HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-09-22 - AGENDA REPORTS - APPEAL PLANNING CMSN MC 92 112 (2)NEW BUSINESS
DATE: September 22, 1992
city
Item to be pre ented
6_4� 1�,-2 c`ntL
Lynn M. Harris
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Master Case 92-112 (Oak Tree Permit
92-023) to allow for the removal of a non -heritage oak tree from the rear yard of a
single family residential lot located at 24512 St. Moritz Drive. Applicant: Mrs. Janey
Deldo •
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
BACKGROUND
On July 21,1992, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution P92-27 formally denying the above
referenced project.
On June 5, 1992, staff received a letter (attached) from the applicant outlining the reasons for the
removal request. The applicant cites a serious injury to her son (due to falling from the tree), as
well as the subsequent emotional impacts, as being the primary reason for requesting the removal.
The applicant had previously made some informal contacts with the City regarding the oak tree
process and removal procedure. Staff informed the applicant that the request may not be within
the intent of the Oak Tree Ordinance (89.10) and would be scheduled before the Planning
Commission for their consideration and determination.
The applicant has admitted to trimming the subject oak tree. Additionally, the applicant has
encroached within the protected zone of the oak tree with a cement patio. Both actions require an
oak tree permit, which the applicant did not obtain. The City's Oak Tree Consultant has indicated
that the removal of the cement patio underneath the oak tree may eliminate some of the hazard.
Ordinance 89-10 was established by the City to preserve and protect oak trees within Santa Clarita.
The policy statement contained within the ordinance is summarized as follows: "It shall be the
policy of the City of Santa Clarita to require the preservation of all healthy oak trees unless
compelling reasons justify the removal of such trees."
Ordinance 89-10 also provides the Director of Community Development with the authority to grant
a permit for the removal of up to three oak trees provided that the Director makes one or more of
the required five findings. The Planning Commission and City Council are also required to make
one or more of these findings. The findings are summarized as follows:
1) The condition or location of the tree requires cutting to maintain or aid its health, balance, or
structure.
2) The condition of the tree (disease, hazardous) cannot be controlled through preservation
procedures and presents a hazard to pedestrians, utilities, etc.
3) The removal of the tree Is necessary to enable the reasonable use of the property.
UD A-UlD
C 11 PU � �•r i
r
` 1 11 s s
4) The approval of the permit will not be contrary to or in conflict with the purpose and intent of
the Ordinance.
5) The last finding is related to a heritage tree, and this is not a heritage tree.
In granting previous oak tree permits for removal, the City has required the applicant to establish
a value for the subject tree (pursuant to the International Society of Arboriculture's, ISA, guide to
establishing values for trees) and proceed on two options: providing a payment to the City
equivalent to that value, or planting a sufficient number of trees on-site equivalent to that value.
The Commission and Council do have the authority to waive this requirement.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The project was heard by the Planning Commission on July 7, 1992. Mrs. Deldo testified at this
meeting, summarizing her letter and requesting thatthe Planning Commission approve her removal
request. Mrs. Deldo explained how her son's injury was sustained and her on-going fear that the
tree presents a safety hazard for her other children. Also, Mrs. Deldo indicated that if approval of
the permit is considered she should not be required to pay the ISA value for the tree. The City's
Oak Tree Consultant estimated the tree to be worth approximately $4,000.
No persons spoke in opposition to the request. No letters; excluding Mrs. Deldo's, were received
regarding the proposal. Staff did notify adjacent property owners regarding the request.
Following the hearing, the Commission found that the request did not satisfy one or more required
findings as explained in detail in Planning Commission Resolution No. P90-27, Section No. 2, Item
c., and determined that the applicant's request was not a "compelling reason" as required by the
policy statement of the City's Oak Tree Ordinance.
