HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-06-22 - AGENDA REPORTS - NEWHALL GATEWAY PLANNING (2)Agenda Item:
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
JOINT CITY COUNCIL / REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
NEW BUSINESS
DATE:
SUBJECT:
DEPARTMENT:
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval:
Item to be presented by:
June 22, 2010
NEWHALL GATEWAY CONCEPTUAL PLANNING AND
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Community Development
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Receive presentation, select Site Plan 1 as the preferred alternative, and direct staff to work with
the existing property owners to implement Site Plan 1. If the existing property owners are
uninterested or unable to proceed with Site Plan 1, then direct staff to examine other options
including, but not limited to, a Request For Qualifications from prospective developers that may
have an interest in developing the Newhall Gateway quadrant.
BACKGROUND
On June 2, 2009, the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission approved the Conditional Use
Permit request submitted by SFSX Partners (Applicant) for the construction of the Sierra
Crossing development (Master Case No. 08-033). The project proposes a 99,000 square foot
development with a total of five commercial buildings, including two single -story buildings one
with a drive-through lane, two two-story office/commercial buildings, and a four-story hotel
located at the southeast corner of Sierra Highway and Newhall Avenue. This project was
appealed to the City Council for further consideration on June 8, 2009.
The SFSX Partners project proposal is located on a property within the Newhall Gateway..
Located at the intersection of State Route 14, Newhall Avenue and Sierra Highway serving as a
major entry point into the City of Santa Clarita from the Los Angeles basin and as the primary
entry into the historic downtown Newhall core. This area is also located within the Newhall
Redevelopment Project Area and is currently undergoing major transition. Activities such as the
grading for the future Chinque Terra office complex have commenced, grading plans are
underway for the Gate King Industrial Park, and the Walt Disney Company recently announced
Q�NROVED
plans to construct a major studio complex at its ranch located in Placerita Canyon.
Implementation of the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan has also commenced and will transform
the five -block Main Street corridor into a pedestrian friendly, transit -oriented village that offers
housing, employment, civic, dining and shopping opportunities in proximity to a Metrolink
station.
The City Council/Redevelopment Agency review of the Applicant's project brought to light a
number of issues with the design. The proposal did not consider adjacent properties within the
Redevelopment Area. It proposed grading and drainage impacts to the on-site riparian area. And,
it disregarded the fonner historic U.S. Highway 6 right-of-way that is located on the eastern
portion of the property.
It was determined that a coordinated planning effort for the Newhall Gateway area including the
SFSX Partners property would be an opportunity for the City and the Redevelopment Agency to
maximize the development potential of all properties located in the vicinity, more specifically the
entire southeast quadrant. A combined project of all parcels in the quadrant could better serve as
a community destination and provide the kind of businesses and services that would compliment
the other business, studio, and industrial complexes that are planned for the area. The City
Council/Redevelopment Agency (RDA) directed staff to hire a consultant to develop a site
concept, architecture and economic feasibility analysis. On January 12, 2010, the City Council
and Redevelopment Agency approved funding for Poliquin Kellogg Design Group (Consultant)
to be hired and directed staff to work with the consultant to complete this analysis for the
quadrant within six months.
DESIGN MEETINGS
Since January, City staff and the Consultant have held three Economic Development Sub -
Committee meetings and three stakeholder meetings. During each stakeholder meeting and Sub -
Committee meeting, multiple conceptual designs of the 18.6 acre quadrant were presented,
discussion was opened, and comments and issues were heard. Comments were viable they were
then addressed in the next round of design. Invitations to the stakeholder meetings were provided
to all four property owners within the quadrant, however, only the two larger property owners,
USC and SFSX partners, attended. Of the other two property owners, Norma Minna Trust did
not respond to the meeting invitation, and Rouse and Rouse, LLC contacted the staff and
generally supported the City's endeavors for the area, but was unable to attend the stakeholder
meetings.
As a result of the meetings on the project and from further analysis of the Newhall Gateway in
relation to surrounding parcels and the goals for the Newhall community, it was determined a
number of design objectives should be met as a part of the conceptual design. Those objectives
were as follows:
■ 'Design a plan that promotes connectivity to all properties within the quadrant;
■ Prevent any proposed building and grading from occurring within the on-site riparian
area to preserve the natural habitat;
■ Transform the function of the on-site riparian area from a drainage way into a project
amenity;
■ Incorporate former historic U.S. Highway 6 into the project design;
■ Provide a multi -use trail along former U.S. Highway 6 and the riparian area;
■ Provide a pedestrian bridge over Newhall Avenue to the north;
■ Maximize the development potential for all properties in the quadrant with uses that will
better serve the community and compliment other uses planned for the vicinity;
■ Create a strong street presence along Sierra Highway;
■ Ensure financial feasibility of the conceptual design;
■ Allow within the design changes in uses and building locations depending on market
conditions;
■ Balance all proposed grading on-site;
■ Consider the need for a Park and Ride facility in the vicinity; and,
■ Incorporate bio-swales for on-site drainage.
The consultant has completed a conceptual design package that includes three conceptual site
design alternatives, conceptual architectural elevations, and a pro forma (financial) analysis. The
names of the three design alternatives are Site Plan 1, Site Plan 2 and Site Plan 2a.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS
All three conceptual designs move the development and grading to outside of the riparian area
and propose two bridges, one pedestrian and one pedestrian/vehicular to provide connectivity
between the SFSX property to the USC property. There are three vehicular entrances to provide
access along Sierra Highway, and one to access the property from Newhall Avenue. The
Newhall Avenue entrance/driveway extends southward over the old U.S. Highway 6 right-of-
way. The driveway will have design enhancements including pavement accents, signs and
lighting to acknowledge the historic highway. The north entrance on Sierra Highway is intended
to be the main access into the property from the west as it will have a signal at the entrance and it
is connected to the one vehicular bridge to bring traffic to the rear of the property and to the U.S.
Highway 6 drive.
Along the entire west side of U.S. Highway 6 driveway overlooking the riparian is an 8' wide
trail paved with a pervious material that resembles decomposed granite but acts similar to
pavement. The trail will extend from the proposed Newhall Avenue pedestrian bridge and
vehicular entrance to the Sierra Highway south entrance. Along the trail and both sides of the
riparian area, split rail fencing is proposed and seating areas looking over the riparian will be
located on both the east and west sides of the creek.
Under the supervision of the U.S. Department of Fish and Game, the riparian area will be re -
vegetated with native plants in areas where non-native species have grown. Landscaping
throughout the site will include a variety of plant species that grow well in the area including
plants that have lower watering needs and those that are indigenous to California. Numerous
landscaped areas around the site will act as a bio-swale to naturally filtrate and allow percolation
of the project's stormwater.
