Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-01-28 - AGENDA REPORTS - GATE KING INDUSTRIAL PARK (2)CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT4r City Manager Approval ,-V City Item to be presented by: Vince Bertoni UNFINISHED BUSINESS DATE: January 28, 2003 SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT OF THE GATE KING INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT WHICH INCLUDES THE SUBDIVISION OF 584 ACRES INTO 88 LOTS. DEPARTMENT: Planning and Building Services RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. City Council receive the staff report 2. City Council provide direction to staff on the following issues: a. Determine whether the additional information provided by the applicant and staff at the request of the Council is sufficient for the Council to make a decision on the project. b. Determine whether the modifications to the project agreed to by the applicant sufficiently address the Council's concerns. c. If the modifications to the project agreed to by the applicant do not sufficiently address the Council's concerns, then determine whether the alternatives proposed by staff as a result of the Council comments address the Council concerns. 3. City Council continue the item to a future meeting, date certain, in order for staff to provide sufficient information for the Council to take action on the project. BACKGROUND The City Council closed the public hearing for testimony on November 12, 2002 and requested at the conclusion of the meeting that staff address specific concerns of the project and provide additional information on outstanding issues. In addition, Council requested staff to facilitate two separate meetings with the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and an adjacent property owner, Manny Santana. Agenda item: Confined To:422Y P goo 2, kra.1 U1 The analysis in this report contains additional information that the Council requested, proposed modifications to the project, as well as a description of development agreement deal points and project conditions of approval that the applicant would like to have modified or eliminated. Each of these issues is either discussed below or included in the attachments to this report. As a result of the Council's inquiries as to whether the project could be modified to reduce the number of oak trees removed and increase the buffer for the wildlife corridor, staff has proposed three additional alternatives which are listed at the end of this section of the report. The information in this report is provided to assist the Council in determining whether the there is any other information that would assist the Council in taking action on this project, whether the modified project is sufficient to address the Council's concerns, and if the modified project is not sufficient to address the Council's concerns, then whether any of the alternatives proposed by staff merit further analysis. Additional Information Regarding the Project Requested by the City Council The additional information regarding the project that the council requested at the last meeting is listed below and is discussed in further detail in attachment "A". • Provide a cross section of the trail that runs from "E" Street to Pine Street • Study feasibility of transplanting two heritage oak trees instead of removing them • Provide information on Hazardous Materials/Contamination • Provide summary of the project's public hearing notification • Provide information on Los Angeles County Fire Department's helipad • Provide a project alternative site plan preserving the primary ridgeline • Provide information on County of Los Angeles' new SEA #24 and how it relates to project • Provide a comparison of Las Lomas and Gate King Industrial Park • Provide a project list of where the applicant's cash contribution would go • Provide additional water assessment information • Provide any Bridge and Thoroughfare Fee buy backs or tax credits • Minimize the widths of the access roads to water tanks • Concerns with "No Discretionary Approval" section in the Development Agreement Modifications to the Proiect Requested by the City Council and Agreed to by the Applicant The modifications to the project requested by the Council and agreed upon by the applicant are listed below and discussed in further detail in attachment `B". • Add wildlife guzzlers at water tanks • Save heritage oak tree on "E" Street • Widen six foot trail that runs from "E" Street to Pine Street • Be more creative with the trail system along "A" Street • Request industrial tenants of park to fund team sports for youths in Newhall • Ensure that the architecture of the future industrial buildings utilize earth tone colors • Ensure project is subject to architectural guidelines • Ensure Pine Street connects to "C" Street or "A" Street • Ensure L.A. County Fire Department is involved with the location of the landscaped medians on San Fernando Road • Minimize the widths of the access roads to water tanks Modifications to the Project Not Agreed to b t�pplicant The applicant did not agree upon the following modifications to the project requested by the Council Additional Buffering for the