Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-03-24 - AGENDAS - SPECIAL04 gANTA CL ED 16DECE�BE ,e`^ CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING Tuesday, March 24, 2026 5:30 PM City Council Chambers 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 AGENDA PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FOR AGENDIZED ITEMS Pursuant to Government Code section 54954.3 members of the public are afforded one minute (with double the time allotted to non-English speakers using a translator) to address the legislative body concerning any item that has been described in the special meeting agenda. CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) - one matter (see attached letter) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) - one matter RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION - TO BE HELD IN THE CARL BOYER ROOM RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION CITY ATTORNEY ANNOUNCEMENT ADJOURN NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CITY COUNCIL A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SANTA CLARITA WILL BE HELD ON THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH AT 5:30 PM IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER LOCATED ON THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE CITY HALL AT 23920 VALENCIA BLVD., SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOLDING A CLOSED SESSION TO CONSIDER THOSE ITEM(S) LISTED ON THE ATTACHED AGENDA. Laurene Weste, Mayor STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Mary Cusick, City Clerk, do hereby certify that a copy of the Notice of Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, CA, to be held on the 24th day of March 2026, at the hour of 5:30 PM was delivered and posted pursuant to Government Code 54956. Dated: March 19, 2026 Mary Cusick City Clerk Page 2 O Channel Law Group, LLP 8383 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 750 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 347-0050 Fax: (323) 723-3960 www.channellawgroup.com JULIAN K. QUATTLEBAUM, III JAMIE T. HALL * CHARLES J. McLURKIN GREGORY T. WITTMANN *ALSO Admitted in Texas March 10, 2026 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Mayor Laurene Weste City Council City Clerk City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 cityclerk@santaclarita.gov lweste@santaclarita.gov jgibbs@santaclarita.gov mmclean@santaclarita.gov bmiranda@santaclarita.gov payala@santaclarita.gov kstriplin@santaclarita.gov vferchaw@santaclarita.gov mcusick@santaclarita.gov Writer's Direct Line: (310) 982-1760 j amie.hallgchannellawgroup.com Re: Formal CEQA Objection to Proposed Oak Tree Ordinance Amendment (Master Case 25-160; SCMC § 17.22.100 and § 17.51.040) Dear Mayor Weste and City Council Members: This firm represents the Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment ("SCOPE"). This letter is to state our client's strenuous opposition to the proposed amendment to the City of Santa Clarita's Oak Tree Ordinance ("Amended Ordinance" or "Project"). The Amended Ordinance proposes to establish a new "Class I" ministerial oak tree permit that would guarantee the removal of protected oak trees if a qualifying structure happens to fall within the tree's "fall zone." The Amended Ordinance also removes an entire class of oak trees from protections and mandatory mitigation. The City of Santa Clarita ("City") has erroneously concluded that this Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") under the "common-sense" exemption (CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3)) and various categorical exemptions. The City's reliance on Packet Pg. 3 O City of Santa Clarita March 10, 2026 these exemptions is a flagrant violation of CEQA. The proposed amendments drastically degrade existing environmental protections, eliminate protections for vital non-native mitigation trees, and will foreseeably result in the large-scale destruction of thousands of mature oak trees across the City without any environmental review. L The Proiect Does Not Quality for Categorical Exemptions The City wrongly claims the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA under the following specific provisions: (1) Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15301 - Existing Facilities, (2) Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, (3) Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15304(e) - Minor Alterations to Land, (4) Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15305 - Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations, and (5) Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15311 - Accessory Structures. Where a categorical exemption is at issue, the court "must first determine as a matter of law the scope of the exemption and then determine if substantial evidence supports the agency's factual finding that the project fell within the exemption." California Farm