The City Council may:
1) Uphold the Planning Commission's decision, denying the project;
2) Approve the project, directing staff to prepare a resolution and conditions of approval for the
Council's consideration. If approval is considered, the Council may wish to consider whether
the Oak Tree Ordinance should contain a specific provision to allow for this type of removal
request.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council:
1) Deny Master Case 92-112 (Oak Tree Permit 92-023) and,
2) Direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for the Council's consideration at the October 13,
1992 meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution P92-27 '
Planning Commission Staff Report
Letter from Mrs. Deldo
Minutes July 7, 1992 Commission meeting
RESOLUTION N0. P92-27
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, DENYING
MASTER CASE NUMBER 92-112
OAK TREE PERMIT 92-023,
TO ALLOY FOR THE REMOVAL OF ONE OAK TREE LOCATED
AT 24152 ST. MORITZ DRIVE
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby make the following
findings of fact:
a. A request (OTP 92-023) to remove an oak tree from the rear yard of a
single family residential lot was filed with the City of Santa
Clarita by Mrs. Janey Deldo (the "applicant") on June 5. 1992. The
property for which this request was filed is located at 24152 St.
Moritz Drive.
b. A serious injury to one of the applicant's children due to falling
from the tree is the primary reason cited for the removal request.
C. Ordinance 89-10 (Oak Tree Ordinance) was established by the City to
Preserve and protect oak trees within Santa Clarita. The policy
statement contained within Ordinance 89-10 (Oak Tree Ordinance) is
summarized as follows: "It shall be the policy of the City .of Santa'
Clarita to require the preservation of all healthy oak trees unless
compelling reasons justify the removal of such trees."
d. Ordinance 89-10 provides the Director of Community Development with
the authority to grant a permit for the removal of up to three oak
tree (excluding- a heritage type tree), provided that the Director
makes one or more of the required five findings. The Director made
no determination on the request and instead scheduled the item before
the Planning Commission.
e. A.hearing was held by the Planning Commission on July 7, 1992 at 7:00
P.M. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa
Clarita.
SECTION 2. Based upon the above findings of fact, oral .and written
testimony and other evidence received at the public hearing held for the
project, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission
and on its behalf, the Planning Commission further finds as follows:
a. At the hearing of July 7, 1992, the Planning Commission considered
the staff report prepared for this project and received testimony on
this proposal.
b. Policies contained within the City,s General Plan strongly encourage
the preservation of oak trees.
Resolution P92-27
Page 2
c. The Planning. Commission, in approving an oak tree permit, must
substantiate one or more of the required findings. These findings
are assgciated with the removal, trimming, and encroachment within
the protected zone, of oak trees and are summarized as follows:
1. The condition or location of the oak tree requires cutting to
maintain or aid its health, balance, or structure. (The
subject tree is in good condition and the applicant is
requesting removal of the tree rather than trimming); and,
2. The condition of the tree(s) (disease, danger of falling)
cannot be controlled through preservation procedures and
presents a hazard to pedestrians, utilities, etc. (The
subject tree is in good condition and presents no .apparent
danger of falling thereby not presenting a hazard to
pedestrians, utilities, etc.); and,
3. The removal of the tree(s) is necessary to enable the
reasonable use of the subject property which is otherwise
prevented by the tree(s) (The subject tree in no way prevents
the reasonable use of the property. The property was
developed in a .manner as to provide sufficient rear yard area
while preserving the oak tree.); and,
4. The approval of a permit. will not be contrary to or in
conflict with the purpose and intent of the Ordinance (The
granting of the permit for the applicant's cited reason is not
provided for within the ordinance and therefore is in conflict
with the ordinance.); and,
5. The last finding is related to the removal of a heritage oak
tree. The subject tree is not of the heritage type.
SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the
Planning Commission hereby determines as follows:
a. The granting of the oak tree permit would be in direct.conflict with
policies of the City's General Plan which encourage the preservation
of oak trees.
b. The applicant's reason for the request is not a "compelling reason"
as required by the -policy statement of the City's Oak Tree Ordinance
(89-10).
C. The approving of the applicant's request does not satisfy one or more
of the findings required for granting an oak tree permit.
NOV, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by.the Planning Commission of the City
of Santa Clarita, California, as follows:
The Planning Commission hereby denies the applicant's request. (Oak
Tree Permit 92-023) to remove an oak tree in the rear yard of a
single family residential lot.
Resolution P92-27
Page 3
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this
ATTEST:
Wnk"M.�Iia—r-ris�
Director of Community Development
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) as
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA)
21st day of July 1992.
