HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/14/1991The Public Hearing was declared open.
C/Harmony requested that staff briefly review the
case.
CD/DeStefano explained that the owner of the
Specialty Equipment Marketing Association building,
located at 1575 S. Valley Vista Dr., within the
Gateway Center, wishes to subdivide the 4.39 acre
site into two lots in order to create a future
building.
Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by
C/Harmony and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue this
public hearing to the last meeting in November.
r-.�.
', i III I�
__,... �.._... _ ... ,_._. ... _.- — �._=.e�t'k tom. ___ _ - —_ _ — _ _ _ _. - __ —_—•- -
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 14, 1991
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Grothe called the meeting to order at 7:03
p.m. in the Walnut Valley School District Board
Meeting Room, 880 South Lemon Street, Diamond Bar,
California.
! PLEDGE OF
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by
ALLEGIANCE:
Don Schad.
ROLL CALL:
Commissioner Harmony, Commissioner Lin, Vice
Chairman MacBride, and Chairman Grothe.
Commissioner Schey arrived at 7:07 p.m.
Also present were Community Development Director
James DeStefano, Planning Technician Ann Lungu,
Deputy City Attorney Bill Curley, and Contract
Secretary Liz Myers.
MINUTES:
C/Harmony requested that the minutes be amended on
page 7, paragraph 2, to omit the word 10plan" from
Sept. 23, 1991
the sentence, "That plan did not occur."
Chair/Grothe requested that the minutes, on page 8,
i
properly reflect that he called the recess.
VC/MacBride requested that the minutes be amended
^'
on page 9, paragraph 8, to omit the sentence "He
explained that a use may not..."; and page 12,
paragraph 1, to properly spell "principal".
Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by
C/Harmony and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the
Minutes of September 23, 1991, as amended.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CD/DeStefano addressed the Commission regarding the
request from the applicant, Bryan A. Stirrat and
Tentative Parcel
Associates, to continue case TPM 22102 to November
Map 22102
25, 1991. Staff requested that the Commission
concur.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
C/Harmony requested that staff briefly review the
case.
CD/DeStefano explained that the owner of the
Specialty Equipment Marketing Association building,
located at 1575 S. Valley Vista Dr., within the
Gateway Center, wishes to subdivide the 4.39 acre
site into two lots in order to create a future
building.
Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by
C/Harmony and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue this
public hearing to the last meeting in November.
r-.�.
', i III I�
October 14, 1991
Page 2
i
,..,oning Code
PT/Lungu addressed the Commission regarding the
Amendment 91-5
proposal to amend certain provisions of the Los
(tree preserva-
Angeles County Code, as adopted by Diamond Bar,
tion)
pertaining to Tree Preservation. In preparing the
various drafts for the tree ordinance, research was
done using sections of ordinances from the cities,
indicated in the staff report, that seemed
compatible with our community for our purpose and
intent. It is suggested that the Commission
address the following four main issues regarding
the tree ordinance: the criteria to be used to
identify trees to be preserved; the minimum lot
size standards for activation of a tree
preservation ordinance; the replacement ratio and
size of replacement tree that would be appropriate
for the City's tree preservation ordinance; and the
City's desire to insure that a replacement tree
will receive the proper care and maintenance for a
designated period of time. It is recommended that
the Commission direct staff to prepare a "final"
ordinance with the conditions listed by staff.
CD/De5tefano stated that DCA/Curley has suggested
~' some clarifications of items in the tree ordinance.
Staff will review these at the end of discussion on
the four main issues. He suggested that the
Commission begin discussion regarding the criteria
to be utilized.
Chair/Grothe indicated that the criteria, for the
replacement of trees on single family properties,
should not be such that it is difficult to enforce.
C/Schey suggested that a 1:1 replacement ratio is
sufficient on a single family residential lot.
Chair/Grothe concurred that a 1:1 replacement ratio
is adequate, as long as it pertains to only the
trees in the preservation list, and not all types
of trees.
CD/DeStefano inquired if a 1:1 replacement ratio
would be adequate in a situation where the tree
removed was quite old.
C/Schey responded that, in that situation, no tree
could adequately replace it.
Chair/Grothe stated that the 4:1 replacement ratio
for the removal of a Heritage tree makes sense on a
hillside development, but not within a single
family residential yard.