Wildlife Corridor The Applicant did not agree to provide additional buffering for the wildlife corridor. Reduce Total Oak Tree Removals On -Site The applicant did not reduce the number of oak tree removals proposed with the project. The applicant is still removing 1,661 of the approximately 11,000 oak trees on-site. The following is a matrix breakdown of the removals: CATEGORY PROJECT DEAD/FIRE AGRIFOLIA BERBER TOTAL DAMAGE OAK 648 95 743 TREE REMOVALS HEALTHY AGRIFOLIA BERBER TOTAL OAK TREES REMOVALS 507 247 754 r_1,497*77771 *Does not include the 64 previously removed oak trees or the proposed 100 oak tree removal bank. Two of the oak tree removals are Heritage oaks located around "C" Street. One heritage is a grade B- that stands 60 feet tall and consists of two trunks (113" and 50" in circumference). The other heritage is a grade A that stands 65 feet tall and consists of three trunks (80", 73", and 35" in circumference). The revised site plan is attached to the report for City Council's review. In addition, please reference page 14 of this report for site plan alternatives that staff has put together that would reduce the total number of oak tree removals and provide more buffering for the wildlife corridor. Funding of Newhall Redevelopment Manager The City Council requested that the Gate King Industrial Park provide cash in the Development Agreement to fund a Newhall Redevelopment Manager. After researching this request, however, staff found that the Newhall Redevelopment Manager is filled and funded by Redevelopment Area funds at $15,000.00 a year. The manager is Suzie Szabo and is titled the Old Town Newhall Association Manager. Primary responsibilities of the manager include partnering with the Old Town Newhall Association to collect information and promoting business for the downtown Newhall area. Staff is receptive to the developer augmenting funds for this position in one of two ways: 1) A one-time contribution to the City for a specified amount to be allocated toward funding of the Newhall Redevelopment Manager; and 2) Annual contributions to the City for the life of the Development Agreement for the purpose of providing funding support for the Newhall Redevelopment Manager. The applicant has stated that he is not willing to contribute financially to this request. Increase cash contribution for Pioneer Oil Refinery Site The City Council requested the applicant to increase the cash contribution ($1,973,500.00) for additional improvements to the Pioneer Oil Refinery site. However, the applicant has declined to increase his cash contribution. The breakdown of the cash contribution is defined in attachment 'W. Applicant's Request to Modify or Eliminate Development Agreement Deal Points and Conditions of Approval The applicant is making the following six requests regarding the development agreement and conditions of approval for the Gate King industrial project. • Establishing date of Development Fees on February 2001 rather than on Development Agreement signing (with exception of B&T Fees, which would be effective the day, the Development Agreement is signed). • Two CPI adjustments over life of Development Agreement rather than annually over the life of the Development Agreement • Incorporate language to ensure open space remains permanent open space • Determining the ownership (applicant or City) of the 48.8 natural/manufactured slopes • Incorporate and dedicate an additional trail (#8) in the industrial park's trail system • Delete Traffic Engineering's condition (TE12) which consists of the restriping of Lyons Avenue and San Fernando Road to six lanes Staff continues to recommend that the City Council deny the applicant's six requests, as the applicant has not made any significant changes to the site plan that was requested of him. The six requests include being subject to reduced and past development fees, being subject to two CPI adjustments over the life of the DA rather than annual adjustments, modifying the open space language that ensures its preservation as open space in perpetuity, City ownership rather than applicant ownership of the 48 acres of 48.8 natural/manufactured slopes, dedication of trail #8, and deletion of the restriping of Lyons Avenue and San Fernando Road to six lanes. The restriping of Lyons Avenue is a condition of approval and San Fernando Road restriping is part of the traffic mitigation in the EIR. Site Plan Alternatives Related to Oak Tree Removal and Wildlife Corridor In addition to the alternatives described in the Environmental Impact Report, staff is presenting three more alternatives as a result of the City Council's request that the applicant revise the site plan to reduce the total number of oak tree removals and provide more buffering for the wildlife corridor. If the Council is interested in pursuing any of the alternatives below, then staff would recommend that the Council direct staff to continue the project to the April 8, 2003 City Council meeting. This would give staff and the applicant time to further investigate that particular alternative and provide the Council with all of the exact numbers related to oak trees (dead versus healthy), grading, industrial square footage, and other details. Please note that the oak tree numbers for the alternatives below are approximate and would need to be further analyzed for exact numbers. Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy Alternative This alternative would be consistent with Paul Edelman's request to eliminate development south of the Edison power lines, in addition to Lots 28, 28A, and 28B, which are located on the northwest corner of Sierra Highway and the Edison power lines. This alternative would provide an additional 2,000 linear feet of buffering for the Wildlife Corridor. The alternative would also reduce the total number of oak tree removals to approximately 1,034. This is a reduction of approximately 627 oak tree removals from the Planning Commission's recommendation. This alternative would also save the two heritage oak trees proposed for removal. Modified Super Pad Alternative This alternative would be similar to the Planning Commission's recommendation with the exception of a smaller super pad (Lot 24) and the relocation of the most southern water tank which is located south of the Edison power lines. This alternative would reduce Lot 24 from 26 acres to approximately 10 to 12 acres. This reduction of acreage could provide approximately a 1,000 more linear feet of buffering for the Wildlife Corridor. In addition, this alternative could potentially reduce the total number of oak tree removals to 1,561. This is a reduction of approximately 100 oak tree removals from the Planning Commission's recommendation. This alternative, however, would not save the two heritage oak trees proposed to be removed. Combination of Oak Tree EIR AlternativelSanta Monica Mountains. Conservancy Alternative This alternative would include no development south of the Edison power lines (Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy Alternative), in addition to, no development from the "C" StreetP'A" Street intersection (Lots 50 and Lot 34) east to Sierra Highway with the exception of "A" Street continuing through to Sierra Highway. This is very similar to the oak tree alternative in the EIR. This alternative would provide an additional 2,000 linear feet of buffering for the Wildlife Corridor. The alternative would also reduce the total number of oak tree removals to approximately 661. This is a reduction of approximately 1,000 oak tree removals from the Planning Commission's recommendation. This alternative would also save the two heritage oak trees proposed for removal. All of the above alternatives have been discussed and brought to the applicant's attention However, he has stated that these alternatives with the exception of the Modified Super Pad Alternative are not economically feasible even with some relief from conditions or the cash contribution that is described in the Development Agreement. The applicant has stated that the Modified Super Pad Alternative could be agreed to if there was some financial relief. Staff will provide exhibit slides of the three alternatives in the PowerPoint presentation. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Other action as determined by the Council ATTACHMENTS Attachment "A" Additional Information Regarding the Project Requested by the City Council Attachment `B" Modifications to the Project Requested by the City Council and Agreed to by the Applicant Site plan Final Environmental Impact Report with supplementary responses (Council Reading File) Draft Environmental Impact Report (Council Reading File) Mitigation Monitoring Report Program (Council Reading File) Development Agreement Contract (Legal Description, Site Plan, Schedule of Fees, Trails Map, Cash Contribution Map, and School Agreement(School Agreement is being drawn up between to parties)) (Council Reading File) Staff Reports for the Planning Commission meetings for February 19, 2002; March 19, 2002; May 7, 2002; June 4, 2002; July 2, 2002, and July 16, 2002 (Council Reading File) Minutes from the six Planning Commission meetings (Council Reading File) Planning Commission Resolutions P02-22 and P02-23 (Council Reading File) Addendum to Fiscal Impact Analysis — Economic Planning Systems, Inc., September 2002 (Council Reading File) Open Space Inventory Checklist (Council Reading File) Biological Resources Assessment SEA document (Council Reading File) Cross Sections of "E" Street and "A" Street showing the trail and bike trail (Council Reading File) JJL:VPB:JH:lep S: \ PBS \ CURRENT\! 