HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-06-09 - AGENDA REPORTS - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION (2)AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval
Item to be presented b$.- Fred Follstad
NEW BUSINESS
DATE: June 9, 1998
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MASTER CASE
97-188 (OAK TREE PERMIT 97-021), TO ALLOW FOR RETROACTIVE
APPROVAL OF THE UNPERMITTED REMOVAL OF 64 OAK TREES
LOCATED ON THE WESTERLY SIDE OF SIERRA HIGHWAY, 750 FEET
SOUTH OF REMSEN STREET IN THE NEWHALL AREA OF THE CITY.
THE APPELLANT IS THE GATES KING PARTNERS; MR. MARK GATES
RESOLUTION 98-57
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Building Services
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council open the hearing on the item, receive testimony and direct staff to meet with the
appellant to discuss the proposal identified in the letter dated May 26, 1998 and return to the
City Council at a future date.
BACKGROUND
On Saturday, April 26, 1997, the Los Angeles County Fire Department responded to a report
of downed power lines. Upon arriving at the site, the Fire Department notified the Los Angeles
County Sheriffs Department that the power lines were down as a result of an oak tree being cut
down on the property. A Sheriffs Deputy also noted that a number of oak trees had been cut
down within a canyon located on the property. The deputy ordered the four men who were
cutting the trees to stop because they could not produce a valid oak tree permit. The owner of
the property states that these men were not given permission to remove any oak trees.
The following Monday, a complaint was filed by the City Code Enforcement Division. The Code
Enforcement officer contacted the property owner's representative. After meeting with the City
Attorney's office, the City was granted permission to inspect a portion of the project site.
Representatives of the Planning and Code Enforcement divisions as well as the City's Oak Tree
consultant conducted the inspection on June 12, 1997. During the inspection, staff noted there
were 64 oak tree stumps in the area where the power lines were down. The Oak Tree consultant
estimated that 1,056 inches of diameter were removed. None of the trees removed were in the
Heritage category. These trees had been removed over a period of time. After measuring the
stumps and extrapolating the growth patterns of standing trees, the estimated ISA values of
the removed trees was 2.294 million dollars. The applicant submitted a retroactive.oak tree
application on September 29, 1997. The applicant subsequently submitted a mitigation plan on
December 8, 1997 in lieu of paying the ISA value of the removed trees.
ContinuedTo:A .e,n;-
Staff reviewed the submitted mitigation plan and noted concerns. The applicant, after receiving
staff and Planning Commission input, revised the mitigation program to include the following:
the planting of 350 saplings on the applicant's property, a five year monitoring and maintenance
of the saplings and possible future land use restrictions.
On February 24, 1998, the City Council reviewed an item on their agenda regarding the possible
criminal prosecution of the parties involved in the removal of the oak trees. That evening, the
City Council voted to delay any criminal prosecution at this time.
On March 3, 1998, after a previous hearing on the project, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution P98-10, approving the applicant's revised request with modifications. The
modifications included a requirement for the placement of some of the mitigation trees in the
area where the trees were removed and the requirement of a $500,000 mitigation fee to be
placed in the City's oak tree preservation fund.
The City Council received a letter from the appellant, Mr. Mark Gates, requesting a continuance
of the item to a future date. The reason for the continuance would be to allow for a meeting
between the appellant and staff on a revised mitigation plan. A copy of the letter is attached.
FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impacts associated with this project would consist of a possible $500,000 mitigation
fee. This money would go towards thepurchaseof land or other preservation methods.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Staff has prepared a list of alternative actions the City Council could take:
1. Adopt Resolution 98-57 which adopts the mitigated negative declaration for the
project and upholds the Planning Commission's approval of the project including the
requirement for a $500,000 mitigation fee and on-site mitigation.
2. Accept the applicant's proposal that includes the on-site mitigation program to plant
and maintain 350 oak trees to replace those that were lost.
3. Direct staff to meet with the appellant to discuss the proposal identified in the letter
dated May 26, 1998 and return to the City Council at a future date.
4. Any other alternative the City Council desires.
ATTACHMENTS
Draft City Council Resolution 98-57
Appellant's Appeal Letter
Appellant's Letter Requesting a Continuance
Planning Commission Resolution No. P98-10
February 3, 1998, Planning Commission Staff Report
March 3, 1998, Planning Commission Staff Report
February 24, 1998, City Council Staff Report
Minutes from Planning Commission Meetings
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (see City Clerk's reading file)
sApbs\current\ugates.flf
RESOLUTION NO. 98-57
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA APPROVING
OAK TREE PERMIT 97-021
TO ALLOW FOR THE RETROACTIVE REMOVAL OF 64 OAK TREES
AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON SIERRA HIGHWAY, SOUTH OF REMSEN STREET, IN
THE NEWHALL AREA.
