Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Santa Clarita council approves expanded Hartwell mixed‑use project amid parking and recusal controversies

Santa Clarita City Council · August 27, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The council adopted a resolution approving a modification to the Hartwell mixed‑use project in Old Town Newhall that adds the adjacent KHTS radio property and increases apartments from 78 to 98. The approval followed extended public comment raising parking, historic‑preservation and conflict‑of‑interest concerns; two councilmembers were recused.

The Santa Clarita City Council on a divided but decisive vote approved a modification to the Hartwell mixed‑use project that expands the site to include the adjacent KHTS radio station property, increasing the development from 78 to 98 residential units and adding roughly 1,000 square feet of retail.

Erica Iverson, the city’s senior planner, told the council the modification “would increase the number of apartments to 98,” expand commercial floor area to about 6,300 square feet and raise on‑site parking to 158 spaces. Iverson said the project remains subject to the Old Town Newhall specific plan EIR, conforms to the city’s objective design standards, and requires council approval because the earlier decision included demolition of a historic Masonic Lodge building.

Why it matters: Opponents and downtown businesses told the council the added units and the project’s gated parking could worsen a chronic downtown parking shortage and displace theatergoers and restaurant customers. City staff and the applicant pointed to a revised parking demand study and a city shuttle/pilot program that staff says will help mitigate impacts.

During public comment, several business and arts groups urged either rejection or binding mitigation: Frank Maga, a downtown property owner, argued that foreseeable construction and operational impacts would harm nearby restaurants and customers and warned the city could face legal exposure unless mitigation was required. Paul Goldman, who with his wife operates a local radio business, asked the council to approve the modification so the family could focus on running their business and relocating their station. Canyon Theatre Guild representatives and other merchants highlighted perceived flaws in the developer’s parking study and called for stricter conditions or additional public parking.

Developer Jason Tolleson described measures to address neighbors’ concerns, telling the council the project team negotiated with KHTS to address sound mitigation and that the applicant had “consummated an agreement with KHTS to purchase the building and relocate KHTS away from a construction map,” which the developer said resolved the most significant mitigation issue. Tolleson said demolition permits are close to issuance and construction drawings are in plan check.

Council discussion centered on two legal tensions: (1) whether the expanded project introduces new, substantial evidence of a parking impact within the AB 2097/California Housing Accountability Act review window, and (2) how to balance mitigation acceptable under state housing law with documented community impacts. Staff advised the council that to deny or require additional parking it would need to identify substantial evidence in the record that a project will have a significant health or safety impact that cannot be mitigated under existing objective standards.

Councilmember Gibbs disclosed he had received campaign contributions from property owners whose parcel was added to the project and recused himself. Mayor Pro Tem West also recused herself from participation in the item because of property proximity. After additional debate the council moved to adopt the staff recommendation and the resolution to approve Master Case 25‑0‑89; the record shows the resolution carried with the required three affirmative votes and the public hearing was closed.

What’s next: The developer indicated demolition is imminent and said it expects to pull building permits as the project advances. The council’s approval includes the project’s required mitigation measures under the specific plan and CEQA document; any future changes that would take the project outside the specific plan will require further hearings.

Sources: Staff presentation by Erica Iverson; applicant presentation by Jason Tolleson; public testimony from property owners, the Canyon Theatre Guild, and other residents; council roll call and motions recorded at the hearing.