1999\ 99-264\AR3.doc ATTACHMENT "A' ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE PROJECT REQUESTED BY CITY COUNCIL Trail cross sections lProject alternative to preserve the primary ridgeline Staff will be providing a cross section of the trail that runs from "E" Street to Pine Street and a site plan of the project staying off the primary ridgeline in the January 28, 2003 City Council powerpoint presentation. In addition, a cross section of the trail is in the Council's reading file. Transplanting Two Heritage Oak Tree Removals The City Council requested staff to research the possibility of transplanting the two proposed heritage oak trees removals into another area of the project site. The City's Supervising Arborist, Omar Davis, reviewed the possibility of transplanting the proposed heritage removals and believes that the trees would not survive a transplant which are located in the vicinity of "C" Street. The only reasonable and sure way to preserve these two trees is to protect them in place. The success of transplanting any tree depends on many factors. A predominant factor is tree size and age. As a tree becomes larger and older, its chance for surviving a transplant diminishes. The main reason is the enormous root system the tree has developed over time to sustain itself is severed during transplanting. Due to the size and age of Heritage Oak trees, capturing enough of the root system during the transplant to ensure long term survival is nearly impossible. Therefore, transplanting heritage size trees is not an accepted practice in the arboricultural industry. Hazardous Materials/ Contamination The City Council had concerns with the contamination on the project site and requested information related to the subject. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the site which involved on-site reconnaissance and reviewing numerous environmental documents. The groundwater and soil contamination on the site may have resulted from the following: oil wells, gas/oil pipelines; railroad tracks; surface runoff; various five gallon buckets of hydraulic oil on the Arklin property; underground storage tanks on the Newhall County Water District property; Newhall Oil Refinery located across Sierra Highway; and Pioneer Oil Refinery located adjacent to the project site. The applicant will be required as outlined in the DEIR (Human/Health and Safety section of the DEIR), to conduct a sampling program prior to issuance of grading permits for all of the areas suspected of being contaminated. A subsurface soil investigation was conducted on-site specifically related to the oil wells. The presence of 19 existing oil wells and four former tank farms are located on the southeastern portion of the property. Hydrocarbon -contaminated soil was observed in the vicinity of 12 of the 14 oil wells tested and analyzed for the presence of hydrocarbons in soil, five of which exhibited significant levels of surficial soil contamination. The levels detected in the five wells were determined to be in excess of what is typically allowed to remain in place without remediation. The applicant will be required to excavate all of the contaminated soil found during the abandonment of the wells. Also, the applicant is required to excavate surficial staining in the vicinity of the other nine wells and the tank farms during the abandonment of the wells and the removal of the tanks. According to the applicant, five of the oil wells are in the process of being properly abandoned to Department of Oil and Gas (DOG) standards. Per an agreement with DOG, the remaining wells are to be properly abandoned, beginning in five years. Soil samples were not collected and analyzed for the presence of hydrocarbons from five of the 19 wells. Soil samples were collected from exploratory trenches adjacent to the oil wells, and from soil borings adjacent to the two tank farms. The report did not indicate the presence of drilling mud sumps adjacent to the oil wells, or if any of the samples collected were from within or beneath the sumps. No hydrocarbons were detected around two of the former tank locations; however, it is unknown whether soil samples were collected and analyzed from immediately beneath the tanks, following their removal. Also, two of the tank farm locations were not tested due to inaccessibility of the testing drill rig. Hydrocarbon contaminated soil may exist in the vicinity of the oil wells, tank farms, and associated piping located on the project site. If contamination exceeds the regulatory action levels related specifically to the oil wells and/or the gas/oil pipelines, railroad tracks, surface runoff, various five gallon buckets on the Arklin property, underground storage tanks on the Newhall County Water District property, Newhall Oil Refinery or the Pioneer Oil Refinery then appropriate remediation shall be undertaken prior to issuance of grading permits for the contaminated area. Any remedial activity must be conducted to the satisfaction of the appropriate regulatory oversight agency. Implementation of this program will reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, there have been concerns that because of the Santa Clarita Recycling facility fire located on the Arklin property, there was soil contamination or toxic substances present on site. After the fire, the property owner began the process of site restoration under the California Code of Regulations (CCR). In the fall of 1998, an inquiry about the fire was made by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Soil samples were collected for laboratory analysis. No significant concentrations of a regulated material or hazardous material were detected. The investigation by DTSC ended without further testing or enforcement being required of the property owner. Please reference pages 4.8-1 through 4.8-22 of the DEIR for further detailed information on contamination. Summary of the