(MASTER CASE NO. 97-188)
AS FOLLOWS:
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact:
a. On April 26, 1997, the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department responded to a request from
the Los Angeles County Fre Department regarding the removal of oak trees on a parcel of land
located south of Remsen Street on the west side of Sierra Highway in the City of Santa Clarita
(Assessor's Parcel Number 2827-011-003). A report was taken by the responding Deputy.
b. On April 27, 1997, a citizen complaint was filed with the City of Santa Clarita Code
Enforcement Division regarding the unpermitted removal of oaks on the subject property. The
property owner was notified of the activity and permission to enter the property was requested.
C. On June 12, 1997, after receiving permission to enter the site, City staff conducted an
investigation of the area where the oak trees were reported to be cut down City staff determined
that there were 64 trees that had been removed without an approved oak tree permit. Based on
the formula described in the City's adopted Oak Tree Ordinance, the economic value of trees
was determined to be 2.294 million dollars. The applicant was instructed to submit a request
for an oak tree permit.
d. An application for an oak tree permit was filed on September 29, 1997 by the Gates King
Partners (the "applicant"). The existing zoning and General Plan designations for the property
are CC -PD (Community Commercial, Planned Development) and IC -PD (Industrial
Commercial, Planned Development).
The applicant has filed an oak tree permit to allow for the retroactive removal of sixty-four oak
trees located on the subject parcel.
f. The surrounding land uses include vacant to the east, west, south, and north.
g. A duly noticed hearing was held before the Planning Commission on February 3, 1998, in the
City of Santa Clarita Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, at 7:00 P.M. The meeting
was continued to March 3, 1998. At that meeting, the Planning Commission continued the item
to the March 3, 1998.
h. The Planning Commission, after receiving additional information and testimony, approved
Master Case 97-188 subject to conditions of approval including a requirement for a mitigation
payment of $500,000.
RESO NO. 98-57
PAGE 2
h. The Planning Commission, after receiving additional information and testimony, approved
Master Case 97-188 subject to conditions of approval including a requirement for a mitigation
payment of $500,000.
i. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared for the proposed
project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
On March 18, 1998, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision. The applicant
cited in the appeal the reasons for the appeal including:
k. A duly noticed hearing was held before the City Council on June 9, 1998, in the City of Santa
Clarita Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, at 6:30 P.M.
SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received at the hearing, and upon
the study and investigation made by the City Council and on its behalf, the Council further finds as follows:
a. At the hearings for the project, the City Council considered the staff report prepared for this
project and received testimony on this proposal.
b. The granting of the oak tree permit will not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort, or
welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area; nor be materially detrimental
to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the
subject property; nor jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health,
safety or general welfare.
C. The project will not cause substantial environmental damage to fish or wildlife because the
project is located in a previously developed area.
d. The proposed request will not affect existing circulation nor be materially detrimental to the
adjacent residential uses because the use is in accordance with the Santa Clarita General Plan.
C. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared for the proposed
project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby determines
as follows:
a. The project is compatible with existing development in the area, is consistent with the City's
General Plan, and complies with the standards of the CC -PD and IC -PD zones. The applicant
has substantiated the required findings for the granting of an oak tree permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of -Santa Clarita,
California, as follows:
a. The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program prepared for the project, with the finding that the project will not have
a significant effect upon the environment.
RESO NO. 98-57
PAGE 3
b. Approve Oak Tree Permit 97-021 subject to the conditions of approval listed below:
The approval of this oak tree permit shall expire if not put into use within two years
from the date of conditional approval.
2. The applicant may file for an extension of the conditionally approved oak tree permit
prior to the date of expiration, for a period of time not to exceed one year. If such an
extension is requested, it must be filed no later than 60 days prior to expiration.
3. The applicant shall be responsible for notifying the Department of Community Planning
and Building Services in writing, of any change in ownership within 30 days of said
change.
4. Unless otherwise apparent from the context, the term "applicant" shall include the
applicant and any other persons, corporation, or other entity making use of this grant.
The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Santa Clarita, its
agents, officers; and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City
or its agents, officers, and employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul the approval
of this permit by the City, which action is provided for in Government Code Section
66499.37. In the event the City becomes aware of any such claim, action, or
proceeding, the City shall promptly notify the applicant, or if the City fails to cooperate
fully in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend,
indemnify, or hold harmless the City. Nothing contained in this Condition prohibits
the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, if both
the following occur: 1) The City bears its own attomeys' fees and costs; and 2) the City
defends the action in good faith. The applicant shall not be required to pay or perform
an settlement unless the entitlement is approved by the applicant.
5. It is further declared and made a condition of this permit that if any condition hereof
is violated, or if any law, statute, or ordinance is violated, the permit shall be suspended
and the privileges hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given
written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for a period of 30 days.
6. All requirements of the Unified Development Code and of the specific zoning of the
subject property must be compiled with unless set forth in the permit and/or shown of
the submitted plot plan.
7. The applicant shall submit a mitigation plan, subject to the City's approval, within 30
days of the approval of this resolution which includes the following:
a. Sufficient number of 1/4" saplings to achieve 1056" in diameter in five years.
Provisions for the planting and maintenance of a minimum of 350 saplings on
the project site in areas determined by the applicant's biologist and approved
by the Planning Commission.
