HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/27/1997A
PLANNING
COMMISSION
AGENDA
OCTOBER 27, 1997
7:00 P.M.
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Auditorium
21865 East Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, California
Chairman
Vice Chairman
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Joe Ruzlcka
Don Schad
Franklin Fong
Mike Goldenberg
Joe McManus
Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on file in the Planning
Division of the Dept. of Community & Development Services, located at 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190,
and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please call
(909) 396-5676 during regular business hours.
In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title 11 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the
City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or
accomodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting must inform the Dept. of Community &
Development Services at (909) 396-5676 a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting.
P: A&.LWAGENDA.GED
Please refrain from smoking, eating or drinking t The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper
in the Auditorium << U9NA
. ass" and encourages you to do the same.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
of the PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, October 27, 1997
AGENDA
N
CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 1p.m. ext Resolution No. 97-14
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
1. ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Joe Ruzicka, Vice Chairman Don
Schad, Mike Goldenberg, Franklin Fong, and Joe McManus
2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS:
This is the time and place for the general public to address the members of the Planning Commission on any
item that is within their jurisdiction„ allowing the public an opportunity to speak on non-public hearing and non -
agenda items. Please complete a Sneaker's Card for the recording SecreraU (Completi..n of this form is
voluntary). There is a five minute maximum time limit when addressing the Planning Commiccinn
3. CONSENT CALENDAR:
The following items listed on the consent calendar are considered routine and are approved
by a single motion. Consent calendar items may be removed from the agenda by request
of the Commission only:
3.1 Minutes of October 14, 1997
4. OLD BUSINESS: None
5. NEW BUSINESS:
5.1 Planned Sign Program No. 97-2 is a request for two wall mounted identification
signs at the Countryside Suites.
Property Location: 21951 Golden Springs Drive, Diamond Bar, CA
Property Owner/Applicant: Ayres Holding Group, 355 Bristol Street #A, Costa
Mesa, CA 92626
Environmental Assessment: The environmental evaluation shows that the proposed
project is categorically exempt pursuant to the guidelines of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15311(a).
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve
Planned Sign Program No. 97-2, Findings of Fact and conditions as listed within the
attached resolution.
OCTOBER 27, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 1
6. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
6.1 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50314, Conditional Use Permit No. 96-1, Oak
Tree Permit No. 96-1 and Zone Change 96-1 (pursuant to Code Sections Title 21,
and Title 22.56.215, 22.26 Part 16 and 22.16 Part 2) are requests to approve a 15
lot subdivision on approximately 44 acres. The average lot size will be 2.92 acres.
Six of the proposed lots are part of two approved tracts. Therefore, VTTM 50314's
development will result in a net increase of 13 residential lots. The project site is
within Los Angeles County Significant Ecological Area No. 15. The Zone Change
will convert the current zoning of R-1,200 and A-2-2 to R-1-40,000. (Continued from
October 14, 1997.)
Project Address: Southeast of the most southerly intersection of
Steeplechase Lane and Wagon Train Lane.
Project Owner/Applicant: Kurt Nelson, Windmill Development, 3480 Torrance
Blvd., Suite 300, Torrance, CA 90503
Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has determined that an Environmental
Impact Report is required for this project. An Environmental Impact Report No. 97-1
(SCH No. 96071104) has been prepared and is available for public review.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the
public hearing for VTTM 50314, Zone Change No. 96-1, Conditional Use Permit No.
96-1, Oak Tree Permit No. 96-1 and Mitigation Monitoring Program and EIR No.
97-1 (SCH 96-0711104).
