The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 1988 0406 CC REG ITEM 11E MOORPARK ITEM //.e; JOHN PATRICK LANE STEVEN KUENY Mayor o,"" City Manager ELOISE BROWN o° ��1 CHERYL J. KANE Mayor Pro Tern F � City Attorney CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. �O�► PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Councilmember -01trit. ,``��`i�s Director of JOHN GALLOWAY o- : Community Development Councilmember R.R. DENNIS DELZEIT BERNARDO M. PEREZ •= °` City Engineer Councilmember JOHN V. GILLESPIE MAUREEN W. WALL Chief of Police City Clerk THOMAS P. GENOVESE City Treasurer MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development( DATE: March 31, 1988 (CC meeting of 4/6/88) SUBJECT: PD-1065 (COLIN VELASQUEZ) CONCERNING TREE VALUE REPLACEMENT Background On December 16, 1987 under Resolution No. 87-440 the City Council approved Planned Development No. 1065 in order to construct a 27,466 sq.ft. automotive service building on property located on the south side of Los Angeles Avneue approximately 250 feet west of Park Lane Avenue. As part of the approval for the project, certain conditions were imposed by the City. Several conditions related to tree replacement and landscape requirements (see attachment No. 1) On January 20, 1988 the Council had scheduled a review of Ordinance 89 concerning tree preservation. The matter was carried to the Council's meeting of February 3, 1988. The review of Ordinance No. 89 was prompted by the applicant of PD-1065 for further consideration of tree replacement value associated with the project. The Council, at their February 3rd meeting, created an Ad Hoc Committee to review the matter and report back to the Council. The committee did provide some input to the Council in a memorandum dated January 19, 1988 (see attachment No. 2) . However, no specific action was taken by the Council regarding the memorandum. PJR:crl 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864 PD1065/K/PCAGENDA March 31 , 1988 Page 2 Discussion At issue is the applicant's desire to reach a specific decision from the City regarding how much is to be paid towards tree replacement values. At the Council's meeting of November 23, 1987 they imposed a condition that stated, in part, (see attachment No. 1) that a new tree report would be prepared and if it were a higher value (above $17,863.22) then the applicant would pay that amount. The $17,863.22 figure was estimated by using the added value of each tree being removed by the project and discounting certain trees being removed by public improvements. Under the PD condition the applicant is required to pay at least the $17,863.22. Under Ordinance No. 89, the City's interim urgency ordinance regarding tree preservation, there is a provision allowing removal of trees "in order to construct improvements which allow economic enjoyment of the property" (see Section 2(b)) . This section is under discression of the City Manager. There appears to be some confusion as to how Ordinance No. 89 relates to PD-1065. First, the tree replacement interest associated with PD-1065 was generated by the City's passage of Ordinance No. 89. However, the authority to request tree replacement requirements fall under the PD permit not Ordinance No. 89. In order that the tree replacement remain consistent, staff used the Tree Evaluation formula within Ordinance No. 89 to determine the cost of tree replacement due to development. Staff's intent was to provide an incentive for development projects to design around existing mature trees and save as many as possible. Staff has made another on-site inspection of the property to determine which trees would have had a "realistic possibility" of saving and constituted a variety of trees worth saving. The following trees in staff's opinion merited some consideration for replacement value due to construction: Number Value Type Condition 8 796. 16 Chinese Elm Good 17 159. 16 White Fir Good 18 477.32 Honey Locust Good 19 4,421 . 