RESO NO. 98-57
PAGE 4
b. The saplings shall be monitored for a period of five years or until the
mitigation trees reach a combined diameter of 1,056 inches at breast height
(DBI -I), whichever occurs last.
C. Provisions for the monitoring including periodic reports prepared by the
applicant's biologist for review by the City.
d. The applicant shall plant a portion of the mitigation saplings within the area
where the trees were removed.
8. The applicant shall record a covenant that states all mitigation plants are subject to the
City's Oak Tree Ordinance no matter the diameter of the plant.
9. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs incurred by the City's Oak Tree
Consultant in the preparation of this oak tree permit and those associated with the
monitoring of the mitigation plan.
10. All provisions of the City's Oak Tree Ordinance shall apply to the subject property.
11. The property owner or the successor shall consider the placement of a development
restriction on the replanting areas when and if a master development plan is proposed
on the project site.
12. If the City can provide a suitable location within a public area, the applicant may plant
larger mitigation trees in lieu of the saplings described in the mitigation plan. Once the
trees are planted, the applicant is not responsible for themaintenance of these trees.
13. If any of the mitigation trees are destroyed by means beyond the control of the owner,
such as fire, flood and disease, those trees shall be prorated against the total trees
planted and the total diameter would be reduced by that number.
14. This permit shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and the owner of
the property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed with the Planning and
Building Services Department, their notarized affidavit stating that they are aware of,
and agree to accept, all the conditions of this grant.
15. The applicant shall pay a sum of $500,000 to the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree
account for the preservation and protection of oak trees within the City. This fee shall
be paid within six months of the approval date of this project.
RESO NO. 98-57
PAGE
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
day of
MAYOR
19_.
I, Sharon Dawson, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting
thereof, held on the day of , 19_ by the following vote of Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
s:Md'cound=s9857.flf
THE N E E D H A M RCITY
C"�aCLA,11A
AT SANTA C1 ARJ,T�
a •� -r
Via Federal Express carr
March 17, 1998
Sharon L. Dawson, City Clerk
City of Santa Clarita
23920 W. Valencia Blvd #300
Santa Clarita CA 91355
Reference: Master Case 97-188 (Oak Tree Permit 97-021)
Dear Ms. Dawson:
On behalf of Gate King Partners, I hereby notify you that. Gate King Partners (the
"applicant") appeals the decision of the Planning Commission on March 3, 1998,
adopting Resolution No. P987-10.
The grounds for this appeal, among others, include the following:
1. Gate King Partners was denied a fair hearing before the Planning
Commission on March 3, 1998. We received no notice of and had no
opportunity to be heard on the $500,000 fee which was made a condition of
the retroactive oak tree permit. This condition was raised after the public
hearing was closed and we therefore had no opportunity to address the
validity of this condition.
2. Gate King Partners was not responsible for and did not authorize the
cutting of the 64 oak trees on its property. Accordingly, Gate King Partners
did not violate the oak tree ordinance. Nevertheless, we voluntarily filed
the retroactive oak tree permit at the request of the City on the
understanding that any mitigation plan would involve the replanting. of
trees. Under these circumstances, imposing any fee in addition to our
offer to replace the trees is unfair and unwarranted.
3. The $500,000 fee is not supported by any factual findings. To the extent
that this fee is based on the $2.4 million valuation prepared by the City's
oak tree consultant, it is grossly flawed and amounts to a regulatory taking.
4. Several of the conditions imposed for the replanting of trees are also
unwarranted, including the inch -for -inch replacement proposed by the
City's oak tree consultant.which is not required under the ordinance.
700 Ernerson .Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301 -
Telephone (415) 321-5982
Facsimile (415) 321-5985
Sharon L. Dawson, City Clerk
'March 17, 1998
Page 2
These grounds for appeal will be more fully detailed prior to and at the City Council
hearing on the appeal. We understand from the City Attorney, Carl Newton, that
the next available hearing date is April 21, 1998. Unfortunately, I have a previous
business commitment on that date and am unavailable. to attend the hearing.
Therefore, I request that you schedule this matter for hearing on May 12, 1998,
which I understand is the next available hearing date.
Enclosed is a check in the amount of $1,150 to cover the filing fee for the appeal.
If you have any questions concerning this appeal, please contact me at (650) 614 6225.
Sincerely,
ark T.
Seht•by: KEENAN LAND 4153262920; 05/28/98 2:19PH;fetrax #570;Page 1/4
MARK T. GATES, JR.
May 26, 1998
Mrs. Jann Heidt
Mayor
City of Santa Clarita
Santa Clarita, CA
Dear Mrs. Heidi;
In April, 1997, It was discovered that a number of oak trees had been cut on a small
3 acre portion of the 430 acres Gate King Properties owns south of Newhall in the
City of Santa Clarita. Following this occurrence, Gate King communicated to the City
that it had not authorized, or had any prior knowledge, that oak trees had been cut on
its property. However, in a desire to maintain its good reputation and working
relationship with the City, Gate King began meeting with the City's planning staff to
discuss how this matter could be amicably resolved. At the request of the City, it
agreed to file for a retroactive oak tree permit with the clear understanding that the
subsequent mitigation program would be limited to the planting and maintaining of
new oak trees, and possibly the preserving of existing oak trees. It was clearly
understood between the parties that a monetary fee or fine was not appropriate or
permissible.
