Homesteaders Angry Over Condo Plans : Santa Clarita: A City Council hearing on a project draws protests, including those from a family whose land would be condemned for the project.

Five generations of McCoys have lived on the family ranch in Santa Clarita, and Leland McCoy, 87, says he wants the 27 rugged acres to stay in the family for many generations to come.

Accordingly, McCoy never bothered to answer letters he received more than a year ago from a developer, Dan Palmer, who hoped to buy the ranch to make room for a road to serve a proposed condominium project.

“I never answered,” said McCoy, whose grandmother homesteaded the ranch in the early 1900s. “I deep-sixed them.”

McCoy and relatives said they were shocked when they learned recently that the City Council was holding hearings on the fate of the condominium project that would put a road right through their property without their consent.

A project map “shows our well in the fast lane,” said Neal Stanford, McCoy’s nephew.

The Stanford and McCoy families promise to fight for their land. And on Tuesday night, sporting cowboy hats that were out of place in the businesslike City Council chambers, they urged the council to reject the project.

The families became the latest residents to join the ranks of those opposing what has become one of the most hotly contested--and confusing--proposals in Santa Clarita’s two years as a city.

G.H. Palmer Associates hopes to build nearly 2,400 homes in four separate projects. In return, the builder would provide $30 million in desperately needed road improvements that will relieve traffic congestion, city traffic planners said.

If the projects are approved, it would be up to the city to condemn the ranch to make room for the road, which is part of the $30-million highway package, Palmer said.

The proposal has enraged residents living near the proposed projects, who say the developments are too large. Building roads will only encourage more growth, they add.

The proposal also produced an extraordinary council meeting Tuesday night: Residents accused city planners of being on the developer’s payroll, a councilwoman accused the developer of sleazy lobbying tactics, a shouting match erupted between a councilman and a woman in the audience, and residents opposing the projects even bickered among themselves.

After four hours of testimony, a weary City Council appointed a subcommittee to look for a compromise to appease residents. The subcommittee will meet Monday at 6 p.m. in the council chambers. The meeting is open to the public.

But if Tuesday night’s meeting is any indication, compromise will not be easy.

One after another, residents said they did not want to see condominiums built near single-family homes.

“We do not need high-density, low-quality projects,” said Linda Calvert, who finished eighth in last week’s elections for three council seats. “We do not need Mr. Palmer in this community.”

Calvert chastised Councilman Carl Boyer III for meeting with Palmer at Boyer’s home to discuss the project, rather than at City Hall. “I am sick and tired of your negativism,” Boyer replied.

“I think you doth protest too much,” Calvert said.

“You are a very negative woman and I’m sick of it!” Boyer shouted.

Another brief shouting match broke out when another failed council candidate, Herb Wolfe, said Director of Public Works John Medina routinely bowed to the wishes of the developer. “Who the heck are you working for?” Wolfe asked.

Mayor Jo Anne Darcy said she would not allow speakers to degrade city employees. “I didn’t degrade anybody,” Wolfe grumbled.

Darcy later suggested that Palmer meet with residents to redesign the project to address their concerns. That suggestion fell apart because the residents could not agree on representatives.

When council members asked the audience what kind of project they would support, a man mumbled, “We want to see single-family homes.”

“It’s a simple as that,” another man added.

The council then appointed the subcommittee and scheduled a special meeting of the full council to discuss the issue May 2.

By then it was 11:16 p.m. and Darcy turned to her 17-item agenda.

“Let us go on to item two,” she said.