Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-06-09 - AGENDA REPORTS - GATE KING PARTNERS (2)City Manager Approv Item to be presented Jeffrey Lambert NEW BUSINESS DATE: February 24, 1998 SUBJECT: GATE KING PARTNERS - REMOVAL OF 64 OAK TREES ON THE WESTERLY SIDE OF SIERRA HIGHWAY, 750 FEET SOUTH OF REMSEN STREET IN THE NEWHALL COMMUNITY OF THE CITY DEPARTMENT: Planning and Building Services l.�oldi �� u � • � City Council by minute action, consider filing criminal action against the perpetrator by the April 26, 1998 deadline or to pursue retribution through the current retroactive oak tree permit now being considered by the Planning Commission. 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 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. ,agenda Item; This request was scheduled for the February 3, 1998 Planning Commission. At that meeting, the Commission heard testimony and directed staff to conduct an expanded investigation and continued the item to the March 3, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. Staff continues to work with the property owner to agree on the appropriate level of mitigation. ANALYSTS The goal of the City's Oak Tree Ordinance is to protect oak trees and to mitigate the loss of trees which are removed. The Planning Commission is considering the retroactive oak tree permit and is endeavoring to determine the appropriate mitigation required for the loss of the 64 trees. Any action of the Planning Commission in this matter is appealable to the City Council. Staff believes that the best way to get appropriate retribution is through the oak tree permit and adequate mitigation. The Commission is considering mitigations including (1) requiring 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 estimated at $2,294,000, or (2) requiring the planting of trees that may reach the dimension of the trees removed (1056 inches in diameter) within 3 to 5 years. Given the nature of the tree loss, the goals of the oak tree ordinance, and the options available to the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council, staff believes the oak tree mitigation process is appropriate. Staff does not currently recommend criminal action in this matter. ALTERNATIVE A TIONS No alternative actions have been identified by staff. FISCAL IMPACT No fiscal impacts are anticipated by the recommended action. ATTACHMENTS: Vicinity map of area where oak trees were removed pbs\council\gateoaks jjl MASTER CASE NUMBER 97-188 VICINITY MAP MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Tuesday February 3,1998 7:00 p.m. HEARING ITEM 2 MASTER CASE NUMBER 97-188 (OAK TREE PERMIT 97-021) The staff report and slide presentation were given by Fred Follstad, Associate Planner. Mr. Follstad also gave background information on the item. Kay Carlson, the City's Oak Tree Consultant, spoke to the Commission on the proposed mitigation program. Commissioner Kellar wanted more information on the criminal investigation. Tom Altmayer, Assistant City Attorney, said the applicant stated he was unaware that the trees were being cut down. He did say that whether or not permission was given, the applicant is responsible for the oak trees and responsible for insuring that people do not trespass on the property. Commissioner Kellar asked Ms. Carlson how long it would take the saplings to reach 12" in diameter. Ms. Carlson said it could take somewhere in the area of 10 years. Commissioner Berger asked that if the ISA value is taken, 2.3 million dollars, where would the money go. Mr. Lambert said the money would be placed in the City's oak tree mitigation fund. The City could use those funds to plant oak trees throughout the City or maintain trees that already exist on City property. Commissioner Brathwaite asked if the individuals caught trespassing on the property were either identified, arrested, or prosecuted. He also asked why City staff was not allowed to look at the rest of the applicant's property to determine if other oak trees were cut. Norm Sieger, City Code Enforcement Officer, addressed the Commission. He said a police report had been filed. He stated nothing was done to the trespassers because a statement was made that they had permission to go on to the property to cut the trees. Mr. Sieger said staff concentrated on the area of the violation and not other sites on the property. Mr. Follstad read a portion of a letter received from the applicant which listed conditions that were to be followed in order for City staff to inspect the property. Commissioner Kellar asked what type of charges could be filed on this matter. Mr. Sieger said it is a misdemeanor to cut down an oak tree. Mr. Altmayer said it has not been decided upon at this time whether or not to pursue criminal charges. This would be pursued by the District Attorney's office. Chairperson Hoback requested more information on conservation easements and the idea of perpetuity. Ms. Carlson said the idea of perpetuity is very common and included in many oak tree permits. Conservation easements are usually associated with an additional entitlement for development. Chairperson Hoback wanted to know how the saplings could be protected. Mr. Altmayer said that a condition could be added that all trees