After many meetings with the City's planning staff, a Planning Commission meeting
and a site visit. an agreement was reached with the City's staff and oak tree
consultant on a mitigation program that would have resulted in the planting of In
excess of 300 trees, the maintenance for these trees for at least five years, and the
immediate protection of other oaks on the property under the City's Oak Tree
Ordinance. Unfortunately, the Planning Commission added a $500,000 fee to this
mitigation program and Gate King has appealed this decision to the City Council.
Since that time, 1 have been spending considerable time focused on Gate King's
appeal. Gate King has, among other things, hired an arborist well acquainted with the
valuation of oak trees and reviewed the oak tree ordinance and its application to Gate
King with counsel. These experts believe that if the application of the Oak Tree
Ordinance were to be litigated that a court would find us innocent of any wrongdoing
and it could place the Oak Tree Ordinance and its application in serious jeopardy.
Gate King does not believe that litigating these matters is desirable for either the City
of Santa Clarita or itself. Therefore, I have spent considerable time speaking with
70(1 Emerson Street • PUIu Alto, CA 943(11 • (650) 614.6234 P%ix (650) 326.2920
f
Sent by: KEENAN LAN"
Mrs. Jann Heidi
May 28, 1998
Page -2-
4153202920; 05/20/98 2;l9PN;JetFaX If570;Page 2/4
concerned citizens in the City, as well as some of its elected officials, in order to
determine how this matter might be settled.
These discussions have made it clear that our property plays a pivotal role in the City
of Santa Clarita being able to meet some of Its most important short and long term
goals. The goals which have been discussed Include:
A. A desire to preserve the Oak Tree Ordinance and its application by
settling this matter with Gate King without litigation.
8- The positive impact any future development of our 430 acres as a
business;tndustrial park would have on the economic revitalization of
Newhall.
C. The extension of the wildlife corridor required in the development of the
Hondo project on the old Newhall Refinery site.
D. The establishment of a trail system through our property as part of the
City's overall community wide system.
E. The permanent preservation of major oak tree groves located on our
property.
F. The construction of additional roads to relieve congestion.
G. The establishment of an attractive gateway from Sierra Highway into the
City.
These discussions have included the idea of a proposed thoroughfare between San
Fernando Road and Sierra Highway in the City's circulation system with the cost of
building such a thoroughfare being credited against the Bridge and Thoroughfare fees
that would be assessed in connection with any development of Gate King's property.
After reflecting upon the reactions to these suggestions, and the other ideas
mentioned above, we believe that the following might resolve the oak tree permit issue
and more closely meet the City's goals, while avoiding litigation over the application
of the Oak Tree Ordinance.
A. Gate King will convey to the City of Santa Clarita the fee title to
approximately 150 acres of oak tree woodlands upon execution of a
development agreement.
r
• Sent -by: KEENAN LAND
Mrs. Jann Heldt
May 26, 1998
Page -3-
4153282920; 05/28/98 2:15P.1;JetffiX t570;Page 3/4
B. Gate King will set aside sufficient property for a wildlife corridor to link
the Hondo project's wildlife corridor to the oak tree woodlands conveyed
In paragraph A, providing this corridor is linked to the Santa Susana
Mountains,
C. Gate King will create at the time of the development of its property a
bike/hiking/horse trail parallel to the Southern California Edison right of
way.
D. Gate King will construct; in connection with the development of its
property, a thoroughfare linking Sierra Highway and San Fernando Road
which will provide a needed arterial in Newhall and additional access to
the property conveyed in paragraph A.
E. The City of Santa Clarita will issue a retroactive oak tree permit without
any conditions upon the signing of the development agreement.
The City of Santa Clarita and Gate King will enter into a Development
Agreement commemorating paragraphs A through E. along with ensuring
the existing entitlement of the property consistent with the current
zoning.
We believe that an agreement based on this proposal will provide the City of Santa
Clarita immediately with the permanent preservation of significant oak tree woodlands
while ensuring that any future development on the remaining portion of our property
will provide a jump start to the economic revitalization of Newhall by providing jobs
and business customers. In addition, upon the commencement of any future
development, the City will also obtain a road to relieve congestion on San Fernando
Road, an extension of the City's trail system and an important link In the wildlife
corridor.
Several years ago we worked, with the support of the City, in attempting to provide
a location for SDI to remain in the Santa Clarita Valley instead of moving to Moorpark.
During that process we prepared much of the information that will be necessary for
the City's Planning staff to review this proposal and in a short period of time bring this
proposal to the City Council. We are prepared to immediately begin meeting with City
staff if the City Council believes this proposal is worth pursuing.
r
gent. by: KEENAN LAND
Mrs. Jann Heidi
May 26, 1998
Page -4-
41532262920; 05/26/98 2:20PM;,jgtffix #570;Pa7e 414
As you know, the appeal of the Planning Commissions's Oak Tree Permit is scheduled
for June 9, 1996, We plan to request that this hearing be continued in order for us
to have a full discussion of this proposal with your staff.