Bureau Federation v California Wildlife Conservation Board (2006) 143 Cal.AppAth 173, 185. The interpretation of the scope of a categorical exemption is a question of law. Save Our Carmel River v. Monterey Peninsula Water Mgmt. District (2006) 141 Cal.AppAth 677, 693; Walters v. City of Redondo Beach (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 809, 817. Categorical exemptions must be narrowly construed and their scope should not be unreasonably expanded. Sehne v. County ofSanta Clara (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 837, 842; Wildlife Alive v. Chickering (1976) 18 Cal.3d 190, 205. Strict construction ensures that categorical exemptions are interpreted in a manner affording the greatest environmental protection within the reasonable scope of their language. Save Our Sch. v. Barstow Unified Sch. Dist. Bd. ofEduc. (2015) 240 Cal.AppAth 128, 140. Furthermore, the agency has the burden of demonstrating that substantial evidence supports its categorical exemption determination. California Unions for Reliable Energy v. Mojave Desert Air Quality Management Dist. (2009) 178 Cal.AppAth 1225, 1245; Save Our Schools v. Barstow Unified School Dist. Bd. of Education (2015) 240 Cal.AppAth 128, 141. A plain reading of the CEQA Guidelines demonstrates that the Amended Ordinance falls completely outside the scope of every single exemption cited by the City: Class 1 (Existing Facilities): This exemption applies to the "operation, repair, maintenance... or minor alteration of existing public or private structures... involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use." The Project does not involve the maintenance or repair of existing facilities; rather, it creates a new City-wide ministerial mechanism explicitly designed to facilitate the permanent destruction of biological resources (oak trees). Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures): This exemption covers the "construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures" (e.g., a single-family residence or a duplex). The Project does not 2 Packet Pg. 4 O City of Santa Clarita March 10, 2026 authorize the construction of any small structures. It authorizes the removal of mature trees that happen to be situated near existing structures. Class 4(e) (Minor Alterations to Land): The City's reliance on Class 4 is perhaps its most egregious legal error. The statutory language for Class 4 explicitly states that it applies to minor alterations to land "which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees." Because the Project explicitly authorizes the removal of healthy, mature, and scenic oak trees, it is facially disqualified from this exemption. Furthermore, the City cites subsection (e), which is strictly limited to "Minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment, including carnivals, sales of Christmas trees, etc." The permanent destruction of a mature oak tree is neither "temporary" nor akin to a Christmas tree sale. Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations): This applies to minor alterations in areas with an average slope of less than 20%, such as "minor lot line adjustments, side yard, and set back variances." The wholesale elimination of discretionary environmental review for the removal of a keystone species is not a minor lot line adjustment or a setback variance. • Class 11 (Accessory Structures): This exemption is limited to the construction or placement of minor structures accessory to "existing commercial, industrial, or institutional facilities." The City's own staff report clearly states the Amended Ordinance applies exclusively to "single-family residential properties." Therefore, Class 11 is entirely inapplicable as a matter of law. In summary, these exemptions apply exclusively to minor, site -specific physical activities. The sweeping, City-wide policy change proposed here —which degrades existing environmental protections to facilitate a massive loss of the City's urban canopy —cannot be shoehorned into exemptions designed for lot line adjustments, carnivals, and the maintenance of existing buildings. IL The "Cumulative Impact" Exception Precludes the Use of a Categorical Exemption (CEOA Guidelines § 15300.2(b)) Even if a categorical exemption is nominally applied, its use is strictly precluded by CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(b). This section explicitly states that all categorical exemptions are inapplicable "when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant." The cumulative impacts of passing this Amended Ordinance are undeniable and massive. By streamlining the removal of oak trees via a guaranteed ministerial permit based solely on a "fall zone" radius, the City is authorizing successive tree removals across thousands of residential parcels over time. In fact, in a meeting with SCOPE and other interested parties, City staff estimated that the Amended Ordinance could