October 14, 1991 Page 3
C/Harmony stated that the Pepper Tree should be
added to the Heritage Tree list.
vC/MacBride indicated the following concerns: the
definition of a Heritage tree is much too broad;
the problem of a developer choosing to pay the
fine, rather than leave a cluster of trees, must be
addressed; and the issue regarding public safety
vs. the preservation of a tree included in the
protective category, need be addressed.
C/Schey suggested differentiating between a
Heritage tree and a Significant tree. Heritage
trees are indigenous trees like the Oak, Sycamore,
Walnut, and Pepper. The Significant trees are
those that have reached some significance due to
maturity or historical value. Short of public
safety, there should be absolute preservation for
Heritage trees.
CD/DeStefano stated he has suggested to Staff
eliminating the term "Heritage Tree" because he
felt the ordinance was simply a tree preservation
ordinance beginning with whatever size, species or
combination we choose to establish as the minimum
.x tree which we desire to protect. During Staff's
research it became apparent that there is no common
definition as to what the term "heritage tree" or
"significant tree" means.
Chair/Grothe pointed out that the original
intention of this ordinance was to try to save the
majority of the tree groves mostly located in the
undeveloped areas of town. Therefore, the care of
trees, located on lots under a specified size,
should be left to the discretion of the homeowner.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Dan Buffington, residing at 2605 Indian Creek,
emphasized the importance of preserving trees now
for the future.
Don Schad, residing at 1824 Shady Wood Rd.,
suggested that the concern for tree size, per lot,
and tree types should be carefully considered by a
group of arborists, perhaps from a local college.
He explained that a Heritage tree is a tree that
has been able to sustain itself through it's own
natural environment. He also suggested that all
the species be protected that have a uniqueness to
them.
October 14, 1991 Page 4
F - -,
i ELL C/Schey suggested that the general tree population
should not be preserved until there's some reason
to believe that it is being threatened. The native
tree should be established as protected.
CD/DeStefano reminded the Commission that staff
needs specific direction regarding the four major
criteria issues previously indicated by staff.
VC/MacBride suggested defining Heritage trees and
Significant trees separately. Heritage trees would
include Oak, Sycamore, California Pepper, and Black
Walnut. Significant trees are trees that have a
definitive historical significance, have a factor
of age, and are outstanding in it's own individual
growth, per species.
I PD/DeStefano stated that the Commission needs to be
more specific with their definition of a
Significant tree. If the Commission is unable to
define it now, staff can, with the Commission's
approval, attempt to come up with a differentiation
between Heritage trees and significant trees, and
` return it back to the Commission in an ordinance
format. He then suggested that the Commission
�.. discuss if they want to differentiate any
replacement value to the Heritage tree, the
Significant tree, and all others trees.
C/Harmony inquired if the Commission is in
concurrence that single family residential lots are
exempt.
VC/MacBride suggested that the four stated
categories of a Heritage tree, plus the historic
attributes of a given tree, as well as significant
trees be placed in one category called "Heritage
Trees", and exempting those problems which arise on
single family residential lots of a certain size.
Chair/Grothe suggested, and the Commission
concurred on, the following: the four types of
Heritage trees, Oak, California Pepper, Walnut, and
Sycamore, are protected everywhere and can be
removed only by permit; all other trees that exceed
the 15' height, and 15" circumference criteria fall
in the Significant tree category and require a
permit if they are on nonresidential or undeveloped
residential property; trees with documented
historic significance require a permit; there is a
1:1 replacement ratio, for Heritage trees, on
existing developed residential properties; there is
a 4:1 replacement ratio for Significant trees on
non residential or undeveloped properties; the
October 14, 1991 Page 5
IL- replacement tree should be of an in-kind species;
there should be a steep penalty for trees removed
without a permit; the size of the replacement tree
is to be determined per the City of La Verne graph;
and anyone removing a tree should be required to
place a bond for insuring maintenance of the
replacement tree.
CD/DeStefano pointed out those items in the draft
! tree ordinance that will need further
clarification: the definition of a Heritage tree
will be expanded, and the definition of "multi -
trunk" and "stand" needs further clarification; the
verbiage regarding "Routine Maintenance" will be
moved to the Exception clause; verbiage will be
added to the Exception clause requiring that a
damaged tree, or diseased tree, be verified by a
certified arborist; in the Tree Permit Application,
we must assure that the plans indicate the existing
and the proposed structures; the amount of
photographs required must be clarified in the Tree
Permit Application; the verbiage, of item F of the
Tree Permit Application, will be changed to
indicate that "the applicant may be required to
provide..,"; add in the Tree Permit Application a
._, specified time period in which the director will
give a forthcoming decision; there also needs to be
a time period indicating when the Director's
decision will be received regarding the Tree
Pruning Permit, item B; the issue regarding public
safety vs. convenience will be addressed in the
pruning of a tree section; the word "unbalanced",
written on page 6, will be better defined; under
Emergency Waiver, defining the proper contacts will
be better stated; the word "acceptable" will be
changed to "approved" in the section Protection of
Existing Trees, section A & B; the phrase "unless
otherwise approved by the Director" will be added
to subsection E, of Protecting Existing Trees; and
the last paragraph of the section Enforcement, will
be removed.
