Sponsored message
Logged in as
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

This is an archival story that predates current editorial management.

This archival content was written, edited, and published prior to LAist's acquisition by its current owner, Southern California Public Radio ("SCPR"). Content, such as language choice and subject matter, in archival articles therefore may not align with SCPR's current editorial standards. To learn more about those standards and why we make this distinction, please click here.

News

Brentwood Developer Banned From Building Mansions Over Illegally Removed Trees

25145609634_640354aac9_z.jpg
Trees surround a palatial Brentwood estate. (Photo by Michael Locke via the LAist Featured Photos pool on Flickr)

This story is free to read because readers choose to support LAist. If you find value in independent local reporting, make a donation to power our newsroom today.

All land developer Sam Shakib wants to do is build a pair of 15,000-square-foot mansions on a parcel of privately owned, and undeveloped, land in Brentwood's exquisite Sullivan Canyon. Back in 2014, Shakib applied for, and received, permission from the city of Los Angeles to remove precisely 56 trees on the chaparral property, in order to clear space for the mansions-to-be.

The tree-crews arrived, but instead of chopping down 56 trees, they chopped down 59. The three extra trees that were removed—a pair of California live oaks, and a purportedly "gorgeous specimen" of Sycamore—had "protected" status, according to the Los Angeles Times, and are the reason why the Los Angeles Board of Public Works voted to revoke Shakib's building permits on Friday.

Of course, the Board of Public Works would likely failed to have noticed the removal of the three extra trees if not for due diligence by the good people of Brentwood. The Sullivan Canyon Property Owners Association filed a lawsuit against Shakib—and his company called Sullivan Equity Partners—arguing that Shakib acted illegally by removing those three extra trees. Therefore, the suit alleged, the City of Los Angeles had grounds to revoke Shakib's building permits.

Shakib disagrees, and argues that the trees were removed by accident. As amends for allegedly accidentally removing the trees, Shakib says he's willing to plant up to 32 'large' replacement trees.

The dispute worked its way through the rounds of government bureaucracy, eventually reaching the desk of Nazario Sauceda, the director of the city's Bureau of Street Services. In March, Sauceda released a four page letter declaring the trees were "intentionally" removed "to provide better access to the property or in some other fashion enable easier development," according to the L.A. Times. Councilmember Mike Bonin agreed, suggesting, at the time, that he found Shakib' words "to be a bogus claim, and not credible."

To the distaste of Shakib and his attorneys, the Board of Public Works voted unanimously on Friday to ban Sullivan Equity Partners from developing the land in Sullivan Canyon any further.

"We're definitely going to appeal [the decision] by any available means, including going to court," said Patrick Mitchell, the attorney for Sullivan Equity Partners, to the Times.

Sponsored message

On the flip side, those who rallied against the mansion project are ecstatic. The decision by the Board of Public Works is viewed as a warning shot to developers who want to remove trees without permission.

"If the city fails in its duty to uphold the law, developers will simply continue to see tree massacres as the cost of doing business," explained Sara Nichols, a Sullivan Canyon resident two doors down from the project.

Earlier this year, widespread outrage was briefly provoked when billboard retailer Outfront Media killed several trees on Silver Lake's Sunset Triangle plaza in order to clear a view for one of the company's billboards.

You come to LAist because you want independent reporting and trustworthy local information. Our newsroom doesn’t answer to shareholders looking to turn a profit. Instead, we answer to you and our connected community. We are free to tell the full truth, to hold power to account without fear or favor, and to follow facts wherever they lead. Our only loyalty is to our audiences and our mission: to inform, engage, and strengthen our community.

Right now, LAist has lost $1.7M in annual funding due to Congress clawing back money already approved. The support we receive from readers like you will determine how fully our newsroom can continue informing, serving, and strengthening Southern California.

If this story helped you today, please become a monthly member today to help sustain this mission. It just takes 1 minute to donate below.

Your tax-deductible donation keeps LAist independent and accessible to everyone.
Senior Vice President News, Editor in Chief

Make your tax-deductible donation today