threaten approximately 10,000 mature oaks on residential properties. SCOPE's analysis indicates that in certain oak -studded neighborhoods, up Packet Pg. 5 O City of Santa Clarita March 10, 2026 to two-thirds of all oaks could be removed simply because they reside near a structure. The foreseeable, successive loss of thousands of mature oaks over time clearly constitutes a significant cumulative impact, rendering any categorical exemption null and void. III. The "Unusual Circumstances" Exception Precludes the Use of a Categorical Exemption (CEOA Guidelines § 15300.2(c)l Furthermore, the Project cannot be exempt due to the "unusual circumstances" exception set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(c), which states that an exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. As pointed out by the California Supreme Court in Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City ofBerkeley (2015) 60 CalAth 1086, a party may establish an unusual circumstance with evidence that the project will have a significant environmental effect. That evidence, if convincing, necessarily also establishes "a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances." Id. at p. 1105. A City-wide ordinance stripping protections from a keystone species and sensitive natural resource (oak woodlands) is highly unusual compared to the typical minor alterations envisioned by the Class 1, 3, 4, 5, and 11 exemptions. The permanent loss of habitat for this sensitive resource constitutes a significant effect on the environment, which alone is sufficient to eliminate the applicability of the categorical exemptions under the Berkeley Hillside standard. IV. The Elimination of Discretionary Findings Removes Critical Guardrails and Evades Site -Specific CEOA Review Under the City's current regulations, the removal of a protected oak tree requires an Oak Tree Permit, which is a fully discretionary process. This discretionary framework serves as a vital environmental guardrail because it mandates that the City make specific, rigorous findings before authorizing a tree's destruction. Pursuant to SCMC § 17.23.170(E), the City must currently find that a tree's hazard or interference "cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable preservation and/or preventative procedures and practices," or that removal is absolutely necessary because "no reasonable alternative can be accommodated due to the unique physical development constraints." For heritage oaks, the burden is even higher, requiring a finding that the tree "would prevent any reasonable development of the property." These strict findings ensure that only projects that genuinely require tree removal are approved. The Amended Ordinance intentionally guts these protections. The City's own staff report explicitly confirms that eligibility for the new Class I ministerial permit "is based on objective criteria and does not require the discretionary findings set forth in SCMC § 17.23.170(E)." By replacing this rigorous evaluation with a rubber-stamp, objective "fall zone" criterion, the City is dismantling a critical discretionary guardrail. Consequently, this makes the large-scale removal of oak trees far more likely, as applicants will no longer need to prove that preservation or alternative redesigns are infeasible. 4 Packet Pg. 6 O City of Santa Clarita March 10, 2026 Furthermore, this shift from a discretionary to a ministerial process has profound consequences under CEQA. Discretionary actions trigger CEQA, ensuring that site -specific environmental impacts are properly analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated before a tree is removed. By deliberately reclassifying these removals as "ministerial," the City is statutorily shielding all future Class I oak tree removals from any site -specific CEQA review. Stripping away both the required discretionary findings and the site -specific environmental review for thousands of trees constitutes a massive degradation of environmental protections that will undoubtedly cause significant, unanalyzed impacts. V. The City Cannot Rely on the "Common Sense" Exemption The common sense exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)) is applicable only when a public agency can see with certainty that there is no possibility that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. As the court in Myers v. Board of Supervisors (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 413, 425, has observed, this exemption should be reserved for those "obviously exempt" projects. The initial burden of demonstrating that the common-sense exemption is applicable rests with the City. As explained in Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose (1997) 54 Cal.AppAth 106, "the agency must itself provide the support for its decision before the burden shifts to the challenger." As further explained in Davidon, the "showing required of a party challenging an exemption under common sense exemption is slight... If legitimate questions can be raised about whether the project might have a significant impact and there is any dispute about the possibility of such an impact, the agency cannot find with certainty that a project is exempt." 