Project's public hearing notification There were specific concerns from the public that there was no notification of the November 12, 2002 City Council meeting and past Planning Commission meetings. Staff has followed the legal requirements of the Unified Development Code which requires sign posting, mailing, and newspaper notification. These requirements exceed those required by State laws. There were three signs posted on the project site located on Pine Street, San Fernando Road, and Sierra Highway 14 days prior to all six Planning Commission meetings (Feb. 19, Mar. 19, May 7, Jun. 4, Jul. 2, and Jul. 16, 2002) and the November 12, 2002 City Council meeting. In addition, notification was provided in the local newspaper 21 days prior to the first Planning Commission meeting and the City Council meeting. Lastly, notices of the first Planning Commission and City Council public hearings were mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the property. Fire Department Helipad Specific concerns raised at the hearing include the effect of helicopter noise on nearby residences and on-site equestrian activities. The proposed helipad lot would encompass about 2.1 acres along the east side of 'A' Street, adjacent to the Eternal Valley Cemetery and roughly 2,500 feet from the nearest residences. Helicopter operations at the facility would be limited to emergency wildland fire situations and are estimated at no more than 2-3 per year. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has adopted specific thresholds for community exposure to aircraft noise. Part 150 of the FAA regulations states that most land uses are compatible with day -night levels (DNL's or Ldn's) that do not exceed 65 decibels (dB). The table below illustrates the number of operations at various sound exposure levels (SEL's) that would be required to cause an exceedance of this 65 dB standard. Average SEL Effective Number of Events DNL 87.4 dB 500 65 dB 94.4 dB 100 65 dB 97.4 dB 50 65 dB Source: Federal Aviation Administration (http: l / www. aee. faa.gov / noise /Aircraft_Noise. htm) Individual helicopter operations could generate SEL's of 80-90 dB in the immediate vicinity of the proposed helipad. Although noise levels would be substantially lower at the nearest residences (nearly one-half mile away), individual operations would be audible both on-site and at nearby off-site locations. However, as mentioned above, the helipad is expected to involve no more than 2-3 operations per year. As indicated in the above table, even at an average SEL of 97.4 dB (higher than anticipated on-site), it would take 50 daily events to cause an exceedance of FAA standards. Therefore, on a worst-case day at the proposed helipad (assuming 2-3 events in a single day), noise levels would remain well below FAA standards even at the most affected location (the immediate vicinity of the helipad). Moreover, it should be recognized that noise impacts associated with the helipad are expected to be limited to no more than 2-3 days per year during emergency situations. Individual helicopter operations may have the potential to startle horses and other animals. However, as discussed above, such operations would occur only during emergency wildland fire situations. Generally speaking, it is presumed that equestrian activities would not be occurring on-site in the event of a wildland fire in the area requiring Fire Department response. The wildland fire helipad was included in the Draft Environmental Impact Report and the above analysis has also been included in the Supplementary Responses to Comments of the Final Environmental Impact Report. Las Lomas/Gate King Comparison The City Council requested staff to provide a brief comparison of the two projects. The following is a matrix showing the comparison: Project Name Gate -King Las Lomas Project Size 584 -Acres 555 -Acres Industrial/Commercial Square Feet 4.43 Million 2.77 Million Residential Units 0 5,805 Natural/ Re -vegetated Open Space 385 -acres 275 -Acres Trails 4 miles Unknown Grading 7,100,000 Cubic Yards 20,000,000 Cubic Yards County of Los Angeles new SEA boundaries The City Council requested staff to research the new County of Los Angeles Significant Ecological Area, SEA boundaries that have not been adopted but are in the process of being approved. Staff was able to obtain a copy of the Biological Resources Assessment document which is laying out the new SEA boundaries for the County of Los Angeles. After researching the document, the Gate King project was not found to be in any of the new SEA boundaries. To verify that determination staff called George Malone from Los Angeles County Regional Planning who also verified that the SEA boundaries don't overlay in the Gate King project. The SEA boundaries are east of the 14 Freeway. The Assessment document is in the City Council's reading file for reference. Breakdown of Cash Contribution items At the request of the City Council, staff is providing a breakdown of where the applicant's cash contribution will be distributed. The applicant will provide a lump sum contribution to the City of Santa Clarita of $1,973,500.00 that will be distributed incrementally as the