6.2 Draft Development Code (Zoning Code Amendment ZCA 97-1 and Negative
Declaration No. 97-3) Review of all Articles of the Draft Development Code, Draft
Subdivision Code, and Draft Design Guidelines.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss the
information contained within the staff report addressing sign regulations, view
protection, and Negative Declaration No. 97-3. and direct staff as appropriate.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
8. PLANNING COMMISSION .ITEMS: Scheduling of next Planning Commission Meeting
9. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
OCTOBER 27, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 2
10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
CITY COUNCIL - Tuesday, November 4 & 18, 1997 - 6:30 p.m. - AQMD Auditorium,
21865 E. Copley Drive
PLANNING COMMISSION - Wednesday, November 12, 1997 and Tuesday November 25,
1997 - 7:00 p.m. - AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive
TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION - November 13, 1997 - 7:00 - AQMD Board Hearing
Room, 21865 E. Copley Drive.
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - Thursday, November 20, 1997 - 7:00 p.m. -
AQMD Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Drive.
TOWN HALL MEETING - November 22, 1997 - 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon - Economic
Revitalization Plan - Castle Rock Elementary Multipurpose Room (3975 Castle Rock Road,
Diamond Bar)
11. ADJOURNMENT: October 28, 1997
OCTOBER 27, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 3
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 14, 1997
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Ruzicka called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. in the
South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 218.65 East Copley
Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by River McIntoush.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Ruzicka, Vice Chairman Schad, and
Commissioners Fong, Goldenberg and McManus
Also Present: Deputy City Manager James DeStefano, Senior
Planner Catherine Johnson, Associate Planner
Ann Lungu and Planning Technician Susan Cole.
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: Bob Zirbes, Diamond Bar
Improvement Association, asked the Planning Commission to
reschedule its October 28, 1997 meeting in order for the
Commission's three City Council candidates to participate in the
Diamond Bar Chamber of Commerce forum.
Sam Saffari spoke about the withdrawn SunCal project (agenda Item
6.1). He asked the Planning Commission to establish a moratorium
on single family residential developments in the City of Diamond
Bar.
Chair/Ruzicka asked that the record reflect that Mr. Saffari was
allowed additional speaking time for purposes of this item.
River McIntoush talked about the large amount of traffic on the
City's streets.
Gary Neeley, Executive Director, Diamond Bar Caucus, stated that
with respect to agenda. Item 6.2, he received information that a
Planning Commissioner':; wife is working for Windmill Development.
If a regional bypass road was built around Tonner Canyon, it would
be financed using Windmill Development monies. Mr. Neeley said
that if the information is true, he feels the Commissioner who has
spoken against building in Tonner Canyon and against building a
regional bypass road should recuse himself from discussions
regarding the project. .
DCM/DeStefano responding to public comment, stated that the SunCal
project has been withdrawn by the applicant. If the applicant
chooses to reapply, property owners surrounding the proposed
development will be noticed via the public hearing notice
procedure.
DCM/DeStefano indicated that issues related to traffic impacts
effecting Diamond Bar are largely a result of neighboring city
Ta
OCTOBER 14, 1997 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISS16
buildouts. The City continues to mitigate the cumulative effect of
projects within adjacent communities such as Chino Hills and the
City of Industry.
DCM/DeStefano stated that from time to time, Planning Commissioners
and City Council Members may have a conflict of interest on a
particular project. They are responsible for disclosing the
conflict of interest with legal counsel and for recusing themselves
from any discussion and decision making process related to the
project. Commissioners, Council Members and staff receive regular
updates regarding the status of the law regarding conflict of
interest issues. Questions should be forwarded to the City
Attorney.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. Minutes of September 23, 1997.
2. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-3, A REQUEST
TO ALLOW THE SALE OF BEER AND WINE IN AN EXISTING MINI -MART AT
THE CHEVRON GAS STATION AT 21324 PATHFINDER ROAD, DIAMOND BAR,
CALIFORNIA.