planted , no matter what size, would be under the protection of the Oak Tree Ordinance. He also explained the legal drawbacks to the conservation easement and the issue of perpetuity. The Commission requested a copy of the report taken by the Sheriffs Department. Mr. Sieger said it would be provided. The hearing was opened for public participation at 8:04 p.m. Claudia A. Lewis, 1425 Lake Street, San Francisco. Ms. Lewis represented the applicant, Gate King Partners. She stated that the Gates family was shocked to learn that a group of men had been cutting oak trees on their property. She said at no time did any member of the Gates' family authorize the removal of the oak trees. Ms. Lewis said a lot of time was taken determining where to place the new trees on the property. She said the applicant originally proposed to replace the 64 trees at a rate of 3 trees for each tree lost plus a 10% over planting to ensure against normal loss for a total of 211 trees. After discussing the matter with Ms. Carlson, the applicant has agreed to plant 350 saplings. Ms. Lewis explained that the difference between the applicant's proposal and Ms. Carlson's were primarily technical. She said they would work to resolve those differences to everyone's satisfaction. Commissioner Brathwaite asked Ms. Lewis if the people who cut down the trees were ever identified, arrested or pursued in any way. Ms. Lewis said she believed the Sheriff s Department identified the four individuals who were cutting the trees. They have not pursued criminal charges against those individuals. Chairperson Hoback asked if anyone from the Gates family has spoken to the caretaker who supposedly gave permission for the tree cutting. She said the caretaker has been told that no one should be coming on the property. She also said the caretaker was not given permission to allow anyone on the property. Ms. Lewis further explained that the caretaker was actually an employee of Eternal- Valley and he has keys to the gates on the property to allow water or power company employees access. He is not employed by Gate King Partners. Commissioner Killmeyer asked for clarification on the differences between the applicant's proposal and the City's Oak Tree consultant. Ms. Lewis stated one of the differences was whether or not the growth on the sucker shoots should be counted in terms of total diameter. There is also a difference on whether this should be judged under a 3 year standard or 5 years. Commissioner Killmeyer asked if there was a dollar value for each of the proposals. Ms. Carlson said she did not have any figure at this time. Commissioner Killmeyer requested that this information be given afthe next meeting. The conservation easement issue was discussed again by Chairperson Hoback, Mr. Lambert and Mr. Altmayer. Mr. Altmayer said the difficulty with a conservation easement is that it raises the specter of a legal challenge and it is a risk the City would have to seriously consider. If the Commission wanted to go in this direction, more studies would have to be done to value the easement. RECESS Chairperson Hoback called a recess at 8:45 p.m. RECONVENE The meeting reconvened at 8:54 p.m. Chairperson Hoback asked if a stump was still considered a tree. Ms. Carlson said the Oak Tree Ordinance states an oak tree is protected if it has a diameter of 2" at 4 1/2' from the ground. She said a stump would not normally be considered a tree. Those making general comments on the item were: Mike Lyons, representing the Santa Clarita Oaks Conservancy, 27362 Garza Drive, Santa Clarita; Ann Mills, 21117 Placenta Canyon, Santa Clarita; Cynthia Neal Harris, representing the Santa Clarita Oaks Conservancy, P. O. Box 800520, Santa Clarita; John Steffan; Bob Lathrop, 25105 Highspring, Santa Clarita; Lynne Plambeck, representing SCOPE, P. O. Box 1182, Santa Clarita; Robert Klar, 24159 Avenida Crescenta, Santa Clarita. Some of the issues discussed were: support of Ms. Carlson's recommendations; planting 10, 15, or 20 gallon trees; planting trees in areas that won't be developed; plant the trees where they would be visible; take action on the criminal aspect of this case; enforce the Oak Tree Ordinance so that people will not cut oak trees down illegally; protect the oaks, don't count the stumps as part of the mitigation; gather saplings from the same area; too many unanswered questions; and getting a search warrant to search the entire property. Ms. Lewis was given an opportunity to respond to the comments made. Mr. Lambert asked the Commission for direction on certain issues. Some of those issues were: should the applicant be given credit for the sucker growth on the tree stumps; appropriate number of trees and the appropriate growth period of the trees; the promise by the applicant not to develop the area; and where the replacement trees should be planted. Public participation was closed at 9:24 p.m. Commissioner Kellar felt more information was needed regarding the criminal investigation. Commissioner Killmeyer said there should be an inspection of all 425 acres. He also said he would like the applicant's representative and staff to get together to resolve their differences. Commissioner Berger agreed that the entire site should be looked at and that