If you have any questions with our planned course of action, please do not hesitate
to contact us by phone at (650)614.6234.
Sincerely,
ar T. t , Jr.
/wt
cc: Cil"y Council
George Carevalho, City Manager
Jeff Lambert, Planning Director
RESOLUTION NO. P98.10
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
- CITY OF SANTA CLARITA APPROVING
OAK TREE PERMIT 97.021
TO ALLOW FOR THE RETROACTIVE REMOVAL OF 64 OAK TREES
AT TRE PROPERTY LOCATED ON SIERRA HIGHWAY, SOUTH OF REMSEN
STREET, IN THE NEWHALL AREA.
(MASTER CASE NO. 97-188)
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. On April 26, 1997, the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department responded to
a request from the Los Angeles County Fire Department regarding the removal
of oak trees on a parcel of land located south of Remsen Street on the west side
of Sierra Highway in the City of Santa Clarita (Assessor's Parcel Number 2827-
011-003). A report was taken by the responding Deputy.
b. On April 27, 1997, a citizen complaint was filed with the City of Santa Clarita
Code Enforcement Division regarding the unpermitted removal of oaks on the
subject property. The property owner was notified of the activity and permission
to enter the property was requested.
C. On June 12, 1997, after receiving permission to enter the site, City staff
conducted an investigation of the area where the oak trees were reported to be
cut down. City staff determined that there were 64 trees that had been removed
without an approved oak tree permit.. Based on the formula described, in the
City's adopted Oak Tree Ordinance, the economic value of trees was determined
to be 2.294 million dollars. The applicant was instructed to submit a request for
an oak tree permit.
d. An application for an oak tree permit was filed on September 29, 1997 by the
Gates King Partners (the "applicant'). The existing zoning and General Plan
designations for the property are CC -PD (Community Commercial, Planned
Development) and IC -PD (Industrial Commercial, Planned Development).
The applicant has filed an oak tree permit to allow for the retroactive removal of
sixty-four oak trees located on the subject parcel.
f. The surrounding land uses include vacant to the east, west, south, and north.
g. A duly noticed hearing was held before the Planning Commission on February 3,
1998, in the City of Santa Clarita Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard,
RESO NO. P98-10
PAGE
at 7:00 P.M. The meeting was continued to March 3, 1998.
SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received at the
hearing, and upon the study and investigation made by the Planning Commission and on its
behalf, the Commission further finds as follows:
a. At the hearings for the project, the Planning Commission considered the staff
report prepared for this project and received testimony on this proposal.
b. The granting of the oak tree permit will not adversely affect the health, peace,
comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area; nor
be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property of other
persons located in the vicinity of the subject property; nor jeopardize, endanger
or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare.
C. The project will not cause substantial environmental damage to fish or wildlife -
because the project is located in a previously developed area.
d. The proposed request will not affect existing circulation nor be.materially
detrimental to the adjacent residential uses because the use is in accordance with
the Santa Clarita General Plan.
SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the Planning
Commission hereby determines as follows:
a. The project is compatible with existing development in the area, is consistent
with the City's General Plan, and complies with the standards of the CC -PD and
IC -PD zones. The applicant has substantiated the required findings for the
granting of an oak tree permit.
NOW, THEREFORE; BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning -Commission of the City
of Santa Clarita, California, as follows:
a. Approve Oak Tree Permit 97-021 subject to the conditions of approval listed below:
1. The approval of this oak tree permit shall expire if not put into use within two
years from the date of conditional approval.
2. The applicant may file for an extension of the conditionally approved oak tree
permit prior to the date of expiration, for a period of time not to exceed one year.
If such an extension is requested, it must be filed no later than 60 days prior to
expiration.
3. The applicant shall be responsible for notifying the Department of Community
Planning and Building Services in writing, of any change in ownership within 30
days of said change. -
RESO NO. P98-10
PAGE
r•
4. Unless otherwise apparent from the conteict, the "tercet "applicant" shall include
the applicant and any other persons, corporation, or other entity making use of
this grant. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Santa Clarita,.its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or
proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and employees to attach, set
aside, void, or annul the approval of this permit by the City, which action is
provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event the City
becomes aware of any such claim, action, or proceeding, the City shall promptly
notify the applicant, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense; the
applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold
harmless the City. Nothing contained in this Condition prohibits the City from
participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, if both the
following occur: 1) The City bears its own attorneys' fees and costs; and 2) the
City defends the action in good faith. The applicant shall not be required to pay
or perform an settlement unless the entitlement is approved by the applicant.
5. It is further declared and made a condition of this permit that if any condition
hereof is violated, or if any law, statute, or ordinance is violated, the permit shall
be suspended and the privileges hereunder shall lapse; provided. that the
applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to
do so for a period of 30 days.