Jerry D. Cherrington; Chairman
Planning Commission
I, Donna M. Grindey, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was
duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita at a
regular meeting thereof, held on the 21st day of July 1992 by the
following vote of the Planning Commission:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Cherrington, Woodrow, Brathwaite, Modugno and Doughman
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
GEA:578
MINUTES OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Tuesday
July 7, 1992
7:00 p.m.
NEW BUSINESS
ITEM 6: OAK TREE PERMIT 92-023 (MASTER CASE NO. 92-112) - Located at 24152 St. Moritz Drive.
Assistant Planner Glenn Adamick gave the staff report and slide presentation of this request to
remove an oak tree from the rear of a single-family residential lot. The applicant's child sustained
a serious injury while playing in the tree, and this is the reason cited for the request.
Chairman Cherrington allowed a statement from the applicant at 8:03 p.m.
M& Janey Deldo, the applicant, 24152 St. Moritz Drive, Valencia, CA. Mrs. Deldo addressed the
Commission and requested that her application be approved.
The Commission held a brief discussion relating to the protection of oak trees as outlined in the
City's Oak Tree Ordinance.
Commissioner Brathwaite made a motion to deny Oak Tree Permit 92-023 and direct staff to prepare
a resolution of denial for the Commission's consideration at the next regularly scheduled meeting
of July 21, 1992, Commissioner Modugno seconded the motion, and the Item was denied by a vote
of M.
fig
i
i
ry�,�.. '.off '. �'4,; `; ' `e°` �• ?,, e� e�' �, fil s a •51-�0� "`
`b�e� �: �P+ytS ' °r yhh' �'4, r, s //4vv<njs I+ � ��-- � t� Crvrx'rt>•� ox
rrouclU-
xaxrx
lit �
,IMI SAMA CLARA
GIC -1
G p
SOLEUAD'
`�: M.41t nWY'_.-_ '�f.Lfrt• sxYA T -yr7o -yi= � -L�m I Yl
•ui',. YIN=. -a _ �^c" , ..: 11gC! y ._ ��t
c MpNN7 �. I i
crux u5Y Pk yY \ ro
,i a, / 1 u iy'zA' t�Y a 0' la, c .c ♦ r .F z ! SAUGUS
' _ .. .:,� t� t"s`i+a VgLE Cies. ' ..i e c. �r��.. ` o •rte m8 � v �
I ' q
i
W
ayg
a
' J
PROJECT SIT
M1 a0. c 'n. t YI
S
e
a
• 9 NEWHALL
+ �V I R � tit �+ o •agf � J _ €E a f a rmre a `' Z ..4' ` �/s
Ab L � 3 j ! �S 5fP 1. i g M x�,' 7r O � N ' � � �. '? � .6 r✓
�h 1 � '�C '}r � l• �. ' JR MS
s �, .�'n��..S�\• vY C'S I..nO �)y .'VmJ .i l�-'.l,k 3..w'. 3I ,•e... .� �"/ ..' MKv.t� g
. Y 3
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
PROJECT PLANNER:
APPLICANTS:
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
OAK TREE PERMIT 92-023
July 7, 1992
0
Chairman Cherrington and Members of the Planning .'
Commission
Lynn M. He Director of Community Development��:71Y i LAS
Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner II
Mrs. Deldo
LOCATION: 24152 St. Moritz Drive
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting to remove an oak tree from
the rear yard of a single family residential lot. A
serious injury to the applicant's child due to falling
out of the tree is the reason cited for the request.
BACKGROUND
On June 5, 1992, staff received a letter (attached) from the applicant
outlining the reason for the removal request. As indicated in the
letter, the applicant's son was seriously injured falling out of the
tree. The applicant also has concerns with the tree presenting safety
problems in the future.
The applicant had previously contacted numerous City representatives
regarding the oak tree permit .process and removal procedure. During -this
preliminary stage, staff indicated that the request may not be within the
intent of the ordinance and would most likely be scheduled before the .
Planning Commission for their consideration. This is the process .staff
has elected to take. Staff has notified adjacent property owners
concerning the request.