the poachers should be prosecuted. Chairperson Hoback said she would like to view the site and look into using 5 or 10 gallon trees for replacement. She also felt credit should not be given for the stumps; and she wanted more information on the conservation easement. Commissioner Brathwaite said he agreed with most of the comments made by his fellow Commissioners. He said he felt the cause of this issue needs to be investigated either by the Sheriff s Department or the City. He also felt the people who cut down the trees should be prosecuted. Chairperson Hoback asked Ms. Lewis if she could give permission for staff to look at the entire site. Ms. Lewis said she did not think the applicant would have a problem with this. Dr. James Henrickson, the oak tree consultant for the applicant, spoke to the Commission. He explained his reasoning for choosing the proposed site for the planting of the saplings. A motion was made by Commissioner Brathwaite and seconded by Commissioner Berger to continue this item to March 3, 1998. Said motion was passed by a vote of 5-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC FIEARINGS ITEM 2 MASTER CASE NUMBER 97-188 (OAK TREE PERMIT 97-021) The staff report was given by Fred Follstad, Associate Planner. Mr. Follstad gave a brief history of the item and gave a report on the site visit. He also gave a status report on the criminal charges related to the removal of the oak trees. The District Attorney felt there was insufficient evidence to go forward with the case. Mr. Follstad reviewed some of the deal points of the mitigation program. Some of those points included the planting of 350 saplings on the project site that are expected to reach a total diameter of 1,056 inches within five years; the saplings would be planted on-site in two areas identified by the applicant's biologist; and all trees, once planted, would be subject to the City's Oak Tree Ordinance. The pubic hearing was opened at 7:15 p.m. Claudia Lewis, attorney at law, spoke on behalf of the applicant. She said the mitigation plan reached was a fair resolution. Ms. Lewis stated that if the 350 saplings do not achieve the 1,056 inches, they would.continue to monitor the trees until such time the 1,056 inch goal has been reached. Chairperson Hoback asked what has been done to ensure this does not happen again. Ms. Lewis said the locks on the gate are being changed and the applicant will restrict who has the keys to the property. Commissioner Berger asked if the applicant would be filing charges against the individuals who cut the trees down. Ms. Lewis said because the District Attorney is not filing criminal charges, criminal prosecution would not be in order at this time. With reference to any civil proceedings, she said the individuals do not have many assets and therefore, it would not make sense for the property owner to pursue this matter. Other speakers on this matter included Bob Lathrop, 25105 Highspring, Santa Clarita; Lynn Plambeck, representing SCOPE, P. O. Box 1182, Santa Clarita; Cynthia Neal Harris from the Santa Clarita Oaks Conservancy, P. O. Box 80050, Santa Clarita; and John Steffan. Comments made were: replace the trees in an area where they will grow; don't replace with saplings, use more mature trees; insufficient mitigation; replace the trees where they were removed; lack of prosecution; making an example; too lenient replacement; plant the saplings across the property; criminal charges should be pursued; removal of stumps; hiding evidence; and protect the new trees in perpetuity. The applicant was given an opportunity for rebuttal. Ms. Lewis addressed some of the issues brought up by the speakers. She said the sites for the replanting of the oaks had been chosen very carefully. She said not all stumps had been removed. Ms. Lewis stated the applicant is doing all he can to prevent people from coming on to the property. Commissioner Hoback said she is concerned with the activity that is still going on at the site. She asked why the stumps were removed. Ms. Lewis said she did not know why. She said no one from Gate King Partners came on to the property with heavy equipment to remove any stumps. Commissioner Kellar asked if the caretaker from the cemetery still had a key to the gate. Ms. Lewis said the locks are being changed and the cemetery caretaker will not have a key. Commissioner Kellar also asked for more information on the oak tree fund. Kay Carlson, the City's oak tree consultant said when mitigation fees are collected they go into an oak tree fund to be used for tree planting programs, educational programs, etc. Commissioner Kellar noted that instead of replanting.some of the oaks on the project site where they could not be seen, perhaps some oak trees could be planted at locations where they could be enjoyed by many people. Commissioner Berger wanted some clarification on the criminal proceedings. He felt that if a crime had been committed, and the individuals caught should pay the price for what they did. Tom Altmayer, Assistant City Attorney, explained that with respect to criminal trespass charges, the applicant could request the District Attorney file a complaint. It is up to the D.A. to decide whether or not to pursue the matter. The applicant