6. All requirements of the Unified Development Code and of the specific zoning of
the subject property must be compiled with unless set forth in the permit and/or
shown of the submitted plot plan.
7. The applicant shall submit a mitigation plan, subject to the City's approval,
within 30 days of the approval of this resolution which includes the following:
a. Sufficient number of 1/4" saplings to achieve 1056" in diameter in five
years. Provisions for the planting and maintenance of a minimum of 350
saplings on the project site in areas determined by the applicant's
biologist and approved by the Planning Commission.
b. The saplings shall be monitored for a period of five years or until the
mitigation trees reach a combined diameter of 1,056 inches at breast
height (DBH), whichever occurs last.
C. Provisions for the monitoring including periodic reports prepared by the
applicant's biologist for review by the City.
d. The applicant shall plant a portion of the mitigation saplings within the
area where the trees were removed.
8. The applicant shall record a covenant that states all mitigation plants are subject
to the City's Oak Tree Ordinance no matter the diameter of the plant.
RESO NO. P98-10
PAGE
9. The -applicant shall be responsible for all costs incurred by the City's Oak Tree
Consultant in the preparation of this oak tree permit and those associated with
the monitoring of the mitigation plan.
10. All provisions of the City's Oak Tree Ordinance shall apply to the subject
property.
11. The property owner or the successor shall consider the placement of, a
development restriction on the replanting areas when and if a master
development plan is proposed on the project site.
12. If the City can provide a suitable location within a public area, the applicant may
plant larger mitigation trees in lieu of the saplings described in the mitigation
plan. Once the trees are planted, the applicant is not responsible for the
maintenance of these trees.
13. If any of the mitigation trees are destroyed by means beyond the control of the
owner, such as fire, flood and disease, those trees shall be prorated against the
total trees planted and the total diameter would be reduced by that number.
14. This permit shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and the
owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed with the
Planninerr and Building Services Department, their notarized affidavit stating that
they are aware of, and agree to accept, all the conditions of this grant.
15. The applicant shall pay a sum of $500,000 to the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree
account for the preservation and protection of oak trees within the City. This fee
shall be paid within six months of the approval date of this project.
RESO NO. P98-10
PAGE 5
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of March 1998.
ATTEST:
en P p, Secret
Planning Commission
STATE OF CALIFORNLS )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
Vlar��Hobacl&Ctairperson
PtTnning Commission
I, Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, 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 3rd day of March, 1998 by the following vote
of the Planning Commission:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: HOBACK, BERGER, KELLAR AND KILLMEYER
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BRATHWAITE
x
CITY CLERK
p1ngcom\res9810.f1f
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
CASE PLANNER:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
BACKGROUND
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
MASTER CASE NO. 97-188
OAK TREE PERMIT 97-021
February 3, 1998
Ch erson Hoback and Members of the Planning Commission
Jef ambert, AICP, Planning Manager
F d Follstad, AICP, Associate Planner
GateKingPartners
The westerly side of Sierra Highway, 750 feet south of Remsen Street
in the Newhall community of the City.
The applicant is requesting a retroactive oak tree permit for the
removal of 64 oak trees on the applicant's property.
On Saturday, April 26, 1997, the Los Angeles County Fire Department responded to a report
of downed power lines. Upon arriving at the site, the Fire Department notified the Los
Angeles County Sheriffs Department that the power lines were down as a result of an oak
tree being cut down on the property. It was also noted by the Sheriffs Deputy that a number
of oak trees had been cut down within a canyon located on the property. The Deputy ordered
the four men who were cutting the trees to stop because they could not produce a valid oak
tree permit. The owner of the property states that these men were not given permission for
any oak tree removals.
The following Monday a complaint was filed by the City Code Enforcement Division. The
Code Enforcement Officer contacted the property owner's representative. After meeting with
the City Attorney's office, the City was granted permission to inspect a portion of the project
site. The inspection was conducted on June 12, 1997 by representatives of the Planning and
the Code Enforcement Divisions as well as the City's Oak Tree Consultant. During the
inspection, staff noted that there were 64 oak tree stumps in the area where the power lines
were down. The Oak Tree Consultant estimated that 1,056 inches of diameter were removed.
None of the trees removed were in the Heritage category. These trees had been removed over
a period of time. After measuring the stumps and extrapolating the growth patterns of
standing trees, the estimated ISA values of the removed trees was 2.294 million dollars.
Staff only surveyed in the area where the trees were initially discovered to be removed. This
is only a small portion of. the site which comprises several hundred acres from Sierra
Highway to Pine Canyon, south of San Fernando Road. The applicant would not allow staff
to inspect any other portion of the site.
1
Agenda Item: Cq--.
The applicant submitted a retroactive oak tree application on September 29, 1997. The
applicant subsequently submitted a mitigation plan on December 8, 1997 in lieu of paying
the ISA value of the removed trees.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS
The applicant has submitted a mitigation program to replace the loss of the 64 oak trees. A
summary of the plan includes:
The planting of 211 saplings in various locations on the project site. The saplings
would have a caliper of .25 inches, for a total of 52.75 inches.