project is constructed. There are seven phases to the cash contribution which involves it being distributed in the following sums according to which area is developed: $710,500.00; $315,750.00; $315,750.00; 296,000.00; $98,750.00; 138,000.00; and $98,750.00. The cash will be devoted to the San Fernando Pedestrian Bridge or other San Fernando Road beautification improvements, an off-site park and ride facility, Pioneer Oil Refinery site improvements, a Newhall community monument sign, and the future Newhall Community Center. The amount of cash devoted to each item is not defined or locked in because the amount needed for each item may vary because of various situations such as timing, matching grants, and/or different bids which gives the City the flexibility to interchange the cash between the items. In addition, the applicant will be providing the cash incrementally over 15 years which requires that flexibility to interchange the cash between the designated items. However, the cash contribution total resulted in the following breakdown: • $447,500.00 for Pioneer Oil Refinery improvements • $310,000.00 for Newhall Community Center improvements • $540,000.00 for a San Fernando Road Pedestrian Bridge or road improvements • $626,000.00 for an off-site park and ride facility • $50,000.00 for a Newhall community sign Water Assessment The City Council requested staff to provide a brief summary of the water supply assessment for the project which concluded that there was adequate water supply for the project. As required by SB 610, which was signed into State Law in late 2001, the City requested a water supply assessment for the proposed project from the Newhall County Water District (NCWD) in January 2002. On May 30, 2002, the NCWD Board approved the required assessment, concluding that the projected water demand for the proposed industrial park was included in the 2000 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for the Castaic Lake Water Agency service area (which includes the NCWD). The UWMP identifies adequate water supply to serve projected development within the service area. Existing water supply sources include a combination of local groundwater supplies and imported water entitlements. The UWMP identifies additional future programs to augment existing supplies as necessary, including water recycling, water transfers, purchase of additional State Water Project water, and desalination. The NCWD assessment indicates that water supplies available from the State Water Project could be limited by ongoing legal challenges regarding a 41,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) entitlement purchased from the Kern County Water Agency and Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District. However, even without the additional 41,000 AFY, the CLWA entitlement of 54,200 exceeds 2001 CLWA demand for SWP water by 18,844 AF. Therefore, the 386 AFY increase in water demand associated with the proposed project would be well within the current entitlement. Bridge and Thoroughfare Fee buy backsltax credits The City Council also requested staff to look into B&T Fee buy backs and/or tax credits. However, further clarification is needed to understand the intent of this issue. Administrative Services staff is unaware of any B&T "buy back" programs in the City. Additionally, tax credits can take many shapes in relation to development agreements. Is the Council seeking to assist the developer with property, sales, or use taxes? Additionally, what is the end result the Council is requesting as part of this condition? Once these initial questions have been addressed, staff will be better positioned to assist in this matter. No Other Required Discretionary Approval The City Council had concerns with the "No Other Required Discretionary Approval" section in the Development Agreement. This section of the Development Agreement lists the following uses that would not need discretionary approval: (Note to Council: The following uses currently don't require any discretionary permits in the IC zone with the exception of furniture upholstering) 1. Growing and wholesaling of products raised within public utility easements. 2. Administrative and professional services, including but not limited to, administrative offices, financial institutions, clerical and legal services, counseling services, drive through banks, public utility company offices, medical and related health services; blueprint, photocopy and small print shop services; carpet and flooring stores; consumer electronics sales and repair; restaurants, coffee shops, delicatessens, snack bars. 3. Nurseries. 4. Garden supply stores, provided all equipment and supplies are kept within an enclosed area. 5. Manufacturing, compoundings, assembly or treatment of articles or merchandise from the following previously prepared typical materials such as canvas, cellophane, cloth, cork, felt, fiber, fur, glass leather, paper (no milling), precious or semi-precious stones or metals, plaster, plastics, shells, textiles, tobacco, wood, and yarns, novelty items (not including fireworks or other explosive type items), electrical and related parts, electrical appliances, motors, and devices, radio, televisions, phonograph, and computers, electronic precision instruments, medical and dental instruments, timing and measuring instruments, audio machinery, visual machinery, cosmetics, drugs, perfumes, toiletries, and soap (not including refining or rendering of fats or oils). 