C/Goldenberg moved, C/McManus seconded, to approve Consent
Calendar Items 1.1 and 1.2. The motion was carried 5-0 with
the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Goldenberg, McManus, Fong,
VC/Schad, Chair/Ruzicka
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
Following discussion
Commission meeting, the
matters to October 27,
OLD BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS: - None
regarding the October 28, 1997 Planning
Commission concurred to continue unresolved
1997.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. General Plan Amendment No. 96-2, Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 52267, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 52308,
Conditional Use Permit No. 96-13, Conditional Use Permit
No. 96-16, Oak Tree Permit No. 96-3 and Oak Tree Permit
No. 96-5. Pursuant to Code Sections Title 21 -
Subdivision, 22.56.215 -Part 1, Hillside Management Area,
Hillside Management Ordinance No. 7 (1992) and 22.26 -Part
16 -oak Tree Permit, the project request consists of the
following:
a) VTTM No. 52267, Conditional use Permit No. 96-13 and
Oak Tree Permit No. 96-3 is proposed for 130 single
OCTOBER 14, 1997 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSIO
family detached residential dwelling units clustered on
approximately 65 acres of a 339.3 acre site. The
development is proposed as a private, gated community.
Lots will range in size from 6,000 square feet to 26,000
square feet. The gross proposed density is 0.4 dwelling
units per acre with a net density of approximately 2.06
dwelling units per acre; and
b) VTTM No. 52308, General Plan Amendment No. 96-2,
Conditional Ilse permit No. 96-16 and Oak Tree Permit No.
96-5 is proposed for 60 single-family detached
residential dwelling units clustered on approximately
36.7 acres of the 86.3 acre site. The development is
proposed as a private, gated community. Lots will range
in size from 8,000 square feet to 41,750 square feet.
The gross proposed density is 0.7 dwelling units per acre
with a net density of approximately 1.63 dwelling units
per acre.
Additionally, the project includes a General Plan
Amendment to allow additional residential development in
excess of 130 dwelling units within General Plan Planning
Area 2, and the removal of deed and map restricts and the
potential for acquisition of publicly owned property
adjacent to Pantera Park.
Property Address: VTTM No. 52267 is generally located
east of Diamond Bar Boulevard and
north of Grand Avenue. VTTM No.
52308 is generally located northeast
of Pantera Drive and south of
Bowcreek Drive. City of Diamond
Bar, California.
Applicant: SunCal Companies, 550 W.
Orangethorpe Avenue, Placentia,
California 92806
The Developer has requested that the project be
withdrawn. Staff recommends that. the letter of
withdrawal be received and filed.
2. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50314, Conditional Use
Permit No. 96-1, Oak Tree Permit No. 96-1 and Zone Change
96-1 (pursuant to Code Sections Title 21, and Title
22.56.215, 2:.26 Part 16 and 22.16 Part 2) are requests
to approve a 15 lot subdivision on approximately 44
acres. The average lot size will be 2.92 acres. Six of
the proposed. lots are part of two approved tracts.
Therefore, VTTM 50314's development will result in a net
increase of 13 residential lots. The project site is
within Los Angeles County Significant Ecological Area No.
15. The Zone Change will convert the current zoning of
R-1-20,000 and A-2-2 to R-1-40,000. Continued from
August 26, 1997.
OCTOBER 14, 1997
Project Address:
1
PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSF-U
Southeast of the most southerly
intersection of Steeplechase
Lane and Wagon Train Lane.
Project Owner/Applicant: Kurt Nelson, Windmill
Development, 3480 Torrance
Boulevard, Suite 300, Torrance,
CA 90503
Due to the applicant's request for a continuance to
October 28, 1997, staff recommends that the Planning
Commission continue the public hearing to October 27,
1997.
Chair/Ruzicka reopened the public hearing.
Gary Neeley asked VC/Schad if his wife is or ever has
been employed by the project developer.
VC/Schad responded "no".
C/McManus moved, C/Fong seconded, to continue Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 50314, Conditional Use Permit No.
96-1, Oak Tree Permit No. 96-1 and Zone Change 96-1 to
October 27, 1997. The motion was carried 5-0.