Maintenance of the saplings for five years. If there is more than a ten percent loss,
the applicant would replace the saplings and extend the maintenance period
accordingly.
Prune and maintain the re -growth on the stumps of the trees that were cut down to
promote new growth as part of the mitigation plan.
The City's Oak Tree Consultant has reviewed the proposal and had a number of concerns.
The three main issues included the following:
The total inches of diameter of the replacement saplings is at 52.75 inches which is
less than five percent of the inches removed.
The present value of the saplings is approximately $10.00 each, for a total of $2,110.
This is less than one percent of the .ISA value of the trees which were cut down.
The proposal does not provide for preservation of the mitigation trees in perpetuity
or for the preservation of the "pruned" trees.
Based on these concerns, the City's Oak Tree Consultant made a number of recommendations
to the applicant's proposal, if the Commission wishes to accept a mitigation plan in lieu of
the economic value of the trees. The recommendations to the applicant's proposal include the
following:
Amend the proposal to include a performance standard that states that the inches of
diameter replaced must equal that removed within a three year period. Based on the
experience of the City's consultant, the saplings should be at two inches in diameter
at that time frame. To mitigate the 1,056 inches that were lost, the applicant would
need to plant approximately 528 saplings.
Amend the proposal to preserve the replacement trees in perpetuity, preferably
through a conservation easement.
Place conditions on the project that would require additional mitigation, if any, of the
mitigation trees or stumps which are impacted and a covenant by the applicant
[0
stating that no other oak tree may be impacted without first obtaining an oak tree
permit from the City.
APPLICANT'S REVISED PROPOSAL
The recommendations of City's consultant were transmitted to the applicant who then
submitted a counter -proposal to the City. This modified proposal included provisions to plant
350 saplings and to receive credit for the sucker growth of the existing stumps. On a five
year growth cycle, instead of the three years discussed above, the trees would have a
diameter of 2.5 inches according to the applicant. Using this formula, the saplings would
total 875 inches at the end of five years with the sucker growth from the trunks totaling 480
inches after the five years. These combined would total 1,355 inches after five years
according to the applicant's biologist.
The applicant agrees with the requirement that no oak tree may be impacted unless an oak
tree permit is first obtained. In addition, the applicant agrees that additional mitigation may
be required for any future development of the site.
The location of sapling planting, which was identified by the applicant's biologist, is in an
area where there are a number of existing oak trees. The reasoning for this location includes
a good chance for healthy growth, the creation of a mixed stand of oaks and the large number
of trees in the area would not be conducive to development.
The modifications to the original proposal described above were received just as the staff
report was being prepared. Therefore, City staff, including the City's Oak Tree Consultant,
will analyze the request and make an oral presentation during the public hearing on this
item.
There was been a concern raised that the saplings would not be maintained or would be
removed once the monitoring period has concluded, since they would take a number of years
to reach the minimum diameter to be covered by the City's oak tree ordinance. The City's
Oak Tree Consultant is recommending that a conservation easement be put in place over the
area where the mitigation trees are to be planted in order to address this concern. The
applicant is not willing to grant this easement at this time, but may consider doing so at such
time the property is developed. The City Attorney's office is concerned that this may be
considered a taking of land without a proper nexus and the City could be opening the door
for possible litigation.
Other alternatives the Planning Commission may wish to consider to accomplish the goal
could include monitoring of the saplings until they reach sufficient size to be covered by the
ordinance, requiring a cash bond for the full ISA value of the trees that were removed and
only release the bond once the saplings reach City ordinance size or by requiring the
applicant to record a document indicating that all trees planted as mitigation are
immediately subject to the ordinance once they are planted.
OSSIBLE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS
The Planning Commission can take a number of actions in relation to this item. The Oak Tree
Ordinance allows the Planning Commission to require restitution for the loss of the trees. The
ordinance goes on to say that this may be accomplished by the planting of trees, by a donation
of or by replanting one or more oak trees of equal size and value of the trees removed. The
number, size and location of the trees must be to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and
Building Services or the Planning Commission.
Among the actions the Planning Commission may take include:
• Require the applicant to pay a fee, donate land or plant oak trees with the value of trees
that were removed based on the ISA values, currently $2,294,000.
• Accept the applicant's modified proposal as described above.
• Direct the applicant to modify the request to include the City Oak Tree Consultant's
original recommendations and ask the applicant if they are willing to accept a condition
for the conservation easement.
• Any combination of the actions described above, including any changes such as increased
monitoring, the Planning Commission may wish to impose.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1) Receive staffs presentation, open the Hearing, receive public testimony, discuss the
item;
2) Debate the merits of the project and provide direction to staff; and,
3) Direct staff to return to the Commission at the February 17, 1998 meeting with a
Resolution highlighting the Planning Commission's direction.
pingmm\sr97188J1f
1a-
MASTER CASE NUMBER 97-188
VICINITY MAP
SEE 4551
i�
]5W l � �. y
31N 1 PUCPRITA
KIY , 31 x
',
s= ..• , Sq
4
1 ,
6
W.1T OA%
ty
•. � I; .