54 Cal.AppAth at 117. A petitioner must simply offer a reasonable argument to suggest a possibility that a project may cause a significant environmental impact. Once that occurs, a public agency must refute that claim to a certainty before finding that the common sense exemption applies. Davidon, supra, 54 Cal.AppAth at 118. Here, SCOPE and other interested parties have provided far more than a "slight" showing, submitting substantial expert evidence demonstrating that the Project will result in the loss of vital habitat, reduced carbon sequestration, and increased wildfire risks. VI. The Unlawful Exclusion of Non -Native Oaks Nullifies Past Mitigation A deeply flawed component of the Amended Ordinance is the revision to SCMC § 17.51.040, which explicitly limits the definition of a protected "Oak tree" exclusively to species of the genus Quercus that are "native to California." This arbitrary exclusion strips all legal protection from mature non-native oaks, such as the Southern live oak (Quercus virginiana). As the City is well aware, prior to Santa Clarita's incorporation, Los Angeles County permitted developers to mitigate the removal of native oaks by planting non-native species. Early iterations of the City's own Oak Tree Ordinance also permitted these non-native replacement trees. Today, many of these non-native oaks are mature, Packet Pg. 7 O City of Santa Clarita March 10, 2026 massive trees that provide immense ecological value. By redefining protected oaks to exclude non-native species, the City is silently authorizing the unregulated destruction of trees that were planted as legally binding environmental mitigation. Worse, their removal requires no mitigation whatsoever. VIL Substantial Evidence Demonstrates Significant Environmental Impacts To ensure the Administrative Record reflects the full scope of the Projects environmental impacts, we have attached several expert reports and scientific documents as Exhibits to this letter. These documents unequivocally demonstrate the severe environmental consequences of the proposed ordinance: Devastation of Biological Resources and Oak Woodland Habitat: The City's own Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines acknowledge that oak trees are "indicator species for the natural communities in which they exist, supporting a broad spectrum of other native plant and animal species" (attached as Exhibit 1). The Oak Woodland Bird Conservation Plan, prepared by California Partners in Flight, notes that oak woodlands have the richest wildlife species abundance of any habitat in California, supporting over 330 species of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians (Exhibit 2). An expert report by Land Protection Partners (Dr. Travis Longcore and Catherine Rich) further confirms that 320 species of vertebrates and 5,000 species of insects are associated with oak woodlands (Exhibit 3). Destroying this habitat violates the foundational principle of species -area ecology (S cAz); as habitat area decreases, biodiversity collapses. This ecological value is further supported by a 2024 Master's Thesis by Natasha Khanna (Exhibit 8), which notes that oaks are considered among the most ecologically significant trees for wildlife across their range. Khanna's research demonstrates that the coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) receives the highest foraging use by avifauna (nearly 30% of all bird feeding attempts) due to the critical invertebrate food resources supported by its canopy and catkins. Furthermore, an expert biological assessment by Senior Biologist Scott Cashen, M.S. (Exhibit 4) confirms that planting replacement trees does not offset the ecological impacts of eliminating an oak woodland community. Loss of Carbon Sequestration and Climate Impacts: A single mature oak tree can sequester over 10,000 pounds of CO2 equivalents over its lifespan (Exhibit 5). The widespread removal of oaks will release massive amounts of carbon while simultaneously eliminating the future sequestration capacity of the urban forest. The decomposition and combustion of these removed trees will foreseeably result in the emission of CO2, methane (CH4), and black carbon biogenic emissions, which the City has failed to evaluate under CEQA § 15364.5. • Increased Wildfire Risk and Heat Island Effect: Oaks cool neighborhoods by up to 10 degrees. Additionally, mature, well -hydrated native oaks serve as crucial "ember catchers" that protect homes during wind -driven wildfires (Exhibit 5). 