3. General Plan Amendment No. 96-1, Tentative Parcel Map No.
24646, conditional Use Permit No. 96-14 and Oak Tree
Permit No. 96-4 (pursuant to Code Sections Title 21 -
Subdivision, Hillside Management Ordinance No. 7 (1992)
and Part 16-22.26 Oak Tree Permit). The subject request
proposes to change the General Plan land use designation
for 5.88 acres within a 132 acre parcel located in a
gated community identified as "The Country Estates". The
land use designation will change from Open Space to Rural
Residential. The remaining 126.12 acres will continue as
Open Space. The proposal includes: subdividing the 5.88
acres into four lots, each a minimum of one acre, for the
eventual development of four single family custom homes;
the removal and replacement of oak and walnut trees; and
the removal of a map restriction.
Property Address: Easterly side of Blaze Trail across
from the intersection of Timbertop
Lane.
Property Owner/ Diamond Bar Country Estates
Association,
Applicant: 22615 Lazy Meadow Drive, Diamond
Bar, California 91765
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue
the public hearing on General Plan Amendment No. 96-1,
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24646, Hillside Management
OCTOBER 14, 1997 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSI� FT
Conditional Use Permit No. 96-14 and Oak Tree Permit No.
96-4 to January 27, 1998.
Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing.
Art O'Daly asked if the Planning Commission received the
requested information regarding "The Country Estates"
Homeowners Association survey. He asked if there is a
reason this item is being continued to January 27, 1998.
DCM/DeStefano explained that the applicant requested this
matter be continued to January 27, 1997.
AP/Lungu responded to C/Fong that the applicant indicated
that approximately 300 homeowners were surveyed. Of
those who responded, 80 percent were in favor of
proceeding with the development by obtaining revenue from
the project's, sale to build new recreational facilities,
and 20 percent were in favor of a personal assessment.
Frank Shu spoke in favor of the project.
C/McManus moved, VC/Schad seconded, to continue General
Plan Amendment No. 96-1, Tentative Parcel Map No. 24646,
Conditional Use Permit No. 96-14 and Oak Tree Permit No.
96-4 to January 27, 1998. The motion was carried 4-1
with the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: McManus, VC/Schad, Goldenberg,
Chair/Ruzicka
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
4. Draft Development Code (Zoning Code Amendment 2CA 97-1
and Negative Declaration No. 97-3). Review of all
Articles of the Draft Development Code, Draft Subdivision
Code, and Draft Design Guidelines.
DCM/DeStefano explained that the Subdivision Code will be
presented at a future Commission meeting as a separate
document.
Chair/Ruzicka reminded staff that the following items
were discussed and agreed upon by the Commission: Adult
Businesses - the Commission concurred that the code
should be the most restrictive code permitted by law;
Signs - that signs should include the maximum amount of
English permitted under the law; View Protection - the
Commission concurred that the Laguna Beach Ordinance was
appropriate to Diamond Bar; and, with respect to Tree
Preservation and Protection, Item A. under Exemptions on
Page III -131 was revised to the following language (See
August 26, 1997 Planning Commission minutes): "Trees,
except those: designated by the City Council as a
historical or cultural tree, and trees required to be
OCTOBER 14, 1997
PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSI I
preserved, relocated or planted as a condition of
approval of a discretionary permit, located on all
developed properties prior to adoption of this
Development Code."
SP/Johnson presented the updated Draft Development Code
and explained the document revisions.
C/Goldenberg said he believes the Commission agreed to
require 4" inch digits with respect to address numbers
(Article III - Page 117, Table 3-X, Section I "Additional
Requirements").
DCM/DeStefano responded to Chair/Ruzicka that the 4"
requirement does not effect any other portion of the
Development Code.
C/McManus asked about the standard required for curbside
digits.
Following discussion, the Commission concurred to require
910" x 1910" (nine feet by nineteen feet) commercial
parking spaces with no provisions for compact parking
spaces.
Bob Zirbes said he supports the Commission's
recommendation for larger parking stalls.
Ed MacDonald suggested the Commissioner consider a to
foot residential side yard setback to allow for
additional on-site parking.