3
Preliminary analysis indicates all grading activities will balance on-site. Retaining walls are
required to allow for the best utilization of the property. The retaining walls are limited to the
east side of the project along State Route 14. There are two 10 foot walls separated with a five-
foot landscaped area that will face inward toward the project, and will not be visible from the
freeway. The walls will be heavily landscaped to soften their appearance. It is not anticipated
that the walls will be visible from Newhall Avenue or Sierra Highway.
Oak Trees
A general survey of the oak trees on all properties within the quadrant was completed to estimate
the potential impacts of development. Site Plan 1 proposes the most intense development for the
quadrant; therefore, this design was used to determine the greatest impact that may occur to oak
trees as a result of developing this property.
There are 68 existing oak trees on the project site, including eight of heritage status. This does
not include twenty-four 24" box oak trees that SFSX Partners planted in anticipation of future
oak tree mitigation for the Sierra Crossing development. Due to the significant grade changes
between the SFSX property and the USC property, it was necessary to propose the removal or
relocation of a number of the oak trees within the USC property and those located along the U.S.
Highway 6 right-of-way. Site Plan 1 requires 38 oak tree removals (two of heritage status) and
16 to be transplanted on-site (including four of heritage status).
Site Plan 1
In the most intensive of the three plans, Site Plan 1 has a total of 269,300 square feet of
development proposed (166,300 square feet on the SFSX Property). It is this plan that City staff
and the Consultant feel most closely meets the needs of future uses in the vicinity and the
objectives for the Newhall Gateway quadrant. It consists of four two-story office buildings, two
three-story office buildings, a 139 -room four-story hotel, two retail pads, and a five -story parking
structure with retail space along its face. The five -story parking structure has 459 parking stalls
with 100 spaces allocated toward the use of a community Park and Ride facility.
In effort to create a downtown street presence along Sierra Highway, the five buildings along
that elevation have been located directly adjacent to the street. Theses buildings include the four-
story hotel, two three-story office buildings and two two-story office buildings. The hotel is
proposed to be located along Sierra Highway just south of an architectural tower and plaza
located on the corner of Sierra Highway and Newhall Avenue. The 23,800 square feet of retail
space will be located on the eastern side of the site, along Newhall Avenue, and on the west side
of the parking structure face along U.S. Highway 6. The two other two-story office buildings are
proposed on either side of the five -level parking structure on the existing USC property.
Site Plan 2 and 2a
Site Plan 2 proposes a total of 209,725 square feet of development (124,725 square feet on the
SFSX Property). Unlike Site Plan 1 with a parking structure, this plan provides all the required
4
parking for the design on grade. The reduction in density in this plan reduces the hotel to a 93 -
room three-story hotel, six two-story office buildings and 14,800 square feet of retail space.
Site Plan 2a has a proposal with 210,300 square feet of development but proposes the least
amount of density on the SFSX property out of the three plans (112,300 square feet). Site Plan
2a and Site Plan 2 are nearly identical with the exception of the removal of one of the two-story
office buildings on the SFSX Partner property, the slight increase in square footage to another
two-story building on that property, and the increase of a building to three stories on the USC
site. These changes would allow for the SFSX property to be parked to code without required
parking being located on one of the other properties within the quadrant.
ARCHITECTURE
Poliquin Kellogg Design Group has completed preliminary architectural designs for the
conceptual Site Plan 1 design. The desire for the project was to acknowledge the historic context
of U.S. Route 6 on the property as well as provide an architectural complement to the Newhall
community. The architectural style used can be categorized as `Main Street USA.' The buildings
have been designed to meet the City of Santa Clarita Community Character and Design
Guidelines with articulated building mass and form with the use of insets, canopies, wing walls,
trellis features, multi -paneled roofs, roof overhangs, articulated eaves, numerous building
materials and colors. The architectural elevations are attached to this document for the Council's
review.
FINANCIAL VIABILITY ANALYSIS
As part of the conceptual planning effort for the Newhall Gateway, the Consultant was also
required to provide a detailed financial analysis (Analysis) which includes the following:
■ Underwriting of the various site plans along with a market evaluation of the future most
likely tenant -mix, demand, potential phasing of the Development and projected
absorption of space in the Development;
• An estimate of the total Development costs, including hard costs (site work,
infrastructure, building costs), soft costs (design, permits and fees, leasing commissions,
etc.), and financing costs; and
■ A determination of the overall fiscal impact of the proposed development concepts.
Kevin Reed, a highly experienced developer/financial analyst was hired by the Consultant to
complete the items identified above. The Analysis incorporates a breakdown of the financial
feasibility of three different scenarios:
■ Site Plan 1: A master planned development that incorporates all three parcels (SFXS
Partners parcel, USC, and the South Parcel). This scheme also entails a parking garage
with 459 spaces, of which 100 spaces will be dedicated for Park & Ride purposes. .
Site Plan 2: This scheme is also a master planned development with all three parcels,
(SFXS Partners parcel, USC, and the South Parcel) however excludes the parking garage
concept and provides all on -grade parking throughout the entirety of the site.
Site. Plan 2a: In this scheme, each parcel is valued separately (three separate stand alone
developments).
The following is a summary of the detailed Analysis (provided as an attachment to this staff
report):
Residual Land Value: The residual land value reflects what a developer might typically
pay for vacant land parcels after all improvements are considered. Accordingly, with Site
Plan 1 and 2, the total residual land value is estimated at $3.25 million (inclusive of all
pads, SFXS Partners, USC, and the South Parcel). When separated in Site Plan 2a, the
residual land value is significantly decreased to $1.85 million. The primary reason for
this is the loss of building "E", a 22,600 square foot office building located on the SFXS
parcel but parked in areas of the South Parcel and the USC parcel.
Tax Increment/Cit_y Revenue Potential: The Analysis shows that Site Plan 1 may generate
approximately $519,400 annually in gross tax increment and Site Plan 2 will generate
$324,395 in tax increment for the Redevelopment Agency. In addition, annual City
revenues from sates tax and Transit Occupancy Tax will be approximately $404,485 for
Site Plan I and $267,851 for Site Plan 2. Total Agency/City revenues for Site Plan I will
be $923,785 and for Site Plan 2 will be $592,246.
Conclusions: The entitlement of the property as a unified, master planned development
provides the current property owners a positive net value in their properties. The
development and build out of the property consistent with the site plans will be profitable
and provide returns consistent with normal investor expectations. The properties, when
underwritten individually, have significantly diminished values owing to the loss of
efficiencies in shared parking areas and site layout that results in a less dense
development. The result is that the individual properties have a combined value if
developed individually of, at best, $1,850,000. Clearly, for the individual property
owners to recognize full value of their land, they must combine them in one, unified
development plan.