—
PARKA
tOE t,
�16ANTA
- % -
oouk PM
rt1 S
V
JM,�►(_-
°�
�O
715,
12
lk
,
14�—\
L\ [GLTRAxE AV
r _L
'
;
23 :u4 `°
°x 24
MASTER CASE NUMBER 97-188
VICINITY MAP
sYe 4 551
ff
31
PLAMIM
36
lpy
��
Nmnu L
i Naw
, �.m u �•
❑ 1 I
\„/._
.v
of R
r
e rxtrxvtd
a
� �
a� SqN
4'a
q
6
Yhum s F
o�
j/Qa
Nq �
I
�
~
•
l4�'�"
P
' 5~
lx
0 Q
/
"�i
<<�
vavY a
•
roE S
FANTA
W"Jit,�
x: 1P'
L� 7
`\
rPEV
E /
14
COUW AP
\�
L
23 :u�
— 24
,,
.r 19
Ln�,
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
CASE PLANNER:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
BACKGROUND
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
MASTER CASE NO. 97-188
OAK TREE PERMIT 97-021
March 3, 1998
C erson Hoback and Members of the Planning Commission
f Lambert, AICP, Planning Manager
r Follstad, AICD, Associate Planner
Gate King Partners
The westerly side of Sierra Highway, 750 feet south of Remsen Street
in the Newhall community of the City.
The applicant is requesting a retroactive oak tree permit for the
removal of 64 oak trees on the applicant's property.
This item was brought before the Planning Commission at the February 3, 1998 meeting.
At that meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to return to the Commission with
additional information and continued this project to March 3, 1998. That information is
contained in the next section of this report. As of this date, no letters regarding this project
have been received.
INFORMATION REQUESTED BY THE COMMISSION
The information requested at the previous hearing by the Commissioners is listed below:
The Planning Commission requested that staff tour the site to look at the proposed replanting
areas as part of the mitigation plan.
On February 19, 1998 a number of people toured portions of the property owned by the
applicant. The group included two Planning Commissioners, the City's Oak Tree Consultant,
a member of the Oaks Conservancy, a City Code Enforcement Officer, the applicant's
biologist, the applicant with two of his representatives and two planning staff members. The
group visited the two proposed replanting areas in the Pine Canyon area and walked across
a portion of the site which was burned in last July's brushfire. From there the group visited
the area where the trees were removed. Staff noted that there was additional activity at the
site but no additional oaks seemed to be removed. The last stop was an area southerly of the
removal area along Sierra Highway. This area was unaffected by the brushfire and no trees
were cut.
The Planning Commission inquired as to the status of any criminal prosecution in relation to the
removal of the oaks.
On February 24, 1995, the City Council reviewed an item on their agenda regarding the possible
prosecution of the parties involved in the removal of the trees. A copy of the staff report
presented to Council is attached to this report. That evening, after receiving public testimony,
the City Council voted to delay any criminal prosecution until the Planning Commission takes
action on tonight's proposal.
The Planning Commission inquired to the possibility of placing some of the mitigation trees in
City Park locations.
Staff discussed the possibility of placing some of the trees in a City park -site. No potential sites
have been identified by the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department at this time.
There is a possibility that there may be need in the future, either in a future park site or
possibly in a Landscape Maintenance District. Staff has included a condition that allows.for the
possible dedication of trees in public space if the Commission decides to adopt the attached
mitigation program.
The Planning Commission directed staff to work with the applicant to reach a possible mitigation
program to replace the removed trees.
Staff met with the applicant and his representatives in an effort to create a mitigation that
would be acceptable and meet the intentions of the Oak Tree Ordinance. The following is a list
of the main points of the negotiated mitigation program:
• The applicant would plant approximately 350 saplings on the project site which are
expected to reach a total diameter of 1,056 inches in five years. The trees would be
planted on-site in the two areas identified by the exhibit prepared by the applicant's
biologist. If all the trees could not be planted in these areas, additional areas on-site
would be utilized subject to the approval of the City's Oak Tree Consultant.
• The applicant would be required to monitor the replanting area for a period of five years
or until such time the combined diameters of the trees equal that was removed or, 1,056
inches. The applicant would submit periodic reports to the City's Oak Tree Consultant,
who would also make inspections of the site. All monitoring would be paid for by the
applicant.
• All trees, once planted, would be subject to the City's Oak Tree Ordinance. This means
that any removals of any plant of the Quercus genus would be subject to an oak tree
permit.
• The regrowth of the stumps of the 64 oak trees that were removed would not be counted
towards the required mitigation replacement.
• A condition would be imposed that would require the applicant to consider placing a
restriction on the replanting areas if and when a master development plan is proposed
on the project site.
2
Mew
The applicant's biologist would submit a mitigation plan to the City within thirty days
of the adoption of the resolution.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1) Reopen the public hearing for the project, hear testimony, and;
2) Adopt Resolution P98-10 which approves Master Case 97-188 subject to the attached
conditions of approval.
JJL:FLF:
pingcom\sr971882.flf
3