ANALYSIS
Ordinance 89-10 (Oak Tree Ordinance). provides the Director of Community
Development with the authority to grant a permit for the removal of up to
three trees (excluding a heritage tree), provided that the Director makes
one or more of the required findings. These findings are associated with
the removal, trimming, and encroachment within the protected zone; of oak
agenda Item:
Page 2
trees. The. Commission, as a decision-making body, is also required to
make one or more of these findings. These findings are summarized as
follows:
1) The condition or location of the oak tree requires cutting to
maintain or aid its health, balance or structure; and,
2) The condition of the tree(s) (disease, danger of falling) cannot be
controlled through preservation procedures and presents a hazard to
pedestrians, utilities, etc.; and,
3) The removal of the tree(s) is necessary to enable reasonable use of
the subject property which is otherwise prevented by the tree(s); and,
4) The approval of a permit will not be ,contrary to dr in conflict with
the purpose and intent of the ordinance; and,
5) The last finding is related to the removal of a heritage oak tree.
The subject tree is not of the heritage size.
The purpose of the oak tree ordinance is to protect and preserve oak.
trees in the City. The policystatement contained within the ordinance
is summarized as follows: " It shall be the policy of the City of Santa
Clarita to require the preservation of all healthy oak trees unless
compelling reasons justify the removal of such trees." Additionally; the
policy statement requires strict compliance with the regulations
described in the ordinance. The Commission could find that the
applicant's request is a "compelling reason" and is within the purpose
and intent of the City's Oak Tree Ordinance.
Staff and the Commission in approving. previous oak tree permits for
removal have required an applicant to establish a value for the tree(s)
pursuant to the International Society of Arboriculture's (ISA) guide to
establishing values for trees. Upon providing a satisfactory. value for
the tree(s), the applicant can proceed on one of.two options: providing a
payment to the City equivalent to the ISA value or, planting a sufficient
number of tress on-site, equivalent to the ISA value. The Commission does
have the authority to waive the above requirement. The City's Oak Tree
Consultant has estimated the ISA value of the subject tree to be
approximately $4,000. The applicant is willing to provide payment.for
the removal of the tree, but not the payment required per the ISA value.
It is staff's opinion that the Oak Tree Ordinance does not contain a
provision to grant the applicant's request and therefore permitting the
removal would not be within the purpose and intent of the ordinance.
OPTION
If approval is considered, the Planning Commission may want to
consider whether the Oak Tree Ordinance should contain provisions to
allow for this type of removal request.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
Deny Oak Tree Permit 92-023.
LMH:GEA:570
a
}
June 5, 1992
TO: Lynn Harris
Director of Community Development
23920 Valencia Blvd. #300
Valencia, Calif. 91355
RE: Removal of Oak Tree
Dear Ms. Harris,
RECEIVE6
JUN 1 1 1992
LYNN M. HARRIS
Dlmtw of COMMUnItY DA
I am writing this letter in desperation in hones that you can
give my family and I authorization in the removal of the oak tree
located an our property.
First of all I would like to give you the reason behind our
request, which I feel is quite reasonable under our
circumstances.
On August 3, 1989, at about 11:OOam, my husband and I wereat.
work, and my 3 boys, Danny, Darren and Devin were at home in the
care of Chely, our live-in at the time. All 3 boys were in our
backyard playing. Apparently Danny, our 7 year old (the oldest)
had climbed up into the oak tree. Danny was on a branch about
15 feet high. He lost his footing and slipped and fell out of
the tree. On the fall down he hit his head-on a branch°below,
10 feet high, and then fell to the grown hitting the back of his
head on the cement.
Danny stopped breathing! (his lips were purple and so was his
face as I was told by his other brother, Darren) Chely called
911 and was able to get a spanish translator whom helped describe•
how to give mouth to mouth resuscitation. she then called me at
work. and I was home within minutes. Police cars,.a fire engine,
paramedics and the ambulance were all there. My son was somewhat
coherent, but not aware of what was going on around him, he was
in and out of it, and sometimes crying. He was rushed over to
Henry Mayo Emergency Room.
Fortunately, I was able to be next to my son while Doctors and
nurses surrounded him. Blood tests, tubes, xrays and everything
else you could imagine was done to him, including assistance for
helping him breath normal. He was diagnosed as having a severe
concussion and a fractured right skull.
while he was being tested, I was approached by a social worker
and even by the hospital chaplain, just in case something might
have happened to him.
or-
When he was somewhat stable he was transferred to Childrens
Hospital of Los Angeles, by ambulance.