The issue is how and when the land value can be realized. As discussed in the Analysis, the
current value is difficult to assess owing to its current unimproved and unentitled condition
coupled with the current weakness in the capital and real estate markets in general, and the Santa
Clarita Valley in particular. Nevertheless, the project is located near a significant potential
demand generator - the future Disney Studios. It is reasonable to assume that once Disney
breaks ground on its Project, the timing for the development of Newhall Gateway will become
evident. It would seem prudent to, at minimum, master plan and entitle the properties in order to
be ready for that event.
The Analysis also provides an underwriting of the current Project submitted by SFXS (included
in the Addendum of the Analysis.) In underwriting this Project, Mr. Reed relied on site
.20
improvement costs prepared by Mike Redmond and utilized the same assumptions regarding
rental rates, absorption, vertical construction costs, etc.
The underwriting indicates that, similar to the USC site, there is no positive land residual value
under the SFXS development scheme, particularly owing to the high cost of constructing a
55,000 square foot subterranean parking garage. The Analysis provides that the current
development plan proposed by SFXS is not economically feasible.
NEWHALL REDEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
The Newhall Gateway conceptual design Site Plan 1 was presented to the Newhall
Redevelopment Committee meeting on June 7, 2010. During the presentation, conceptual
elevations and visual simulations for the architectural designs were also presented to the
Committee, and as a result, the committee voted to support the project.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Other action as detennined by the City Council and Redevelopment Agency.
FISCAL IMPACT
The action taken tonight will not have a direct fiscal impact on the City's General Fund or
Redevelopment Funds. In addition, it is the Agency's intent to recover costs of this conceptual
plan preparation if and when a master developer submits a formal application for this plan.
ATTACHMENTS
Newhall Gateway Conceptual Design Packet
Economic Analysis Memo
Economic Analysis Addendum
Conceptual Oak Tree Analysis
i
G G D E -,.,S -)I -.G -'.W, Ht'O U P 818.313 �8b13
........................... ........
EMU
'am's
Av
May 15 . 2010
To: Paul Brotzman —
Director of Community Development., City of Santa Clarita
From: Kevin Read
Copy to: Brian Poliquin. Poliquin Kellogg Design Group
Re: Newhall Gateway, Santa�Clarita, CA
This memorandum 'has been prepared for the City of Santa Clarita (City;) for the .purposes of
evaluating the financial viability of the three site plans prepared by Poliquin Kellogg Design
Group (Consultant) for the Newhall Gateway Project (Project). Our Scope of Work is as
follows:
I Assist in the planning and design of the site plan and product mix of the. Development.
2. Underwrite the proposed Development Site Plans. Necessary to the underwriting will be
a market,evahldtiOn Of tile future most likely tenant -mix, demand, potential phasing of the
Development -and projected. absorption of space in the,Development:
3. Estimate the cost of the Development, including hard costs (site work, infrastructure,
building costs), soft costs (design, permits and fees, leasing commissions, etc,), and
financing costs. Included in this -arialy.sis will be,a land residual valuation for the
Development; and
4. Determine the fiscal -impact of the proposed development.plan.
- Methodology
Our approach to the financial analysis of the development,plans is to value a "purchase", of the
lized Developer/Investor criteria. We assume that, a.developer/b uy er of
properties based on norma
the property will require,a.,gross profit margin (,,T.oss:profits�,toW]development costs) of
approximately 20%.. a Yield on Cost (net annual revenues /development costs,) between 9.75%
.and 10.25%, and an Internal Rate of Return (IRR) over The holding period between 15% and
20%. Amongst.these three 'Financial yardsticks, we have relied primarily on Yield on Cost as our
-constant", that is, all of the,development Site Plans were required to achieve an approximate
10.00% Yield on Cost.
Site Evaluation
The Newhall Gateway Projjeasite'is in a"pioneering "location. Although tie -pr ject has
Oj
convenient,access and visibility from the 14 Freeway, it lacks a significant.commercial or
.residential concentration in the area that a new development can benefit -from. The commercial
I
core of the Santa Clarita Valley, situated along the.5 Freeway and particularly focused in
Va.lenciais-currentlya soft -real estatemarketacross most property types,.although wenote that it
is a relatively small market with the capability ofgaining market :equilibrium -in.the -event ofa
major in -migration of commercial tenants. The overall site does present long term potential (as
further discussed 'below) however, there is littleprospect that the Project Will begin production in
the near term.
Moreover, the site remains unimproved, with significant site=work required to bring it into a
position for vertical development. Thecost o'f site work, as out- lined by Alliance Engineering
(Civil :Engineer in our study) is significant, particularly in the volume ofearththat must be
graded/relocated, retaining walls that create build -able area on the parcel.ownedby the University
of Southern- California:(USC) and the South Parcelalongthe east side of the parcel abutting the
14 Freeway. In addition substantial. Bridge and Thoroughfare (B&T) fees; which combined with
the cost. of the site work, create high fixed -costs for the Project. As a result, the financial
viability of the Project,.(and to achieve a positive land residual value for the current. property
owners), requires that it.be developed to the greatest practical density.
Compoundinathe development potential of the property is the fractured ownership. A number of
economies of.scale, particularly in cost sharing of land development costs, water quality
mitigation costs, shared parking costs, as well as the benefits of a more coherent phasing of
deveiopmen , product mix,:and marketing of the project are not realized. 'We have assumed in
our evaluation that the Project is brought under the control of a single master Developer who:can
organize an effective development strategy.
Site Plan:
The site plans prepared by the°Consultant provides for a considerable amount of flexibility for the
future development of.the site. This flexibility will be crucial to the -overall success of the Project
since It allows for the..Project to be developed in phases thereby mitigating si nificant upfront
capital costs. 'The product mix is also flexible enough to -allow the Project to respond to market
conditions— that is, the current market conditions are uncertain and it is difficult: to foresee Which
product typelhas the most likelihood of reaching market stabilization such that new development
is considered. The Project site plan further allows the phased development of individual
buildings thereby, reducing financing costs and developer,equity:requirements.
In advising .the Consultant on the product mix for -the Development, werel-ied on ,interv,iews with
local area real .estate brokers, including the.Project marketing team fol- SFXS Partners
(SFXS,), other local area property owners and developers, and our own experience in developing
properties in Northern.Los Angeles County.. Based on these discussions, we believe that both
Site Plan I and ? provides forthe best mix Of uses that alloy for the combined maximum residual
value of the 'land as well as the greatest likelihood that -the Project will be developed in a timely
manner.
Project Timing.and Absorption:
As a practical, matter, both the SFXS and USC'par,.ceis in their current condition (without project
entit=lements and unimproved) in today's currentenvironment is very difficult to value.and very
well may have a marketable value of°virtuaily zero. Capital markets (both debt and equity) are
severely constrained. Debt is both expensive and :available in only very low loan -to -value ratios
with lenders primarily focusing on.lending on existing income producing properties, while equity
investors are now focused on distressed debt Secured by real estate or real estate opportunities
being sold at sign i fican (.discounts. Construction debt, required far this Project, is only now
bevinninu to become available at limited loan -to -cost ratios requiring.high equity commitments
from property, owners/developers and under restrictive terms. In order to recognize any value
I I
from the properties, they will need, ata minimum project entitlements and-tirne for stile capital
markets ('indeed the general economy.) to stabilize.
Moreover, the below described market conditions do not suggest that positive market conditions
prompting new development will be economically feasible in the near future. 'For example, the
major producttype proposed .for the Project, office, currently has over 700,000 square feet of
available space in the`Santa Clarita Valley according to CBRE; the Santa Clarita Valley -has
historicalIN, had an annual net absorption of office space (additional space leased/occupied that
'results in a net decrease in available space) of] 75,000 square feet per year (CBRE), suggesting
that the Santa Clarita office market will require at least three.years to regain supply/demand
equilibrium.
However, as has been noted by local area real estate professionals and City staff" the driver for
new 'development along the 14 corridor will be the proposed Disney Studios. Newhall Gateway
will clearly benefit from the development of the Disney Studios. the commercial office space will
provide space to third -party support services to the studio and associated production offices,
'while the retail element will provide additional commercial services, including food services. not
provided for on the studio lot. We:have predicated our analysis, then, on the assumption that the
:Disney studios will proceed in a timely manner. Wehave assumed that Disney Would be
:prepared to break around on the Studios by the start of third quarter., 2011, by which time the
Project approvals for Newhall Gateway could be obtained, with construction of Newhall Gateway
to occur in concert with the,comtruction of the Studios.
,Furthermore, the Newhall Gateway Project will serve as,an entryway Into Did Town Newhall.
The':Redevelopment Agency of.the City of Santa Clarita.is currently in the implementation phase
of the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan, which :provides ,for the overall revitalization of Old
Town Newhall into a pedestrian friendly urban corridor.
MARKET:
As pan of our underwriting,ofthe Project and in,C01liUnct ion with the COUISLIftant, we studied a
variety of uses for the.properties, including multi-familyresidential, officejetail and hotel uses.
In general, the markets across all product types in Southern CaliforniaJ11CIUdingthe Santa Clarita
Valley., remain weak:
Residential: A recent Market Forecast by theUSC Casden School of Real.Estate, (April 10.
2010), multi -family .rental rates in Los Angeles coup are�projectcd to decrease by an, avera.9 e of.
3.5%. USC professor Trace Seslen, co-authbr of this forecast, says Southern California's
apartment market will be ''s'haped by; jobs. 1101.15inQ) prices, the 'Ishado" ' market of rental homes
and condos..and new construction Overall; "Southern California will noi see susiained increases
in rents until,the,i-seater economic health of tile region improves." Our SUrvev of tile apartment
market in the immediate area of the Project indicates that rental rates. for one and two bedroom
apartments,. even before rental concessions or the projected declining market are factored into our
analysis, will .only support multi -family housing with on -grade (or non -structured) parking. This
procluct type does not prov ide,signifi cant enough densities on the site to be economically feasible.
-Office: The Santa Clarita Valley office market. like virtually all office markets in Southern
California, is -experiencing increasint, vacancies and falling - rate f
rental rates. The vacancy or
office space in Santa Clarita stood at '25:9% as of the end offirst quarter, 20 1 Oaccording to Jones
.Lang. La Salle. Exacerbating the current -weakness in the local market is tenants continuing to
downsize their office requirements or delaying the expansion of their premises as well -as the
delivery of,approximately 99,000 square. . feet of ne.w office product into the market. While this is
a relativelv small amount of office space. the Santa Clarita market is relatively small, comprised
of only 2.76 million square feet of office space, so this amount of space delivered into a weak
market is significant. And although the vacancy rate could be significantly driven down -with-the
expansion or migration of tenants from outof the market area, area brokers do not forecast any
such expansion of the tenant base in the foreseeable future. Quoting from a recent'article,in the
Los Angeles Business Journal, "I don't see this space being repopulated for nine to twelve
months", said Ryan House Vice President of Jones Lang La Salle. ".1 don't see much.happetfing in
the market to sway, the vacancy rate one way or another." Class A asking rents are averaging
$2.64 per square foot.. Gross, as of the end of first.quarter, 2010.
Retail: Accordin- to CBRE 's fourth quarter. 2009 ;Los Angeles'Retail marketing report, "low
consumer confidence, limited accessw available credit, and increasinc, unernployment"`has
combined to cause the:Greater Los Angeles retail market to experience increased vacancy and
negative net absorption. Vacancy rates in Los Angeles County were 4.4% as ofthe end of 2009,
an increase of 1.2% - or a 38% increase - frorn the previous yeat's.end. With a total inventory of
5.69 million square feet. Santa Clarita did experience a positive net absorption of 58,400.sf on
2009, however the vacancy rate stood at 6.8%. The average asking rental rate for retail space in
Santa Clarita is $2.08 psf. NNN. Our interviews with local real estate professionals specializing
in retail leasing suggests that the retail market, particularly ofsmaller. in-line space proposed for
the Project, remains weak .owing .to the number of smal I. neighborhood retailers closing their
doors as a result. of the current economic climate and tightening small business credit as well as
the'contraction or-closure,of underperforming stores by national retailers.
Hotel: Both PKF and Smith.Travel Research (STR) anticipate that the Hotel industry will begin
to recover in 2010, althOLlah the pace of the recovery is expected to be slow. According to STRI,
the softness in the hotel market is,the result -of overbuilding over the past several years.
The number of guestrooms increased in 2009 by 32 percent -and is forecast to increase by 1.9
'percent in 201 0,,and up .0.8 percent in 2011. "The construction pipeline will mostly,be °built
between now and early 201 1, according to STR. "There is a potential for that (201:.1 ) number to
be,a little lower. ZHowevcr, for that to happen, the number of removals from the supply will have
to,dramatically increase."
'Over the past several years, land entitled :Isar mid -market hotel development ranged in price from
$15.,000 per room for secondary locations:to $30.000. for prime in -fill areas. Owing to the
economic downturn, there have been few recent purchases of hotel land. It is not expected that
demand for land for hotel development will return until the overhang of distressed hotel
properties has been sold or worked out.
4
/07
Financial Analysis:
Based on our underwritingof the .Project, it is our opinion that the Project as master planned by
the Consultant is financially viable. Our detailed analysis is provided in the Addendum, but
briefly, the financial analysis is as follows:
Financial Underwriting — Site Plan land Site Plan 2
Office (sf)
Retail (st)
Hotel (_Rooms,)
Project Total Cost:
Stabilized NUI
Total Profit:
Hold Period:
Gross Profit Margin:
Yield.on Cost:
IRR:
Calculated Parking Garage Subsidy:
Developer Parking Garage Contribution:
Residual Value of Land:
Site PIan 1 Site Plan 2
169,800
138,200
23;800
14,800
j 139
93
$37;200,966
$30;170.,015
$3,722,906
$3,009,1.25
$121453,309
$9.430,055
66 Months
(66 Months
23.32%0
' `?2.88%
10.01%
I 9.97% 1
18.51 °/o
16.56%]
1 $6,6501,000
! $0
`$2,450,000
$0
$3;250;000
$3,250,000)
You will note that the land 'residual value in both Site Plan I and 2_are equivalent.($3.250,000).
This is by design. Site Plan 2 is, what we:consider, our base case model since it ma%imizes the
density .ofthe combined properties while parking the entire project on -grade. This Site Plan does
not require governmental participation; therefore a future developer could reasonably :assume that
this Site Plan could be developed through a normal private:debt and equity structure. As a
.consequence, this is the underwriting of the'Projcct that an investor/developer would base.his/her
valuation of the Project on.
The City has proposed .constructing a 459 space parking structure as part of the Project. One
hundred of the proposed parking spaces will be dedicated for a "Park and. Ride' lot to be
relocated from a nearby property. The remainder of the parking will used to allow for increasing
the density on the site by 46 hotel rooms and 34,850 square feet of office and an additional 9.000
square feet of retail space to be located at the base of the Parking structure along Route 6.
A privately funded structured parking .is not financially feasible.at this location given the current
and forecasted achievable rental. rates in the Santa Clarita market, relative land values in thearea
and the _relative cost to construct a parking= garage versus surface parkng.a project. The cost of
the proposed parking structure is estimated at $9.10'M. Consequently., a proposed parking
structure as part of the proposed project will require a third -party (Governmental) subsidy.
In order to evaluate the amount of the subsidy, we have again assumed that a developer will need
to achieve the previously mentioned financial yardsticks, taking into account the increased
revenue generated by the additional cease -able square footage. as well as -the additional cost to
constructthe additional lease -able area (that is, the Developer would be indifferent to including
13
the Parking Structure in the development so long as he/she achieves the same financial returns on
costl. _
The construction of the parking:structure,.and the consequent further densification of the Project,
provides benefits for both the EitNY and the Developer.
• The increase in density enables the Project to become more of:a destination location in
this area of the Santa Narita Valley rather than another office park.
• The increased densities allows for more varieties of retailers, with increased office space
and hotel rooms to support the commercial services as well as the Park and Ride users.
• The increased "mixed-use" will allow for potentially less daytime trips as,office tenants
and their clients can walk to services during work hours, as well as services rendered to
park and ride users before and after normal work hours, rather than.drive "off campus"
for :Support services.
• 'File :Developer gainsadditional cost efficiencies since significant fixed costs (site work.;
B&I fees, for example) can be allocated over more revenue producing building area.
Based on the above; we estimate that the Project is capable of contributing approximately $2.3 M
to the cost of construction of the Parking Structure, with the remaining $6.8M out of total cost
of $9.1 M being a subsidy. (As a note, the 100 spaces assigned to the Park and Ride faciIity has
an estimated allocated cost of 52,000.000.)
We have mentioned in our meetings with Staff that it has been our experience, and supported
,through studies ("Shared Parking, Second Edition", U;LL 2005):that a large, mixed-us'e, project
such.as the one proposed gains efficiencies in parking owing to their complinrentan, uses, or
"shared parkin Shared parking is the use of a parking space to serve two or:more individual
land uses without conflict or encroachment. The ability to share parking spaces is the result of
two.condifions: 1) variations in the accumulation of vehicles by hour or by day at:the individual
land use and 2) relationships: amon- the land uses that result in visiting multiple land uses on the
same auto trip.
Local .area'brokers have stressed ,that `it is important that the Project .offer office tenants a 4/1,,000
parking ratio. Nevertheless, we believe that should a parking study 'be performed by a traffic
engineer (perhaps as part of the Project environmental study) that the gross number of parking
stalls on the site may be reduced, with those "saved" stalls enabling the.size, -:and so cost, of the
parkino structure to be reduced and/or density on the site to be increased.
We have not.assumed any :income offsets to the above, including the potential revenue generated
by thesale/development of the existing Park and Ride facility.. We also have not .considered the
tax generated by the additional development. The additional hotel rooms have the potential to
contribute an additional 5152,000 in TOT per annum (as.discussed below), while the Tax
inerementis estimated to:generate an additional $1'_92,00:0 from the parking structure and the
additional office and retail space: constructed._ Sales tax from the additional retail space provided
is estimated to increase by over $22,006 per annum over our estimates ofSalestax revenue
generated in' Site Plan 2 (discussed more fully later).
We'have assumed that the parking.sfructure would be privately owned, and so subject to property
taxes. Our property taxes for Site Plan 1 are therefore,increased by $.25. psf over our -assumed
6
/ 4
property taxes in Site Plan 2, affecting the net operating. income (NOT) generated by tile office
buildings since they are leased.on a Gross lease basis (the building owner is responsible for
paving for the operating costs of the.:building, includin-real estate taxes). as is the local market
norm.
We would like to note that�the cost sharing/subsidy of the.parking structure would be a negotiated
price". We view -the above calculations as the starting point for these negotiations with the
Project Developer rather than definitive, pricing.
Site Plan 2A — Land Residuals by Property
As part of our financial evaluation, we were requested to arrive at a residual value of the three
different properties comprising the Project-., SFXS., USC, and the South Parcel. We have assumed
for the purposes of this evaluation that the three properties are stand alone developments —that is
they must satisfy their parking requirenients, all within their respective properties.
AstheCivil Engineer noted in our.meetings with Staff, the overall Project site.has the.potential to
nearly balance — that is, the amount of soil needed to be imported on the SFXS site to bring into a
finish ,:rade is near the amount of soil on the USC site required to be exported — which results.in
sianificant. cost savinas to both. properties. Similarly, there,are cost sharing arrangements
between the USC site and the SFXS site with regard to the improvement of the riparian area,
includin- the construction -and improvement of the bulkheads and .entry into Route 6 that will
need to be negotiated if ownerships remain separate. We are not addressing these issues here;
rather we continue to assume that common site work-. i.rnprovernents,are allocabie to the.proper-ty
on,which the improvements are made.
