to Limoneira Lewis Community Builders, LLC”.  This is the agreement wherein the 50-50 partnership mentioned by Mr. Penrod is written into the city’s contracts. Note that this agreement was also reported to the SEC in a FORM 8 on September 10, 2015. If it is true that Lewis required the changes to the setbacks, as represented by Mr. Penrod to the Planning Commission on August 25, 2015, why would the FORM 8 have been submitted to the SEC prior to the council approval? And why would the council approve the restated Development Agreement in the Consent Calendar prior to the public discussion about the amendment to the Specific Plan? Was the public hearing just a perfunctory exercise for a fait accompli?

=================================================

For more information about the author, visit sheryhamlin.com

Get Citizensjournal.us Headlines free  SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE