Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/09/2017 PC MinutesMINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 9, 2017 CALL TO ORDER: Chair/Wolfe called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall. Windmill Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: C/Mahlke led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Naila Barlas, Frank Farago, Jennifer "Fred" Mahlke, Vice Chair Kenneth Mok, and Chair Raymond Wolfe Absent: Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; James Eggart, Assistant City Attorney; May Nakajima, Associate Planner; and Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of General Plan Update Joint Meeting #2 of the City Council and Planning Commission of March 29, 2017: C/Mahlke moved, VC/Mok seconded, to approve the Minutes of the General Plan Update Joint Meeting #2 of the City Council and Planning Commission of March 29, 2017 as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Barlas, Farago, Mahlke VC/Mok, Chair/Wolfe NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 4.2 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 25, 2017: C/Farago moved, C/Mahlke seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 25, 2017, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: MAY 9, 2017 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5. OLD BUSINESS: [dA V1 NEW BUSINESS: PAGE COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS None None PUBLIC HEARING(S): PLANNING COMMISSION Barlas, Farago, Mahlke VC/Mok, Chair/Wolfe None None 7.1 Tree Permit No. PL2017-40 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.38, the applicant and property owner requested a Tree Permit to remove one protected California black walnut tree (Juglans californica) and replace it with three California black walnut trees (3:1 replacement ratio) on site, located at 2468 Alamo Heights Road. The subject property is zoned Rural Residential (RR) with an underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential (RR). PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: 2468 Alamo Heights Road Richard Wang and Jing Ma 22826 Lazy Trail Road Diamond Bar. CA 91765 Feng Xiao 2540 Huntington Drive, Suite 207 San Marino, CA 91108 AP/Nakajima presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Tree Permit No. PL2017-40 as recommended by staff, Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed in the Resolution. Chair/Wolfe asked if the arborist that provided the report included in tonight's packet was the original arborist for the project. AP/Nakajima explained that a Tree Permit was not required for the original application. Chair/Wolfe asked if the requirement for fire access was new or should it have been contemplated in the original proposed plans. AP/Nakajima said that a copy of the original plans were forwarded to LA County Fire and that comment regarding potential access was not provided to staff at that time. MAY 9, 2017 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION VC/Mok wanted to understand what was meant by a "period of time" for monitoring with respect to Option #2 and whether that period of time included the actual start of the project or if it was prior to the start of the project. CDD/Gubman referred VC/Mok to the applicant's consulting arborist for a response. ChairANolfe opened the public hearing. Christy Cuba, Arborist, Carlberg Associates said she went to the site, conducted the inventory and prepared the report. She asked VC/Mok to repeat his question which he did. Ms. Cuba explained that the monitoring would begin when the project commenced (as soon as the grading permit is issued) and the monitoring period would be determined by the City. Various jurisdictions have different limitations they set on monitoring timeframes. Sometimes it is through the construction period only whereas other jurisdictions require additional monitoring beyond the period of construction (months or years) once the project is complete and that would require monitoring reports to be submitted to the City so that if a tree fails as a result of the encroachment, conditions could be written in for replacement of the tree at that time or, written in the Permit now. VC/Mok asked how long, in Ms. Cuba's experience, it would take for a tree to fail from the time mitigation measures were put in place. Ms. Cuba responded that it is difficult to judge because California is just coming out of a drought. With drought impacts trees have been suffering. And the particular disease this tree has, evidence of a disease called Thousand Cankers disease, some trees can withstand and continue to live or may decline over a long period of time, but with construction impacts she believes the disease would be exacerbated. She has seen trees with Thousand Cankers disease that have declined over time anywhere from three to five years on average. And construction impacts could take a couple of years to appear as having impacted the tree. VC/Mok said that with the issues this tree has and the angle at which it is growing out of the slope he wondered if it could survive for many more years with the two issues of the disease and the angle at which it is growing. Ms. Cuba said it is her opinion that she does not believe it can survive because of a combination of the grading that will be required, the amount of fill material that needs to be placed under the canopy, the compaction and the retaining wall under the tree, as well as the amount of pruning (a substantial portion of the canopy) that will be required for fire access. Often in construction projects such as this, arborists try to estimate in the field how much pruning will be MAY 9, 2017 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION necessary, but when one is onsite attempting to prune the tree to standard arboricultural practices, where one might think it can be brushed up 14 feet but with the grade change (lifting the grade), that 14 feet becomes much higher and one does not want to merely cut a branch in the middle of the limb - it needs to be cut back to another lateral branch that is growing out and sometimes that significantly extends the amount of pruning one must do which means it could go from 25 percent as indicated in the report to 50 percent of that canopy at the time of pruning. Chair/Wolfe said the plans likely already included the retaining wall and compaction of the soil around the root base of the tree so the real issue tonight is the pruning that is necessary to allow fire