6. Rubber/metal stamp manufacturing; laboratories (chemical, dental, electrical, optical, mechanical, and medical). 7. Food product manufacturing, including frozen foods. 8. Distributor showrooms. 9. Warehousing and distribution; incidental services for employees on a site occupied by a permitted or conditional use, including day care, recreational facilities, showers and locker rooms. 10. Furniture upholstering. The above uses would be reviewed for site plan and architectural compliance. As mentioned above all the uses specified in the section of the Development Agreement currently don't require discretionary approval and are permitted by right with the exception of a furniture upholstering use which would normally require a minor use permit without the "No Other Discretionary Approval" section of the Development Agreement. The applicant has now agreed to take that use out of the section. Staff believes that since these uses currently don't require discretionary approval in the IC zone and are already permitted by right in the IC zone this section of the Development Agreement is reasonable with the removal of furniture upholstering. The developer will be required to obtain a conditional use permit or minor use permit for all the uses that are already required to be obtained in the Unified Development Code such as furniture upholstering, instructional facilities, indoor shooting ranges, liquor stores, night clubs, etc. The City Council requested staff to facilitate two separate meetings with the adjacent property owner, Manny Santana, and the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. Manny Santana On December 17, 2002, staff had a meeting with Mr. Manny Santana who owns approximately 100 acres adjacent to the Gate King project site. Mr. Santana's property is adjacent to the proposed open space that will be dedicated to the City if approved. Mr. Santana has the following two requests: • To have access rights along a future City -owned trail that runs through the proposed open space from his property to Pine Street for his vehicles and personal use. • To modify the Gate King project site by extending "C" Street through his vacant industrially zoned property to Pine Street which would give him access to develop his property in the future. Staff has reviewed Mr. Santana's first request which is to use the existing trail that runs from his property through the proposed City dedicated open space lots for his vehicles and personal use. Staff has been aware of this request and denied the request in the past. Staff recommends the City Council continue to deny his request as the City typically does not allow private access on City trails for individuals through City owned open space lots for liability reasons and general incompatibility. Mr. Santana believes that he is legally entitled to this trail through prescriptive rights, however, Mark Gates has stated that Mr. Santana has no prescriptive rights for the trail. Mr. Santana has never submitted any documents supporting his statement to City staff or to Mark Gates, the current owner. If the project was to be approved, Mr. Santana would need to submit the supporting documents for prescriptive rights to the City Attorney which would determine if there is legal prescriptive rights to the trail. If it is determined that there is prescriptive rights to the trail, the Park and Recreation Division would then coordinate with Mr. Santana. Mr. Santana's second request was to modify the project to extend "C" Street through his property to Pine Street (approximately 4,000 linear feet of roadway). Staff has also researched this request and found that in order to construct and extend "C" Street to Pine Street, it would remove a significant amount of oak trees and increase grading significantly. In addition, major gas lines would need to be relocated around "C" Street and the wildlife corridor buffer would be decreased by the extension when at the same time the City Council is requesting the applicant to provide more buffering for the corridor. Lastly, to connect "C" Street to Pine Street, the applicant would need to bridge over the railroad tracks as the railroad company doesn't allow at grade crossing unless two at -grade crossings are closed which would be very difficult, if not impossible to accomplish. Thus, the extension of "C" Street would be a significant modification of the project and impact several environmental areas which would require the EIR to be re- circulated. Staff recommends the City Council deny this request as it would increase the environmental impacts of the project. Santa Monica Conservancy At the request of the City Council, staff met with Paul Edelman and Rorie Skei of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy to better understand their concerns and requests. Staff met with Mr. Edelman and Rorie Skei on January 3, 2003 to discuss the