DCM/DeStefano referred Mr. MacDonald to Page II -11 of the
proposed Development Code. The table suggests a minimum
residential side yard setback of five (5) feet on one
side and 10 feet on the other side with a minimum
requirement of 15 feet between dwelling units. In
addition, a minimum three (3) feet safety clearance is
required.
C/Fong asked that cross-references - pages to figures and
figures to pages - be cited in connection with (Figures).
ie, Page III -13, 22.16.090 Setback Regulations and
Exceptions 4. b., last line (Figure 3-3).
C/Fong asked that dimensions be included in the Figures.
ie, figure at.the top of Page III -14 appears to lack an
indication of a five (51) Imaginary Rear Property Line
setback.
C/Fong asked that the following be in Paragraph 4.under.
B. Grading standards on Page III -44: "Exploratory
trenches and excess roads should be properly backfilled
and erosion treatment and revegetation be provided." The
Commission concurred.
4 OCTOBER 14, 1997
PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSIQ
C/Fong asked that ", except individual detached single-
family residences" be removed from the first sentence of
A. under Applicability on Page III -65. The Commission
concurred.
C/Fong again discussed Paragraph A. under 22.38.060
Exemptions on Page III -148. Following discussion, the
Commission referred to the August 26, 1997 minutes which
state the Commission's concurrence that the language read
as follows: "Trees, except those designated by the City
Council as a historical or cultural tree, and trees
required to be preserved, relocated or planted as a
condition of approval of a discretionary permit, located
on all developed properties prior to adoption of this
Development Code:"
VC/Schad asked that consistent with the General Plan,
"arroyo" be included in Paragraph B. under 22.38.030 -
Protected Trees so that it reads: "Native oak, walnut,
sycamore, arroyo willow, and naturalized California
Pepper trees with a DBH of eight inches or greater."
DCM/DeStefano responded that staff will check the
paragraph and advise if the insertion is appropriate.
The Commission concurred with C/Fong to change the second
sentence of the second paragraph entitled DBH under D.
Definitions, "D". to read as follows: 'The diameter of
a tree trunk measured in inches at a height of 4.5 feet
at the averacle point of the natural grade, etc."
VC/Schad again asked that Paragraph 3, Item B. under
22.38.130 - Tree Replacement Relocation Standards be
changed to include certified arborist.
DCM/DeStefano referred VC/Schad to the Definitions
Chapter Article VI, Page VI -5 of the Development Code.
C/Goldenberg reminded the Commission that it had
requested staff to provide them with a copy of the Laguna
Beach View Protection Ordinance for possible adoption.
DCM/DeStefano responded that the matter was most recently
discussed by the Laguna Beach City Council on October 7,
1997 for first reading of the Ordinance. The council was
concerned that the proposed ordinance was a potential
"bureaucratic nightmare". He indicated staff will review
the matter and present the Commission with an update at
its October 27, 1997 meeting.
VC/Schad moved, C/McManus seconded, to continue the Draft
Development Code, Draft Citywide Design Guidelines, and
Negative Declaration No. 97-3, and, if appropriate, adopt
the Resolutions recommending City Council approval, and
OCTOBER 14, 1997 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISS
continue the Hearing Subdivision Code review to October
27, 1997.
PUBLIC HEARING - None
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS:
DCM/DeStefano responded to C/Goldenberg that due to VC/Schad's
request for information regarding the Department of Fish and Game's
Code 1600 Permitting Process, as is customary, copies were provided
to all Commissioners.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
DCM/DeStefano reported that at its October 7, 1997 meeting, the
City Council approved distribution of a bid package for
construction of traffic signals at Golden Springs Drive at
Calbourne Drive, and Diamond Bar Boulevard at Palomino Drive.
DCM/DeStefano stated he approved two new residential construction
projects for JCC Development and a residential addition within "The
Country Estates".
DCM/DeStefano indicated that the Traffic and Transportation
Commission is continuing to pursue the School Traffic Study.