He again had everything hooked up to him in the intensive care
unit of he hospital. After a day he came to alittle. Still not
aware of what was going on, they then transferred him to a
regular room for another 2 days. After that Danny was released
to go.home. The Doctors could not tell me what his prognosis
would be, because with swelling on the.brain, it's a matter of
waiting and waiting for the outcome.
When he was brought home, he walked around the house repeating
"I want to go home, I want to go home!" He was not my normal
little boy. This went on for weeks........ and to this day I
thank God for saving our precious sons life and for his good
health so far, but the fear NEVER EVER, leaves us that someday
something might happen as a result of this accident.
About 6 -months or so after the accident, I tried to get the tree
removed by making a few phone.calls and by getting the oak tree
removal application. I was told I could not get it removed with
out going through many channels. I was told about all kinds of
costs to us also. I got very discouraged and .let it go.....
which I never should have.
Several weeks ago my two other sons, younger than Danny; were
caught climbing the tree. That was when our decision to proceed
with getting this tree removed became imminent.
I have spoken with a number of people including Kay Werle,
another Oak Tree consultant (outside of Santa Clarita), JoAnne
Darcy, and Ray Miramontes. Because of this exhausting search
for help that I am contacting you.
Because of these unusual circumstances I feel that removal of
this .tree is warranted and that we should not have to financially
pay for the removal.or replacement of it, as we have already_
paid for medical expenses, and have paid emotionally as well.
This tree is a free standing one in our backyard and is only
visible to our family and one neighbor. It.gives shade only in
our yard. We would gladly donate it if it could be transplanted.
I hope you can appreciate our concerns and fears of another
accident occurring, especially with a neighborhood as ours.....
filled with children.
M
I have. tried my best to express most of my feelings in writing,
so that you might understand the severity of this request.
I would greatly appreciate your understanding and help in getting
our oak tree removed.
Sin eiy, " /
s. De o'
nd kids too!
24152 St. Moritz Dr.
Valencia, Calif. 91355
805-255-3004
7
.y
i
I have. tried my best to express most of my feelings in writing,
so that you might understand the severity of this request.
I would greatly appreciate your understanding and help in getting
our oak tree removed.
Sin eiy, " /
s. De o'
nd kids too!
24152 St. Moritz Dr.
Valencia, Calif. 91355
805-255-3004
7
August 4, 1992
Donna M. Grindey
City Clerk
23920 Valencia Blvd. #300
City of Santa Clarita
California; 91355
Dear Ms. Grindey,
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AUG q 4 ez PI1 '92
CIT; :..
We are appealing the Planning Commission's denial of Oak
Tree Permit 92-023.
We would like the opportunity for a hearing to further dis-
cuss our reasons for this request. The policy statement
contained within Ordinance 89-10 of the Oak Tree Ordinance',
is: " It shall be the policy of the City of Santa Clarita to
require the preservation of all healthy oak trees unless
compelling reasons justify the removal of such trees." We
feel that our particular circumstances are COMPELLING REASONS
to grant us permission and approval for Oak Tree Fermit 92-
023.
We would like to request that
Planning Commissions decision
Permit 92-023.
the City Council overturn the
thereby approving Oak Tree
We are anxiously awaiting your response.
Jee� /
Janey Deldo'
,.
i
- city of
Santa Clarita
Jill K410
Mayor
Jan Heidt
Mayor Pro -Tem
Cad Boyer
CoundImember
Jo Anne Darcy
Counaftember
September 2, 1992
Mr. and Mrs. Daniel DeIDo:
24152 St. Maritz Dr.
Santa Clarita, CA. 91355
Re: Oak Tree Permit -92-023
Dear Mr. and Mrs. DelDo:
The City. Clerk's office is in receipt of your appeal letter
dated August 4, 1992.
This letter is to inform you that your appeal will- be
considered by the city Council on Tuesday, September 22, -
1992, and will be scheduled under "New Business".
George Pederson The regular meeting of .the City Council is called to order
CounalmembBr at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd.,
1st Floor.
A copy.of-the agenda item will be available on September 8,
if you desire a copy.
Further information may be obtained by contacting the City
Clerk's office at (805) 255-4391.
Sincerely,
Donna M. Gr>.ndey, CM
c
City Clerk
cc: Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner II
DMGlgmd/1682