Gate King Industrial Park. Both are very concerned with the proposal to develop Lots 28 and 28A which are located just south of "A" Street adjacent to Sierra Highway. In addition, and more of a concern is the area south of the Southern California Edison power lines which consists of Lots 24, Lot 23, and 23B that are proposed to be developed. Both believe strongly that these lots should remain undisturbed and as open space in order to provide adequate wildlife buffering and to protect the significant amount of oak trees within this area. They believe that by removing these lots and keeping them as open space the project would make more sense from their perspective, in addition, to a good compromise for the project as a whole. S/pbs/current/1999/99-264/AR3 Attachment A ATTACHMENT "B" MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT REQUESTED BY CITY COUNCIL AND AGREED TO BY THE APPLICANT MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT Wildlife Guzzlers The City Council requested that the applicant provide wildlife guzzlers in the vicinity of the water tanks on site. The applicant has agreed to be conditioned to provide one wildlife guzzler at each water tank location. Heritage Oak Tree on "E" Street The Council requested staff to research the possibility of saving the Heritage Oak tree on "E" Street. After researching this request, it was found that this tree is not being removed and that the two proposed Heritage removals are not within this area of the project site. Trail Improvements to "A" Street and "E" Street The applicant has revised the site plan to change the bike trail from a Class II to a Class I along "A" Street to provide a more creative design for "A" Street. In addition, the applicant widened the meandering trail that runs from "E" Street to Pine Street to eight feet. However, 600 feet of the total 1800 feet of the trail which starts at Pine Street will be four feet because the applicant only owns a 40 foot strip of land. The fire department requires 36 feet of pavement leaving four feet for the trail. When the adjacent property owner develops his or her property the City will at that time require the owner to provide the additional four feet of trail. Staff will provide a powerpoint slide of the cross sections of the bike trail along "A" and the trail along "E" Street at the January 28, 2003 City Council meeting. The cross sections are also in the Council's reading file. Industrial Park to help support team sports for youths in Newhall The City Council also requested that the applicant provide financial support to various team sports for youths in Newhall. Similar to what was conditioned as part of the Golden Valley Ranch project, staff recommends the Council direct staff to incorporate a condition in the Development Agreement that would read as follows: "The developer shall include in the CC & R's of the Industrial Park a provision wherein the Park's Association will make annual contributions of $1,000.00 for a period of ten consecutive years to support the organization of sports leagues for young children in the town of Newhall." The applicant has stated that he will agree to add this item in the Development Agreement. The Golden Valley Ranch project committed to twenty dollars per home to the Santa Clarita Aging Committee which came to approximately $10,000.00 dollars. Architectural Design Guidelines /earth tone colors for industrial buildings The City Council was concerned with the architecture of the future industrial buildings in the park and requested that the industrial park utilize earth tone colors for the buildings and use the City's newly adopted Architectural Design Guidelines. The applicant has agreed to be conditioned that the industrial park will be subject to the City's Architectural Design Guidelines and be subject to the Guidelines' language that states, "flat mute colors should be used to reduce sun glare on wall planes of buildings, to avoid using bright whites, and colors should coordinate with natural materials used on the facades such as river rock, pressure treated wood, terra cotta, tile, brick and stone. Ensure Pine Street connects to "C" Street or `A" Street In addition, the applicant's revisions continue to provide a Pine Street connection to "A" Street per City Council request. Fire Department involvement with San Fernando Road landscaped medians The City Council requested that the Los Angeles County Fire Department be involved in the approval process of the proposed landscaped median locations on San Fernando Road. Staff will provide language in the conditions of approval that the Engineering Division will include the Fire Department in the review and approval of the specific locations of the landscaped medians along San Fernando to ensure response time and safety is not compromised. Water tank access road widths The City Council requested that the access roads to the water tanks be at minimum width to lessen the visual and grading impacts. Staff researched this request and determined that all the access roads are at minimum widths of 20 feet which is the Los Angeles County Fire Department's minimum requirement. S/pbs/cu nV1999/99-264/ar3 attachment b