VC/MacBride, concerned with developers that may
inadvertently or intentionally remove trees,
suggested that instead of imposing a penalty,
require that the trees be replaced in-kind and
maintained.
DCA/Curley stated that if a tree is removed,
accidently or otherwise, the developer could be
asked to stop the project, or meet the conditions
that have been established. There are ways to
reach the developer.
October 14, 1991 Page 6
I
L Don Schad suggested that the required period of
maintenance be extended from three years to five
years.
The Commission concurred with Don Schad's
suggestion to extend the period of maintenance to
five years.
Chair/Grothe, concerned with the administrative
burden on staff for enforcement, suggested that the
bond requirement for a single tree on a single
residence be excluded.
i
DCA/Curley suggested, and the Commission concurred,
to use a lien process rather than requesting a
deposit or bond up front.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
As directed by the Commission staff will renotice
the Public Hearing when the ordinance is ready to
be brought back to the Commission.
I, Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by
C/Harmony and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to request staff
to bring the ordinance back to the Commission the
first meeting in December of 1991.
INFORMATIONAL CD/DeStefano addressed the Commission regarding the
ITEMS: meetings schedule for the remainder of the year.
He explained that the meeting of November 11, 1991,
is a City Holiday. He also inquired if the
Commission desires to keep the meeting dates,
November 25th, December 9th and 23rd, as scheduled.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
The Commission concurred to drop the November lith
meeting, retain the November 25th meeting, and have
the two meetings in December as scheduled.
CD/DeStefano, informed the Commission that staff
met with the two local postmasters, from Walnut and
Pomona, to discuss the Postal Service delivery.
The Postmasters assured the City that they were
equally concerned. As a result of the discussion,
the following occurred: staff prepared a letter to
the Postmaster General of the United States and
received an apologetic letter from the local
(Walnut) postmaster; the local postmaster has also
prepared letters apologizing to the residents of
the west side of Diamond Bar, and stating that they
are working to resolve the postal problems; Staff
utilized the YMCA to hand deliver about 2500 copies
of a letter, prepared by staff, which includes the
�_—
n, ____
October 14, 1991 Page 7
_ letter sent to the Postmaster General, an
explanation regarding the postal situation, and an
announcement regarding the General Plan hearings
before GPAC, occurring this month.
PD/DeStefano stated that there were about 22
members of the community that attended the GPAC
meeting, held October 10, 1991, to specifically
discuss the Golf Course issue. The GPAC members
assured them that the intent and recommendation of
GPAC is to keep the Golf Course as long as
possible. However, if the Golf Course were to go,
then they would look towards some form of
commercial enterprise on that property. Most of
the people were satisfied. The GPAC then discussed
the Public Safety Element.
CD/DeStefano requested that anyone wishing to
attend the San Gabriel Valley Workshop, October 26,
1991, should contact staff.
VC/MacBride stated that thanks to the way the
Community Development Director has structured the
7GPAC meetings, GPAC is on an excellent tract to
begin reaffirming those elements that are
important, and weeding out those that are
objectionable.
C/Harmony concurred with VC/MacBride. He stated
that he was pleased to see that GPAC was voting on
every issue.
ADJOURNMENT:
C/Harmony expressed his concern for the traffic
hazard at the Montefino/Diamond Bar Blvd.
intersection. He asked the Chairman to pass the
Commission's concern to the Traffic and
Transportation Commission, and ask them to at least
review the possibility of installing a traffic
signal there.
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by C/Lin and
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 9:52
p.m.
T._,
Respectively,
IMa
es DeStefano,
Secretary/Planning Commission
_. ._._,.-.,,.....--�,-•_..,� �. .._�___wci+.i�M4,�Iwlikxd�MllmluL,Lewll��—_ �.____— ______` __._`_._ -_�_ _�-
I
October 14, 1991 Page 8
F—'u
�I Attest:
"Jck Grothe
Chairman