Our estimations of value for the three properties are as follows:
Financial Underwriting; —Site Plan 2A
Gross Land Area (Acres)
Off -ice (st)
Retail (sf)
I tote] (:Rooms)
Project "Total Cost:
Stabilized NOT
Total Profit:
Hold.Period:
Gross Profit Margin:
Yield on Cost:
IRR:
Residual Value of Land:
SFXS USC South Parcel Total
10.28
0.2
7.31
1.01
18.60
57300
1 47-800
12,600
1227,700
14.800
0
14,800 1
9_1
0
0
93
$11,122,285
1'2,494.196
$4A76,214
1 $28.092-,695
$IJ 14,082
S11488 - '807
S434,276
$1'4,037.16`5
$3,377,310
$3,5,97.845
$669,111
$71634,266
48 Months
46 Months
i .35 Months
48 Months
25.15%
22.09%
11_94%
10.00°r'°
.9.70%
.22,08%
22.09%
2 1.9 1 %
S1,150,000
1 $700,000
so
s i's -so'.09.01
7
U,
Residual Value of Land:
It is apparentthat the sum of the individual properties, when developed as separate, stand alone
properties, is sigificantly less than the values we determined in ,Site Plan.2 where the property
developed as a single, master planned Project. 'The primary reason for this is the loss of building
"E". a 22.600 square foot office building located on the SFXS parcel but parked in areas of the
South Parcel and the USC parcel.
The loss of approximately 10,500 square feet, or almost 8% of the total office product in the
Project signlificantly affects the value of the Project because of the high fixed costs in developing
the property, particularly site development costs and B&T fees. This is particularly,reilected in
the singular development of the South -Parcel. As indicated above, developing the South. Parcel
.site. consistent with Site Plan 2 (a single 22,600 sf office building) results in residual value of
.the land of virtually $0 due to the high costs associated with improving the land, high l3&T fees
relative to the total square footage constructed., and the inefficient -configuration --and slope of the
site that limits adding additionaHease-able area to the site. The South Parcel is utilized in Site
Plans l and 2 as additional parking areas that enable: additional. office density on the.S;>?XSparcel,
increasinL, the land residual value.
On the other hand, the. USC parcel achieves a higher land residual value through the improvement
of.the riparian.area on the. SFXS site through the creation -of the proposed "'Route 6", and more
particularly through the vehicular access the site gains cuff of Newhall Road. In fact. .the USC site
achieves a higher residual value - $750,000 — if only the retail portion of the property were
separately parcelized and developed. We have provided an underwriting of this scenario in the
addendum. We -do not sug=gest this as a "highest and best use" .for the USC parcel but to
underscore how the -combined properties, when developed as a unified whole can achieve a
greater overall value.
We havealsounderwritten the currently proposed Project submitted to the City by SFXS. a 111
room limited, service hotel; 12,584 sf of retail/restaurant. and 30,982 sf of office/retail space over
a 55,000 sf subterranean garage. (inc-luded in the Addendum.) In underwriting this Project we
have relied on site improvement costs prepared by Mike Redmond and utilized the.same
assumptions -regarding rental rates, absorption, vertical construction costs, etc.
Our underwriting indicates that, similar to the USC site, there is no positive land residual value
under this development scheme, particularly owing to the high cost of constructing a 55,000
Square foot subterranean parking .garaae. When we assign a'$0 value to the SFXS land, the
proposed' Project achieves a 9.35% Yield on Cost, below our threshold of 10.0%..and a Gross
Profit Margin F6.77%. below our threshold of 20%. We do not think, therefore, that the current
development, plan proposed by SFXS. is economically feasible.
The combined properties further provide for the flexibility to maximize 'the density of the entire
site by creating efficiencies;in -the site layout. The efficiency of.the.site layout also results -in
increased values sincebuildings can be laid out in the most desirable 'site locations— in this
Project_along.the street 'frontage of Sierra Flighway — while parking can be located in less
desirable interior locations.
8
l/
Significant Assumptions:
The full underwriting of the Project is included in the Addendum, including assumptions we have
made in the underwriting. We should point out.axtumber of the more significant assumptions we
have made in our underwriting:
Project Start,Phasittg%Absorl)tion: As we have previously'stated, our analysis, and so our
estimation of values. assumes that the Project is fully entitled. We assume that the Project will be
constructed in two phases.. with the first phase comprised of the SFXS parcel and the retail
portion of the USC parcel fronting Newhall Road. The second phase is comprised of the two
planned office buildings on the USC site and the office building on the South Parcel. The second
phase is constructed upon the substantial lease up of .Phase 1, or in month 30 of our analysis. In
Site Plan 1, we assume the parking structure is constructed in Phase I
The Project is assumed to lease approximately 45,000 square feet of office space per annum,
reflecting the Project capturing approximately 25'% of the average annual net absorption in the
Santa Clarity Valley. Retail space is assumed to be fully leased and income producing 6 months
after completion.
hold Perioc The "hold period" of the Project, or the total time we assume that the Project will
require from start (upon entitlements) to full completion and lease up is 66 months for Site Plan .1
and 2.
Rental.Rates; Based on our conversations with area real estate brokers, and based on our survey
of the market.. we have assumed that rental rates for the .office space with frontage along Sierra
Highway will lease for$2.40 pst_ dross (with operating expenses estimated at $8:00 psf per
annum) owing,to the signage andpotential ground floor retail uses available in these buildings,
while office space with frontage along Route .6 will achieve an average rental rate of $2.25,
Gross. We have discounted the.rental rates for<officeproduct.in the development. retative.the
Santa Clarita o#iice rental rate average of $2.64, Gross since this is a pioneering location and, we
believe, that .the office.space will need to be offered at a discounted rate relative to similar
product offered in the office core in 'Valencia.
All office leases provide for a S35.00 per rentable square foot tenant improvement allowance,
while retail leases are provided at a 515.00 tenant improvement allowance.
Retail rents are projected to average 52.25 psf, NNTN (the tenant pays for its operating building
operating expenses) in the buildings situated on Newhall Avenue. In Site Plan 1, 9,000 square
-feet of retail space is located at the base of the proposed parking structure. While we think this
retail space is important to bring additional amenities on-site, particularly: in .the 'last phase of the
Project, this space should.be considered as secondary.since. lacks: major street identity. We have
therefore assumed that this retail space will lease.at a rental rate of $1.50 psfNNN.