cannot go in to court to enforce criminal penalties against the poachers. The applicant can go after individuals civilly under trespass. Mr. Altmayer explained that the problem they would have is that if the caretaker let the poachers on to the property, it is not trespassing. Commissioner Berger asked what was the cost of the saplings. Ms. Carlson said the cost was approximately $10.00 per sapling. Commissioner Berger also asked what were the chances of survival for the 1/4" saplings. Ms. Carlson said because of the small size of the saplings, they would adopt to the site better than a larger tree. Chairperson Hoback said it was important to make a clear statement of how we expect developers and landowners to respect the Oak Tree Ordinance. She said she had concerns after the site visit. Chairperson Hoback felt that the two sites chosen for the replanting were not large enough to support the 350 saplings. Ms. Carlson said a condition could be added that if the trees cannot be supported by that area, then additional areas will have to be added for tree planting. Jeffrey Lambert, Planning Manager, noted that there was some time frame urgency on getting an action from the Commission because there is a time limit in which to file any criminal action. Mr. Lambert said the Commission should be looking at certain things: 1) if the diameter approach is the right approach; 2) if the locations identified by the applicant's biologist are the appropriate ones; and 3) do the mitigation parameters identified work for the Commission. Chairperson Hoback said she did not care about the urgency to prosecute. She felt that the mitigation was important. She did not want to rush into anything and she wanted to make sure that the problem was taken care of and that the matter be handled properly. Commissioner Killmeyer said he agreed with Chairperson Hoback. He said the Commission has a responsibility to make the right decision. He felt the cost to the applicant of implementing this program would be approximately $3,500 plus labor which would amount to approximately $20,000.00. This would make a difference of 2.28 million dollars between what the ISA value was and what the applicant would actually have to pay. He said he would like to see a sizable sum placed in the oak tree fund. He felt the applicant should accept responsibility for the actions that took place. RECESS Chairperson Hoback called a recess at 8:30 p.m. RECONVENE The meeting reconvened at 8:37 p.m. It was noted that Ms. Lewis had to leave the meeting and Hunt Braly would now be speaking on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Braly said they would like to try and reach a resolution to this matter. He said the applicant is in agreement with staffs proposed Resolution and willing to accept it. The public hearing was closed at 8:43 p,m. Commissioner. Kellar made a motion to adopt Resolution P98-10 which approves Master Case 97-188 subject to the conditions of approval and that the City's oak tree consultant work with the applicant on the placement of the saplings; and there be mitigation in the sum of $500,000 to the City's oak tree fund. Said motion was seconded by Commissioner Berger. After discussion, Chairperson Hoback asked that an amendment be .made to the motion that the mitigation program would be brought back to the Commission and that saplings would also be planted in the area where the oak trees were removed. Commissioners Kellar and Berger agreed to the amendment. A roll call vote was taken. Commissioners Hoback, Berger, Kellar and Killmeyer voted yes. There were not any no votes. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. 3 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NEGATIVE DECLARATION [ ] Proposed [ ] Final MASTER CASE NO: 97-177 PERMIT/PROJECT NAME: Master Case #97-177 (Oak Tree Permit 97-177) APPLICANT: Gates King Partners. LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: West side of Sierra Highway, 1,000 feet south of Remsen Street DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: The applicant is requesting a retroactive oak tree permit for the unpermitted removal of 64 oaks on the project site. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this project, and pursuant to the requirements of Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Santa Clarita [X] City Council [ ] Planning Commission L ] Director of Community Development fords that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect upon the environment, and that a Negative Declaration shall be adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA. Mitigation measures for this project [ ] Are Not Required [x] Are Attached [ ] Are Not Attached JEFF LAMBERT PLANNING MANAGER Prepared by: Fred Follstad: Associate Planner (Signature) (Nameffitle) Approved Public Review Period Fr Public Notice Given On [X] Legal Advertisement Notice ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- CERTIFICATION DATE: current\nd97177.flf ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (Initial Study Form B) CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Lead Agency: City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Ste. 