12 Mexican Fan Palm Good 28 2,652.68 Modesto Ash Good 29 1,272.84 Modesto Ash Good 31 192.20 Canary Island Pine Good 32 259.20 Canary Island Pine Good $ 10,230.76 PJR:crl PD1065/K/PCAGENDA March 31 , 1988 Page 3 As stated above the imposition of a replacement value for the trees removed because of new construction is pursuant to a PD conditions not Ordinance No. 89. Therefore, any change or deviation from the PD conditions will require the applicant to file for a modification or the Council directing staff to accomplish the task. If the Council is considering making an amendment to the condition, staff would like to suggest some of the following alternatives: 1 . To use the "adjusted" $10,230 figure as monies to be used for additional landscaping for the project (plant material only); 2. To consider a flat rate fee for commercial or industrial developments that eliminated a certain dollar amount of tree value based upon square footage. Such a fee could be used for a future Los Angeles landscape design . The school district currently imposes a .25e per square foot charge on commercial and industrial developments. This type of fee could work the same way; 3. To determine a fair and just amount to be deposited with the City for future Los Angeles Avenue streetscape plans. Summary The applicant of PD-1065 desires clarity on the condition requirement imposed to provide a dollar amount towards the replacement value of trees into additional landscaping on the site. Staff has identified that there is limited relationship between the conditions of PD-1065 and Ordinance No. 89. Staff has provided several options for Council consideration. Recommended Action 1 . That the Council direct staff to amend Condition No. 11 of Resolution No. 87-440 to reflect the Council's decision on this matter; 2. That the Council determine a reasonable dollar amount to be paid by the applicant to the City for the purpose of funding a Los Angeles Avenue Streetscape Plan in lieu of a specific tree replacement value program. MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA City Council Meeting of - 514 198,2_ ACTION:a ., . ,� Le pdur- pad a.-ea� a..a),mom PJR:crl �� (au>d1Q�� PD1065/K/PCAGENDA APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 87- December 16, 1987 CASE NO.: Planned Development Permit No. 1065 APPLICANT: Colin Velazquez { . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 5, 1987 - ADDITIONAL, MODIFIED RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1. Applicant shall receive credit for one parking space per each bay provided. • 2. Hours of operation shall be as follows: Repair/Service Monday-Saturday 7 a.m. - 6 p.m. Retail Service Monday-Saturday 7 a.m. - 10 p.m. Sunday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 3. - - - - - - - - - - ' • - to- exceed 50°C of this $51,000, could be offset by the 4d4cation of ti--a„ - subsequent landscaping off site. 4. A minimum solid masonry wall of 8 feet be provided to mitigate noise, odor, and visual impact to the adjacent 62 single family homes and adjacent church to the east. Roofing shall be designed to accommodate baffling or deflector to control noise. • 5. The developer shall continue noise deflector features to the service bays at the east side of the property. ( ADDITIONAL CITY COUNCIL CONDITIONS - MEETING OF 11/23/87 1. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A ZONING CLEARANCE, THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE SATISFIED: • a. City Council approval shall be required for any use of asbestos based construction materials. b. A new tree report shall be prepared by a different licensed landscape architect or arborist. If the amount of the replacement value of the trees is higher than the $17,863.22 stated in Community Development Condition No. 2:a. then the higher amount shall be paid. Whatever replacement value is determined, the entire amount shall be used landsc?ping nn the site. No off-site use of these funds shall be , permitted. Replacement value shall be used for landscaping above and beyond normal landscaping requirements. Examples of landscaping beyond the norm would include use of 36-inch box trees or larger and additional trees (of any size) beyond what is shown on the conceptual landscape plan. • • • • • -7- a� / • M�? Tn cD i c3 ii m I o The 11111, Horic=rurabl e City • C;(=) nci 1 : N roan : T he Acl Hac Coxnrx�i trees ca Pex-mnit # 1065 Datc : Januax y 19 , 1988 Re Or-di �raar� cc� #89 • • It is the opinion of this committee that Section 2 paragraph (b) is applicable to this project.Very clearly it was not the intent of this ordinance to allow arbitrary refusal of necessary land clearing in order to accomplish use of the land in accordance with general plan and zoning guidelines. • There is not a significant cluster of trees and no exceptional .specimens. A number of the trees have been badly damaged by fire and appear to have a limited life span.Overall the trees do not appear to greatly enhance the land in any particular manner from any hi�tn* i a7 , artnlntr.a7 nnr aesthetic perspective. • It is this committee's recommendation that the applicant not be formally charged for any trees actually on area to be occupied by the building, but encouraged- to landscape as extensively as possible with particular attention to trees. ' • • 4rpticetoisour