DCM/DeStefano revealed that at its October 7, 1997 meeting, the
City Council agreed to appoint two City Council Members, two Parks
and Recreation Commissioners, and two members from each school
district to a Parks Master Plan priority and funding implementation
plan subcommittee.
DCM/DeStefano reported that the California Legislature approved and
the Governor signed Assembly Bill 1226 co-sponsored by Assemblyman
Miller which allows Diamond Bar to receive an additional two year's
subvention which amounts to approximately $2,000,000.
SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS as listed in the agenda.
OCTOBER 14, 1997 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSIa1N,RA T
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the Planning
Commission, Chair/Ruzicka adjourned the meeting at 10:02 p.m. to
Monday, October 27, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. in the South Coast Air
Quality Management District Auditorium.
Respectfully Submitted,
Deputy City Manager James DeStefano
Attest:
Joe Ruzicka
Chairman
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:
REPORT DATE:
MEETING DATE:
CASE/FILE NUMBER:
APPLICATION REQUEST:
PROPERTY LOCATION:
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT
BACKGROUND:
City of Diamond Bar
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff ATort
5.1
October 23, 1997
October 27, 1997
Planned Sign Program No. 97-2
To install two wall mounted
identification signs.
21951 Golden Springs Drive
Ayres Holding Group
355 Bristol Street #A
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
The property owner/applicant, Ayres Holding Group, and their agent,
Promotional Signs, are requesting approval of Planned Sign Program No.
97-2 (pursuant to Sign Ordinance No. 5A (1991), Section 110.B. Planned
Sign Program) for two wall -mounted identification signs.
The project site, located at 21951 Golden Springs Drive, is
approximately 4.7 acres. It is currently being developed with a three
story, 106 room hotel, with approximately 300 feet of frontage,
approved through Conditional Use Permit 96-4. It has a General Plan
designation of General Commercial (C) and it is within the
Neighborhood Business iOne(C-2-BE). Generally the following zones and
uses surround the Project site: to the west and north are the Orange
(57) and Pomona (60) Freeways; to the east is the Diamond Bar Golf
Course and Open Space (OS) zone and to the south is the Gateway
Corporate Center and Commercial Manufacturing (CM) zone.
ANALYSIS:
Pursuant to the City of Diamond Bar Sign Ordinance, the basic sign
program allows one wall. -mounted identification sign per outer wall of
a single use building, to a maximum total area of 125 square feet.
Due to the size of the hotel building, the applicant is proposing
larger signs than would. be allowed under the basic sign program.
However, a Planned Sign. Program, allowing a maximum aggregate sign
area up to 200 square feet, may be approved for single use buildings
with 200 or more feet cf frontage when complying with the following
development standards:
1. No single wall sign so approved exceeds 125 square feet and
no freestanding sign exceeds 24 square feet, except as
stated by the provisions of the Ordinance.
2. Any two signs placed on the same frontage which taken
together exceed 125 square feet shall be separated by no
less than one-half the length of the building frontage.
According to the City's Sign Ordinance, Section 106.E, the area of a
sign encompasses the "total exterior surface of a sign within the
single continouous perimeter of not more than eight (8) straight lines
enclosing the extreme limits of writing, representation, emblem or any
other figure... together with any material or color forming any
integral part of the display." Each of the two proposed wall mounted
identification signs are 98.5 square feet in sign face area for an
aggregate sign area of 197 square feet. The proposed sign face area
is composed of individual, internally illuminated channel letters.
The letters are to be fabricated from aluminum with 5 inch deep bronze
returns and translucent red acrylic faces. This color is compatible
with the white stucco exterior walls and the red/beige roof tile of
the hotel.
The type face of all text, "Country Side Suites", will be Bookman
Bold. The words "Country" and "Suites" are proposed to be
approximately 2.6 feet tall with the middle word "Side" to be
approximately half that size at 1.3 feet tall, for a total height of
approximately seven feet. The area of the sign is in compatible scale
with the facade of the hotel. The proposed text style is compatible
with the hotel facility's contemporary architectural style and is
harmonious with the other signs in the area.