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Contact Person & Phone Number: Fred Follstad (805) 25514330 Master Case or CIP Number: MC 97-188 Entitlement Type(s): Oak Tree Permit 97-021 Case Planner: Fred Follstad Project Location (Thomas Bros.): West side of Sierra Highway, 1,000 feet south of Remsen Street (4641 B-4, B-5, C-4 and C-5) Project Description and Setting: The applicant is requesting a retroactive oak tree permit for the unpermitted removal of 64 oaks on the project site. General Plan and Zoning Designation(s): CC -PD (Community Commercial -Planned Development) and IC -PD (Industrial Commercial -Planned Development) Project Applicant (Name, Address; Phone): Gates King Properties 700 Emerson Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The property site is surrounded by vacant land with electrical transmission lines to the west. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement) ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [X] Land Use and Planning [ ] Transportation/ [ ] Public Services Circulation [ ] Population and Housing [X] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation [ ] Geological Problems [ ] Noise [ ] Aesthetics [ ] Water [ ] Hazards (] Cultural Resources [ ] Air Quality [ ] Mandatory Tests of [ ] Utilities and Service Significance System I Energy and Mineral Resources 2 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: [ ] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [X] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant impact on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been mitigated adequately in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a."potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Prepared By: Fred Follstad/Associate Planner 3119198 (Signature) (NamelTitle) (Date) Approved By: (Signature) Jennifer Reid/Associate Planner 3119198 3 (NamerTitle) (Date) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: rl Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Unless Lessthan Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? [] [] I] [X] (Source # ) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or I IX] I I [X] policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the city? I ] [] [] VI d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an I] [] I [XI established community (including a low-income or minority community)? e) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA)? ( ) I1 [] [] IX] f) other ( ) I1 I 11 [XI 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the Proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional orlocal [] [] [[ [X] population projections? ( ) b) Create'a net loss of jobs? ( ) [ ] [ ] [ I [X] c) . Displace existing housing, especially affordable I I I I [I [X] housing? ( ) d) Other ( ) 11 11 11 [XI III GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Will the proposal result in: a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic II 11 11 [X] substructures? ( ) b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or [] [] [] [X] overcovering of the soil? ( ) c) Change In topography or ground surface relief 11 [] 11 Pq features? ( ) d) The destruction, covering or modification of any 11 11 11 IXI unique geologic or physical features? ( ) e) Any Increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either [] [] [] [X] on or off the site? ( ) f) Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards [] [] 11 [X] such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? ( ) rl 5 Potentially significant Impact Potentially Unless Lessthan significant Mitigation signincant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Ill Changes in deposition, erosion or siltation? ( ) (] [] [j [X] h) Other modification of a wash, channel, creek, or [] [] [] [X] river? ( ) I) Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic [] [] [] [X] yards or more? ( ) j) Development and/or grading on a slope greater than [] [] I] Ix] 25% natural grade? ( ) k) Development within the Alquist-Prlolo Special [] [] I] [XI Studies Zone? ( ) 1) Other ( ) [] [] [] IX] IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or [] I] I] IX] the rate and amount of surface runofR ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related [ 1 [ 1 I I IXI hazards such as flooding? ( ) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of [ ] [ ] [ I [X] surface water quality (mg. temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity) ( ) d) Changes in the amount ofsuAacewater inany water I] I] [I [X] body? ( ) e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of I II I ] IX] water movements? ( ) Q Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either [j [j [I [X] through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cats or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) g) Altered direction or rate offlow ofgroundwater? I] I] I] [X] ( 1 h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) [] [] [] IX] Q Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater [] [] I] [X] otherwise available for public water supplies? j) Other ( ) t I II [XI V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an [] [] I [X] existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) 5 F. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Unless Lessthan Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) I l I1 I l PQ c) Create objectionable odors? ( ) [] [] [] [X] d) Other ( ) Il [I 11 [XI VI. TRANSPORTATIOWCIRCULATION. Wouldthe proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?( ) [] [] [] 1X] b) Hazards to safety from design features (mg. sharp [] [] [] ]X] curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses? ( ) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby [] [] 11 ]x] uses? ( ) d) Insufficient parking Capacity onsite or offsite? [ ] [] [] p(1 It ) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] ( ] I) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting [] [] 11 IXI alternative transportation (eg. bus stops, bicycle racks)( ] g) Disjointed pattern of roadway improvements ( ) [] [] [ ] [X] h) Other ( ) Il [1 I [X] VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their 11 11 [] IX] habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish. insects, animals, and birds) ( ) b) Oak Trees ( ) II IXl 11 [ 1 c) Wettand habitat or blueline stream? ( ) [] [] I] [X] d) Wildlife dispersal ormigration corridots? ( ) [] [] II IXI e) Other ( ) [1 [1 II [Xl Vlll. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 11 [] Il Pq b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and [ ] [ ] [] [X] inefficient manner? ( ) F. f) Other ( ) [1 Potentially 11 IXI X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: Significant a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) [] Impact [] [X] b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels or Potentially Unless Less than IX] vibration? ( ) Significant Mitigation Significant No c) Other ( ) Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral [ 1 [ ] [ ] [X] resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) d) Other ( ) [1 I1 I IX] D(- HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: [I 11 11 [X] a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of [] [] [ ] [X] d) hazardous substances (including but not limited to I I I] [(] oil, pesticides; chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) b) Possible interference with an emergency response [] [] [] [X] X11. plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] Power or natural gas? ( ) hazard? ( ) 11 11 IXl d) Exposure of people lo existing sources of potential [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] health hazards (mg. electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines)? ( ) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, [] [ ] I [X] grass, or trees? ( ) f) Other ( ) [1 [1 11 IXI X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) [] [] [] [X] b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels or [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] vibration? ( ) c) Other ( ) p [1 II [Xl XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect on, or result in a treed for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) [] [] I [X] b) Police protection? ( ) [I 11 11 [X] c) Schools? ( ) 11 11 11 IX] d) Maintenance of pubic facilities, including roads? I I I] [(] e) Other government services? Park Land ( ) I] [] [] [x] X11. UTILITIES. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) 11 11 11 IXl 7 b) Communications systems? ( ) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) g) Local or regional water supplies? { ) h) Other ( ) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista open to public view? ( ) b) Have a negative aesthetic effect? ( ) c) Create light or glare? ( ) d) Other ( ) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological or archaeological resources? b) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) c) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) d) Affect a recognized historical site? ( ) e) Other ( ) MITA? a3ZV: II71 a) Will the proposal result In an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreation opportunities? ( ) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 0 [ 1 ❑ 11 IXl Potentially SignRcant Impact Potentially Unless Lessthan Significant Mhigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact [1 [1 11 [X1 [1 [I 11 1X1 [1 II 11 [Xl [] [1 11 [X1 [1 ❑ [1 VI [1 11 1X1 [1 11 11 [Xl [1 [1 11 VI [1 11 11 IX1 11 II 11 [X1 11 11 11 VI ❑ [l 11 IX] 11 11 11 IX1 11 [I [I [XI 11 ❑ II [Xl 11 11 11 [Xl [ 1 ❑ 11 IXl Potentially Significant Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the [] quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate Important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve [] short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c) Does the project have impacts which are individually [] limited but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those Impacts on the environment Is significant.) d) Does the project have environmental effects which [] will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME "DE MINUMUS" FINDING a) Will the project have an adverse effect either [] individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife resources? Wildlife shall be defined for the purpose of this question as "all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and related ecological communities, including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends for its continued viability." Potentially Evaluation of Impact I. LAND USE AND Significant PLANNING unpennitted removal of 64 oak trees. The applicant shall obtain a oak tree Impact permit -from the City. With this mitigation measure, no significant Unless Lessthan No significant permanent or temporary impacts to population and housing Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact [1 [1 1X1 [1 [1 pq XVIII. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND/OR EARLIER ANALYSES: Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impact I. LAND USE AND The applicant has submitted retroactive oak tree permit for the PLANNING unpennitted removal of 64 oak trees. The applicant shall obtain a oak tree permit -from the City. With this mitigation measure, no significant permanent or temporary impacts to the biology are anticipated. II. POPULATION No significant permanent or temporary impacts to population and housing AND HOUSING are anticipated. 9 Section and Evaluation of Impact Subsections III. GEOLOGIC No significant permanent or temporary impacts upon geology are PROBLEMS anticipated. IV. WATER No significant permanent or temporary impacts upon water are anticipated. V. AIR QUALITY No significant permanent or temporary impacts upon air quality are anticipated. VI. No significant permanent or temporary impacts upon transportation are TRANSPORTATION/ anticipated. CIRCULATION VII. BIOLOGICAL The project includes the unpermitted removal of 64 oak trees from the RESOURCES project site. The applicant shall provide a mitigation project to replace the loss of the mature oak trees. With this mitigation measure, no significant permanent or temporary impacts to the biology are anticipated. VIII. ENERGY AND No significant permanent or temporary impacts to biological resources MINERAL are anticipated. RESOURCES IX. HAZARDS No significant permanent or temporary impacts upon hazards are anticipated. X. NOISE No significant permanent or temporary impacts upon noise are anticipated. XI. PUBLIC No significant permanent or temporary impacts upon public services are SERVICES anticipated. XII. UTILITIES No significant permanent or temporary impacts upon utilities are anticipated. XIII. AESTHETICS No significant permanent or temporary impacts upon aesthetics are anticipated. XIV. CULTURAL No significant permanent or temporary impacts to cultural resources are RESOURCES anticipated. XV. RECREATION No significant permanent or temporary impacts to recreation are anticipated. 10 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Identification of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Activities I. LAND USE AND PLANNING 1-1. Mitigation: Obtain an Oak Tree Permit Party Responsible for Mitigation: Planning and Building Services Monitoring Action/Timing: . Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: Planning and Building Services II. POPULATION AND HOUSING 2-1. Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Action/riming: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS 3-1. Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Action/Timing: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: IV. WATER 4-1. Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Actionrriming: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: V. AIR QUALITY 5-1. Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Actionfriming: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION 6-1. Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Action/Timing: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 11 Identification of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Activities 7-1. Mitigation: Provide mitigation for the loss of the removed oak trees. Party Responsible for Mitigation: The applicant. Monitoring Action/Timing: Within the time frames determined by the Planning Commission or City Council and the applicants biologist. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: Planning & Building Services Department VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 8-1. Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring ActionlTiming: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: IX. HAZARDS 9-1. Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Action/Timing: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: X. NOISE 10-1. Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Actionrriming: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: XI. PUBLIC SERVICES 11-1. Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Action/Timing; Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: XII. UTILITIES 12-1. Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Actionrriming: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: XIII. AESTHETICS 12 Identification of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Activities 13-1. Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Actionrriming: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES 14-1. Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Action/Timing: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: XV. RECREATION 15-1. Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Action/Timing: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: slcd%cdfarm Vsbink.pbs 11197 13