6 Packet Pg. 8 O City of Santa Clarita March 10, 2026 VIII. The Proposed Mitigation is Grossly Inadequate The City attempts to justify its exemption by claiming it will maintain "mitigation" requirements. However, the Amended Ordinance allows applicants to bypass replanting entirely by paying an arbitrarily low fee capped at $1,500. More importantly, it is scientifically impossible to mitigate the destruction of oak woodland habitat by simply planting boxed trees from a nursery. The Resource Conservation District of the Santa Monica Mountains (RCDSMM) has explicitly concluded: "To date, there have been no successful restorations of oak woodlands. It is relatively easy to plant oak trees, but the extensive ecological network and soils that makes a forest from those trees has been thus far impossible to recreate" (Exhibit 6). The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy concurs, noting that "planting a boxed tree from a nursery does not mitigate the loss of both terrestrial and soil fauna and plant life that are part of this plant community" (Exhibit 7). This fundamental scientific reality has been firmly established in CEQA jurisprudence. In Save Agoura Cornell Knoll v. City ofAgoura Hills (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 665, 701, the Court of Appeal invalidated a CEQA document precisely because simple tree -replacement mitigation is legally deficient for oak woodland impacts, observing: "Second, there is substantial evidence that prior efforts at oak tree restoration have failed. In a September 2016 letter to the City's Planning Director, the Resources Conservation District of the Santa Monica Mountains reported: 'To date, there have been no successful restorations of oak woodlands. It is relatively easy to plant oak trees, but the extensive ecological network and soils that make a forest from those trees has been thus far impossible to recreate.' In its comment letter, CBC similarly stated that [a]ttempts to recreate oak woodlands as mitigation for other developments are often unsuccessful.' In addition, CNPS cautioned that planting a boxed tree from a nursery would not mitigate the loss of fauna and plant life that are part of the oak community. As the trial court noted, the MND contains no analysis showing that CS-13I0-9 would be likely to succeed in recreating or restoring the oak woodland lost to project development." Save Agoura Cornell Knoll v. City ofAgoura Hills (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 665, 701 (emphasis added). IX. Substantial Public Opposition In addition to the extensive scientific and legal evidence demonstrating the severe environmental consequences of the Project, the City cannot ignore the overwhelming public opposition to these proposed amendments. At the time of this writing, a petition with over 250 verified signatures opposing the Amended Ordinance has been signed by concerned residents and community members. This significant public outcry further highlights the controversy and potential impacts of the Project, reinforcing the necessity of a full Environmental Impact Report rather than an unlawful reliance on CEQA exemptions. 7 Packet Pg. 9 O City of Santa Clarita March 10, 2026 X. Conclusion The City is legally barred from using CEQA exemptions to pass this sweeping reduction in environmental protections. The evidence attached hereto demonstrates to a certainty that the Project will have significant impacts on the environment. We demand that the City immediately abandon its CEQA exemption claims, halt the approval of Master Case 25-160, and prepare a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Thank you for your consideration of this matter. I may be contacted at jamie.hall@channellawgroup.com if you have any questions, comments or concerns. Sincerely, Jamie T. Hall Encls. Exhibit 1— City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines Exhibit 2 — The Oak Woodland Bird Conservation Plan (California Partners in Flight) Exhibit 3 — Expert Letter by Land Protection Partners (Travis Longcore, Ph.D. and Catherine Rich, J.D.) for Project in Los Angeles Exhibit 4 — Expert Letter by Scott Cashen, M.S., Senior Biologist, for Project in Los Angeles Exhibit 5 — SCOPE Comment Letter and Supporting Citations (Tallamy, Gavin, US Dept. of Energy, LA Times) Exhibit 6 — Letter from the Resource Conservation District of the Santa Monica Mountains (RCDSMM) for Project In Agoura Hills Exhibit 7 — Letter from the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (SMMC) for Project in Los Angeles Exhibit 8 — The Ecological Value of California Black Walnut Woodlands to Avifauna, Master's Thesis by Natasha Khanna (May 2024) Packet Pg. 10 O Exhibits to the Letter are available through the link below: https://santaclarita.gov/city-clerk/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/2026-03-10-Objection-Letter- to-City-Council-compressed.pdf z O H Q t7 J LU H Q a_ U H Z Q J LU cn Z O U J Q LU J 2 H LU U Z LU a' LU LL Z O U L J C O r v d O Q. 7 O 'L^ V 3 c� J d C C M L U c O r c� v C E E O U Packet Pg. 11