vehicles access in that area which gets back to his earlier concern. It sounds to him like there are two distinct issues with this tree, the latter being the pruning of the tree which could irreparably injure the tree, but the former being something that perhaps should have been addressed when this was in front of the Commission several years ago, which is, the impact to the root structure of the tree by virtue of the landscaping that was going to be done with the retaining wall compaction. He recalled that the plan showed a golf cart running through that area. He asked for clarification that this was all part of the original plan. AP/Nakajima said she did not have the old site plan with her. However, from what she understands, there was no access path proposed with the original application. ChairMolfe said if they were going to put a retaining wall in, it had to be part of the original approval and AP/Nakajima responded that she believed there was a retaining wall proposed on the original site plan and asked if the architect could offer her input. Feng Xiao, Architect, verified that at the time the previous architect submitted the first application on the old site plan, her firm was not involved. However, she recalled that definitely there was no fire access from the north and for the current retaining wall there was very detailed plans for a detailed grading plan and retaining wall. That retaining wall close to the path came from one of the HOA's comments that said it could not be graded more than two feet. Because the grading plan was never finished in time to submit it for Planning Commission review, she does not recall that there was a retaining wall at that location. However., she does recall that there was a retaining wall on the south side closer to the garage entry. Probably at that time, there was no detail level grading plan/retaining wall plan generated and most likely no encroachment issue would have been identified. MAY 9, 2017 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION ChairM/olfe asked the arborist how far away the fire access would have to be away from the canopy of the tree to not impact the tree. Ms. Cuba responded that the east canopy spread is approximately 20 feet, the southern canopy spread is approximately 18 feet and the westerly canopy spread is about 30 feet. It is unbalanced to the west and the canopy is almost sweeping the ground. And, there are multiple trunks. Typically, walnut trees do not respond well to compaction, or cut or fill under the canopy. They tend to decline fairly rapidly after more than a couple of inches of fill material. So, in this case since there would have to be fill and a retaining wall, she would recommend that the access road be about 20 feet away on the westerly side. There would be more leverage because trucks would be coming up from the west and it would be sloping up so that the grade, if she remembers correctly, could gradually come up and move closer to the tree as the canopy spreads in. She reiterated 20 feet on the west and moving in 15 feet or so moving away from the trunk and swinging back out. So, 20, 15 and 20 feet as one moves away from the trunk. But again, it would depend on the amount of material that would need to be placed under the canopy and still, there would need to be removal of a great deal of that canopy. C/Mahlke asked if Ms. Cuba was saying that the fill material called out in the report is used for landscape, hardscape and residential design and from what she understood Ms. Cuba to say, the fill material would do more of the damage and the tree would not recover as readily from use of the fill material. Ms. Cuba said it would be both the fill material and the canopy pruning that would jeopardize recovery. C/Mahlke asked how much of the fill material was merely for design and Ms. Cuba referred C/Mahlke to the Civil Engineer and Architect for an answer to her question. C/Mahlke was asking if the fill material was less and little pruning was done for the fire access with nothing being done to the root system, would the chance of the tree's survival increase significantly and Ms. Cuba said she would say yes, but if the orientation of the cart path remains where it is she is not sure how that would be accomplished. She pointed out the grade differential on the photograph of the tree and pointed out that the current plan shows that a rock wall and an eight -foot wide DG cart path will be located approximately five feet (5) south of the trunk, and if that position needs to be she is not sure how it could be engineered to not require fill be placed there given the existing topography. Robin Smith spoke about the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. She reviewed the tree report for this project and believed the arborist had done a superb job in assessing the situation. She asked the City to explain the policy on trimming and removing trees, especially protective native trees during nesting season which MAY 9, 2017 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION is February to August. She mentioned that many birds in the City nest all year round. Does the City of Diamond Bar uphold the"Migratory Bird Act which protects nesting birds, both resident and Migratory? She agrees the tree probably needs to be removed but she is very concerned about when that removal will occur. Related to that, if the Commission were to say no nests have been found in the tree she would like to see evidence because she believes there is supposed to be a report that produces evidence for or against a nest being in an existing tree. The problem is, tree removal and trimming in spring and early summer is irresponsible and possibly illegal. It can damage trees and devastate nesting birds. Cutting, trimming and pruning during spring and early summer can lead to diseased trees and intrusions of pests that harm trees. Hawk nests are large and visible, but the majority of song bird nests are small and camouflaged. Tree trimmers may not see the nest until it is too late and loud activity can frighten birds and cause them to starve, vacate the nests, etc. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act says that birdsin active nests are protected from harm or harassment. California Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may issue citations and levy fines to individuals or companies that disregard these regulations. Solutions to help trees and birds would be a list of things that can be done to improve the environmental integrity of the City which are, trim and prune during the fall and winter when trees are dormant, hiring arborists, landscapers and trimmers who consider the health of trees and birds that nest in them, which is declared in their specified written service agreements, and avoid contracting services that only trim trees that work all year around. Citizens are advised to act if they see tree trimmers disturbing an active nest by taking a picture of the nest or the destruction and the company's name and report violations to the Fish and Wildlife Service number. She said she wanted to remind the City that a single tree, native or ornamental is an ecosystem in and of itself. It is part of a larger habitat which is a critical participant to the entire City ecosystem. So in an effort to preserve and conserve the environmental integrity she asks the Commission to learn more about ecological literacy and the science which teaches that these elements are all connected. When a single tree is trimmed during certain seasons it does impact both immediate and cumulative. She is very curious to understand what the City would do to update its Tree Removal Permits to consider the risk of wildlife related to tree or habitat removals. Chair/Wolfe closed the public hearing. C/Mahlke felt she did not know enough about Option 2 and also felt the Arborist had done such a thorough job that there was likely little hope for the tree. She was concerned that if the tree is lost and there is no replacement consideration MAY 9, 2017 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION it will not be replaced. Therefore, if the tree will be lost, the Commission needs to preemptively make sure the replacement option is in place. Therefore, she will make a motion to Option 1 as recommended by staff. Chair/Wolfe said that he came to tonight's meeting with concerns which the Commission heard. When he looked at the plan and the reason for the Tree Permit he asked for the site plan to be put back up because he was trying to understand if there was another way the access could be accomplished. He suspects there might be another way to go about providing the fire access that would, to some degree, change the frontage of the property and given the commentary from the Arborist about the current condition of the tree, he is not sure it is worth the effort and therefore agrees with C/Mahlke that the City would not get anything in return. Staffs recommendation to remove this tree and replace it with three trees of the appropriate size leads him to second the motion. VC/Mok said he visited the site today and walked up to look at the tree from all angles. The location of the tree is awkward and the way it is growing out of the slope it appeared to him that with a strong wind or more rain it would topple over. He walked fairly close to the trunk and noticed all of the problems the Arborist opined. The other trees are very small and spindly and not protected. After viewing the tree up close it would certainly impact the project and its progression. C/Mahlke moved, Chair/Wolfe seconded to approval of Tree Permit No. PL2017-40 as recommended by staff, with the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Barlas, Farago, Mahlke, VC/Mok Chair//Wolfe None None PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: ChairNVolfe said it was VC/Mok's birthday today, and the other commissioners wished VC/Mok a happy birthday. MAY 9, 2017 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION 10. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDD/Gubman said that the next Planning Commission is scheduled for May 23 with three items on the agenda. The annual budget will be headed to the City Council in June (the General Fund budget and Capital Improvement Program budget) and under state law, before the City Council can adopt the Capital Improvement Plan, the Planning Commission is charged with reviewing the list of proposed projects and determining that the CIP is consistent with the General Plan. PWD/Liu will be in attendance to answer any questions the Commissioners might have about the projects listed in the report. In addition, there are two routine land use proposals on the agenda, an addition to an existing single family residence at 3372 Falcon Ridge Road, and a Conditional Use Permit for a chess tutoring facility on the second floor of the commercial building at the corner of Grand Avenue and Diamond Bar Boulevard. The next General Plan Advisory Committee meeting is scheduled to be held on Thursday, June 15 in the Windmill Room at 6:30 p.m. which will be advertised through social media and via the Diamond Bar Newsletter. The topic of the next meeting will be the beginning of Phase II where the Committee will consider the feedback from the outreach and reconnaissance phase and will begin considering land use alternatives which will be anchored around potential locations for a "town center" in which there was much interest and positive response during the outreach efforts i.e., that Diamond Bar should have a "there -there". The first phase identified three potential "town center' locations that will be the cornerstone of a broader land -use plan which will include a broader plan for mixed-use zones and other facilities of community interest where the land inventory and existing development conditions might accommodate such zones. The GPAC is not being asked to select a preferred alternative but rather receive more conceptual information to begin getting feedback from the members as to whether the process has started at the right point of departure and if so, what various aspects of the various alternatives seem to be more preferable after which the process will continue to work toward refinement of a "preferred" alternative. This portion of the project will move into 2018 and when a preferred land -use plan has been developed, staff will begin drafting the General Plan document with all of its goals, objectives and policies, and begin working on the EIR. This process is still on track for adoption of an updated General Plan in late spring/early summer of 2019. MAY 9, 2017 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As posted in the Agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Wolfe adjourned the regular meeting at 7:41 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 23rd day of May, 2017. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, �l Greg Gubman Community Development Director Raymo'noVoife, C irperson