Both of the proposed wall -mounted identification signs will be located
adjacent to the Pomona/Orange Freeway, perpendicular to each other;
one sign on the western side of the hotel and one sign on the northern
side of the hotel.
This planned sign program does not include a monument sign or any
other secondary, directional signs.
The Public Works Division and the Building and Safety Division have
reviewed this project. Their recommendations are a component of the
draft resolution.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
The environmental evaluation shows that the proposed project is
categorically.exempt pursuant to the guidelines of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15311(a).
2
I
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
A Planned Sign Program reviewed by the Planning Commission does not
require a public hearing.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Planned Sign
Program No. 97-2, Findings of Fact and conditions of approval as
listed within the attached resolution.
REQUIRED PLANNED SIGN 'PROGRAM FINDINGS:
1. The proposed sign will be legible to the intended audience under
normal viewing conditions, based on its proposed location and
design of its visual elements.
2. The proposed sign will not obscure from view or detract from
existing signs, based on its location, shape, color, and other
similar considerations.
3. The proposed sign will be in harmony with adjacent properties and
surroundings, based on the size, shape, height, color, placement,
and the proximity of such proposed sign to adjacent properties
and surroundings.
4. The proposed sign will be designed, constructed and located so
that it will not constitute a hazard to the public.
5. The proposed sign is not designed to have the advertising thereon
maintained primarily to be viewed from a freeway, unless
specifically provided for under the terms of the sign ordinance.
Prepared by:
Susan Cole
Planning Technician
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution of Approval;
2. Exhibit "A" - site: plan, elevations and written sign criteria dated
October 27, 1997;
3. Application.
3
DRAFT
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 97 -XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR APPROVING PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 97-2 AND
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION SECTION 15311(x), A REQUEST FOR TWO WALL
MOUNTED IDENTIFICATION SIGNS FOR COUNTRY SIDE SUITES AT 21951
GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA.
A. RECITALS.
1. The property owner/applicant, Ayres Holding Group, and
agent, Promotional Signs, have filed an application for
Planned Sign Program No. 97-2 for the installation of
two wall mounted identification signs located at 21951
Golden Springs Drive, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County,
California, as described above in the title of this
Resolution . Hereinafter in this Resolution, the
subject Planned Sign Program shall be referred to
as the "Application."
2. On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was
established as a duly organized municipal organization
of the State of California.. On said date, pursuant to
the requirements of the California Government Code
Section 57376, Title 21 and 22, the City Council of the
City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No. 14
(1989), thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as
the ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21
and 22 of the: Los Angeles County Code contains the
Development Code of the County of Los Angeles now
currently applicable to development applications,
including thEa subject Application, within the City of
Diamond Bar.
3. Action was taken on the subject application as to its
consistency with.the General Plan. It has been
determined that the proposed project is consistent with
the General Plan.
4. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar
conducted a meeting on October 27, 1997 regarding the
Application.
5. Pursuant to Sign Ordinance No. 5A (1991), a Planned
Sign Program does not require a public hearing or
notification of property owners.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by
the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as
follows:
1. This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds
that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. The Planning Commission hereby determines that the
project identified above in this Resolution is
Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, and
the guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to
Section 15311(a) of Article 19 of Chapter 3, Title
14 of the California Code of Regulations.
3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds
and determines that, having considered the record
as a whole, including the findings set forth
below, and changes and alterations which have been
incorporated into and conditioned upon the
proposed project set forth in the application,
there is no evidence before this Planning
Commission that the project proposed herein will
have the potential of an adverse effect on
wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the
wildlife depends. Based upon substantial
evidence, this Planning Commission hereby rebuts
the presumption of adverse effects contained in
Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the California
Code of Regulations.
4. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth
herein, this Planning Commission hereby finds as
follows:
(a) The project relates to a developed parcel
approximately 4.7 acres in size located at
21951 Golden_Springs Drive, Diamond Bar,
California. There is a 106 room hotel
currently under construction on the project
site.