We have assumed that the hotel component of the Project wili be sold as a finished pad to a future
hotel developer/owner. We have assumed that the hotel pad will, sell .for $25;000 per room; with
the sale occurring in month 1'2 in all our analyses. The proceeds of the hotel pad sale are used to
offset Project costs and so are reflected in our Yield on Cost Calculations.
Hotei.Pad Sale, -.As we'have:previouslymentioned, we assume that the hotel pad sells in month
12 of our analysis. For the purposes of our underwriting, we assume that the proceeds of the sale
9
I - 1. . ...... . . .... . . ....................... I'll ./ ?
are used to pay down the cost basis of the Project. This necessarily affects the Yield on Cost
calculation (moving it higher).
;Site Rork: The major cost component relative to land value is the cost of improving the site
work. We have utilized three different sources to estimate the site work, costs, and site -work
phasing for the Project, Cost estimates prepared by the Civil engineer retained for this study
(Alliance Engineering).. and RCI Contractors. a Southern California based general contractor used
by us:and Consultant in the past who is familiar with constructing similar type product as is
planed for the.development. We have also reviewed and relied upon cost estimates for the
development of the USC and the SI XS parcels prepared by Mike Redmond and sent to City Staff
in a memo..dated Augusta, 2009.
Prgjeet FinancingI76-minal CAP Rates, It is reasonable to.assume that underwriting criteria
uoin forward w=iII be more stringent, with loan to value ratios decreasing to at best 60%.
Construction lending is currently very ditficult.to obtain, with pricing generally based on a 60%
loan to cost ratio, with interest at fi %. Cawing to the Phasing of the'Project, and the limitations
of our. Project model, we have increased the Loan to Cost ratio to 70% to reflect the true equity
outstandin„ if buildings were completed, leased, then refinanced at a 60% loan to value ratio. At
the end of the -hold period, we have used an 8% capitalization rate for both retail and office
buildings. We have used the proceeds of the hotel land sale, scheduled for month 12 in both Site
'Plans 1 and 2, to offset project costs.
City of Santa Clarita Revenue.Potential
To calculatethe:estimated gross tax increment, we took I% of the,total construction cost of each
development, inclusive of tenant improvement costs, but exclusive of site .wort: costs. The gross
tax increment.is:calculated at .full build out and at stabilized occupancy, which we assume is
approximately 4 wears after entitlements. In our underwriting assumptions, we.assume the sale of
the finished hotel pad to a:third party-. In order to calculate the.gross tax increment we. have
assumed a total cost of $120,000 per room, which includes all site work. We have not assigned a
base year value for calculation purposes here since we believe it will be nominal. The gross tax
incrementrealized by the development is as follows:
We have assumed in Site Plan .1 that.the parking structure will be privately owned, and thus
subject to the gross tax increment. The -gross tax increment realized -by the development i.s as
follows:
Ta 1nerement.Prvjection
Est. Value of Gross I
Construction
Site Plan 1551.939.063 ( $ 19;4t?0 j
.Site Plan.2 $32.439.54'l i $324.395
' The Redevelopment Agency is required to provide pass-thru payments and debt service payments of
approximately 25%from the gross amount to various agencies.
10
0
The City stands to collect sales tax revenue from retail sales, along, with Transient Occupancy
Tax ("TOT") we have used -the City's current tax rate of 8.25%, of which the City receives I %.
The retail mix we have assumed for underwriting the estimated sales tax revenue is:
• Site Plan I — 5.000 sf fast food, 6,000 sf restaurant, and 12,800 of general retail.
• Site Plan 2 — 3,000 sf fast food, 4,000 sf:restaurant, and 7,800 sf of general retail.
We have used a 1.0% of estimated gross room revenues (assuming a 721% average daily
occupancy and a rack rate of $95.00 per room per day). The revenues from sales tax and TOT are
calculated at full build out and at stabilized occupancy, which we assume is approximately 4
years after entitlements. The revenue the City could potentially realize from the development is
as follows:
Estimated Annual City .Revenue
Sales Tax and Transit, Occupancy Tax .(TOT)
Total Estimated
Sales Tax TOT City Revenue
Site Plan 2 $57,358 $347,027 ; $404.385
Site 'Plan. 2 $35;668 $232.183 $267,851
Revenue generated by Site Plan 2 is higher owing to the increased density, particularly the
additional room count of Hotel.
Conclusion
The fundamental question we have been asked to analyze is if the site plans prepared by the
Consultant are financially feasible. In short. the answer is yes. The development and build out of
the property consistent with. the site=plans will be profitable and provide returns consistent with
normal zinvestor expectations. Moreover. the entitlement of the property as a unified, master
planned development provides the current property owners -positive net value in their properties.
We believe the combined value of the three properties is approximately $3,250,000.
Furthermore. we also find that the properties, when underwritten individually, have significantly
diminished values owinato the loss of efficiencies in shared -parking areas and site layout that
results in a less dense development. The result is that the individual properties have a combined
value if developed individually of, at best. $1;850.000. Clearly, for the individual property
owners to.recognize full value of their land they must combine them in one, unified development
plan.
Simply put, the value in the Project resides not in the sum of the individual properties, but in the
whole Project realized as a unified, master planned Project.
In Site Plan 1 we underwrote a public/private partnership in the construction of the parking
garage.. While we were,able to estimate the potentialsubsidy required for the garage, we already
recognize that there may be some potential funding sources available to the City ;which may be
utilized to offset this cost, including the land and development value of the current Park and Ride
facility being put into.rnore profitable production and the increase in TOT and sales tax revenue
generated by the increased density, all of which we have not considered. In order to more
accurately gauge of the subsidy required, more analysis will be required_.
11
(9
The issue is how and when the land value can be realized. As we point out, the current value is
difficult to assess owing to its current unimproved and .unentitled condition coupled with the
current weakness in the capital and real estate markets in general. and the -Santa Clarita Valley in
particular. Nevertheless, the project is located near a significant potential demand generator - the
future Disney Studios. It is reasonable to assume that once Disney breaks ground on its Project;
the timing for the development of Newhall Gateway will become evident. It would seem prudent.
to at minimum master plan and entiile the properties in order to be read- for that event.
1?.
2d
1�
v
SITE PLAN 1
m
i
r
'� •C
I
I
f
d
4
'� •C
1 - N
j:f I� (va ✓. � �"I
m
t t
ie
SITS PLAN 2
1.5
m
CC
v,
u
,
j
1
x
I I
it
I
N
x
I
I
�x
1
i
d
i
i
M
1
r r v
c
c
cI
v,
u
D
r
l
N
_ � I
vl� 1
y, ur. 1 t 1 vi �n L M1 v^ �� aG x OU S t� �-, �•`I OG 0.n^. w� � ^I �
j 41 g`
I
i
I
F
i
z
n,
I
1
v
_ 1, - v S' v rl�. F. �. ... !.' l ✓; 1, f� _ Fr J t _.. _ L ... ... "..5 G _ _ _ _ 1, r - fr �. �i (+. n v _. ! ti 1,
1
1 t.
f'
4'
I:
3
i
w
SITE PLAN 2A
I. SFXS RESIDUAL
2 USC RESIDUAL (FULL BUILDOUT)
3. I
USC RESIDUAL (RETAIL ONLY)
4. PARCEL A RESIDUAL
5. REDMOND PROPOSED SITE PLAN
,16
0
y6 A
\,..., ...}\
\,...J...,j,\
:.,./...j\\
2 [
�®
})
e\,....�
.\\.
�..
k(}
\ ƒ
\,..., ...}\
\,...J...,j,\
:.,./...j\\
2
2 [
�®
})
e\,....�
.\\.
2
2 [
�..
2
2 [
\
Sl
1{ y
C i ^
� I i
Fma
oil
liz
H 1 Z
M 0.1
au ams
5 "goge
111
,
|
�
.. . a. ... . ....
.�
:
\
�........,<,/
..§
{
I
i
}
}
?:;oq
c
3
a
01,
�f
i
K
9
�
i
L
01,
�f
i
K
01,
42
I
i
�
t i
(
i
+G
A'
Q
II {4
cp'
11
1
ii
1
E
Y
y
Y J
�
C
42
r
!
( j
I
ii
i
{
111j'
1
I'
14 1I
ca
�
(
�
I
i.
1
65
L�
q -q
G G D E5&,,I�GNC,f'GRO U P 818.313' gk3
a
tree report
....................................®
4-1
CU
m
C))
6
=
m
C U
C-
C:)
(3)
C-
C.)
r
s��
May 17. 2010 �
Lo Newman
Design G r9up, � Ulc.
Mr. Brian Poliquin
Poliquin Kellogg Design Group
6400 Canoga Ave., Suite 215
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
RE: Sierra Gateway Oaks
23300 Newhall Avenue
LNDG #7299-03
Dear Mr. Poliquin:,
We visited the site at 23300 Newhall Avenue in the City of Santa Clarita and the parcel
adjacent to it to the east. We used the Oak Tree Mitigation Plan dated July 9, 2008 and a
copy of the Oak Tree Report by Impact Sciences dated February 28, 2007 to determine
whether they are still consistent with the current state of the site's oak trees.
The following opinions are based on a cursory field review of the trees made by walking
the site and looking more closely at a few sample trees. The previous report states that
nearly all of the trees are in good to excellent condition. Our visit confirms that they
continue to be healthy and vigorous and have benefited from the recent rainy season after
years of drought.
The Oak trees tagged 1-39 are located on APN 2827-005, 014, 15, 27, 28 and 34 in a
mature, riparian habitat comprised of coast live oaks and native sycamores, cottonwoods,
willows and oh.er.native shrubs. Most of the trees are located in the creek's riparian
habitat, parts of which are very steep. Only a few are on the level, previously graded
areas. There are also 10-15 oak tree saplings ranging from 2"-5" in trunk diameter that
were not included in the previous report but now qualify as protected oak trees.
There are 29 oak trees located on the upper parcel (referred to as the USC property) that
also are healthy and vigorous, although they were burned in a fire many years ago. These
coast live oaks are mostly located on dry elevations (not in the creek) and are surrounded
by chaparral plants. They are not as healthy or as beautiful as the trees near the creek.
Trees 1-39 have identification tags and appear to have been land surveyed. The oak tree
that is tagged as number 40, which was included in the original Oak Tree Report, is
actually located in the northeast corner of the upper parcel. None of the other 28 trees on
the upper parcel are tagged and their locations were estimated by our office in the field.
Tree 88, identified by Jan Scow in the letter dated August 28, 2008, is no longer standing.
The stump was found along the curb of Sierra Highway where it is sprouting new growth.
Q. Landscape Architecture 17 Planning o Horticulture a Biological Restoration 41
31300 Via Colinas o Suite 104 o Westlake Village, CA 91362-3924'ti Phone (818) 991-5056 0 Fax (818) 991-3478
Mr. Brian Poliquin
May 17, 2010
Page 2
The following table summarizes the status of the 68 oak trees on site:
Heritage Oaks On Site
Other Native Oaks On Site
Total Trees On Site
8
60
68
Heritage Transplants Other Native Oats Trans tants Total Proposed Trans lank
_d
A 12 16
Additional Observations
There are (24),24" box mitigation oak trees planted on the southern property .line. They
will also be removed by this proposed development.
The proposed t16) coast live oak transplants are from the site. These proposed
tralisplants are all healthy specimens and have been graded as to health and aesthetics as
"B" trees. Transplanting of oak trees is a viable alternative to removal of these
specimens. Transplanting of oaks has attained a success rate of 95% when appropriate
management and maintenance practices are followed.
There are nvo (2) specimen California sycamore trees on site that are good candidates for
transplanting (not covered by ordinance).
There are superb cottonwoods and California walnuts in the riparian area that are
proposed to be preseived.
Vire are enclosing an oalc tree neap that will indicate the .surveyed and estimated locations
of the oak trees, including heritage trees; and other significant vegetation.
If you have any questions regarding the above; please contact our office
Sincerely,
L..Nevnnan Design Group, Inc.
ASLA California State License #1314
Jolblinger
Cet ' ted Arborist WB -6820A
Enclosure. Oak Tree Map
JO/LN: kg
Heritage Removals
Other Native Oak Removals
Total Removals
2
36
38
Additional Observations
There are (24),24" box mitigation oak trees planted on the southern property .line. They
will also be removed by this proposed development.
The proposed t16) coast live oak transplants are from the site. These proposed
tralisplants are all healthy specimens and have been graded as to health and aesthetics as
"B" trees. Transplanting of oak trees is a viable alternative to removal of these
specimens. Transplanting of oaks has attained a success rate of 95% when appropriate
management and maintenance practices are followed.
There are nvo (2) specimen California sycamore trees on site that are good candidates for
transplanting (not covered by ordinance).
There are superb cottonwoods and California walnuts in the riparian area that are
proposed to be preseived.
Vire are enclosing an oalc tree neap that will indicate the .surveyed and estimated locations
of the oak trees, including heritage trees; and other significant vegetation.
If you have any questions regarding the above; please contact our office
Sincerely,
L..Nevnnan Design Group, Inc.
ASLA California State License #1314
Jolblinger
Cet ' ted Arborist WB -6820A
Enclosure. Oak Tree Map
JO/LN: kg