(b) The project site has a General Plan land use
designation of General Commercial (C). It is
within the Neighborhood Business (C -2 -BE) Zone.
(c) Generally, the following zones and uses
surround the project site: to the west and
2
north are the Orange(57) and Pomona (60)
Freeways; to the east is the Diamond Bar Golf
Course and Open Space (OS) zone; and to the
south is the Gateway Corporate Center and
Commercial Manufacturing (CM) zone.
(d) The proposed project is a request to install
two wall mounted identification signs on two
sides of the newly constructed Country Side
Suites Hotel. One sign is proposed to be
mounted on the western facade of the hotel and
one sign is proposed for the northern facade of
the hotel. The signs will have a maximum
height of approximately seven feet (71), an
individual sign face area of 98.5 feet and a
cummulative area of 197 square feet.
(e) The proposed wall mounted signs will not be in
substantial conflict with the adopted General
Plan.
The General Plan requires that a sign concept
address the following: scale in relationship
to the building, landscaping and readability.
It also requires that the sign be integrated
into the overall site and architectural design
theme of the site's development.
The proposed wall mounted signs, 98.5 square
feet in area, will be in scale with the
building in that the building is three stories
in height with a frontage of approximately 300
feet. The placement of the signs at the top of
the corner towers of the hotel will allow for
clear readability as well as the integration
of the sign into the overall architectural
design of the hotel.
PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM FINDINGS:
(f) The: proposed wall mounted signs will be legible
to the intended audience under normal viewing
conditions, based on its proposed location and
design of its visual elements.
The proposed wall mounted signs will be located
adjacent and perpendicular to the Pomona
Freeway (60) and the Orange Freeway (57),
installed approximately 32 feet high on the
side of the hotel. This placement will allow
for clear identification of the Country Side
Suites Hotel when traveling north or south on
the freeways. Additionally, the internally
illuminated lettering, Bookman Bold typeface,
will allow for easy reading.
(g) The proposed wall mounted signs will not
obscure from view or detract from existing
signs, based on their location, shape, color
and other similar considerations.
The proposed wall -mounted identification signs
will not obscure the view or detract from
existing signs in that there are no other
freeway -oriented signs within 800 feet.
Additionally, the size, 98.5 square feet in
area, complies with the standards within the
Planned Sign Program for single use buildings
with 200 feet or more of frontage.
(h) The proposed wall mounted identification signs
will be in harmony with adjacent properties and
surroundings, based on the size, shape, height,
color, placement and the proximity of such
proposed signs to adjacent properties and
surroundings.
The proposed wall -mounted signs are of a
contemporary design and will be compatible with
adjacent properties and surroundings in that
there are few signs of this height within the
area. The nearest similar sign is on the
Clarion Hotel, wall mounted and 125 square feet
in area, located approximately 1000 feet south
of the project site. This sign is also visible
from the freeways.
(i) The proposed wall -mounted identification signs
will be designed, constructed and located so
that they will not constitute a hazard to the
public.
The proposed wall -mounted signs have been
reviewed by the Building and Safety Division
and are required to conform to State and Local
Building Codes. Additionally, required plan
check review and on-site inspections by the
Building and Safety Division will ensure that
the proposed wall -mounted signs will not
constitute a hazard to the public.
4
5. Based cn the findings and conclusions set forth
above, the Planning Commission hereby approves the
Application subject to the following conditions:
(a) The project shall substantially conform to site
plan elevations and written sign criteria
collectively labeled as Exhibit "A" dated
October 27, 1997, as submitted and approved by
the Planning Commission.
(b) The subject site shall be maintained in a
condition which is free of debris both during
and after the construction, addition, or
implementation of the entitlement granted
herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and
refuse, whether during or subsequent to
construction shall be done only by the property
owner, applicant or by duly permitted waste
contractor, who has been authorized by the City
to provide collection, transportation, and
disposal of solid waste from residential,
commercial, construction, and industrial areas
within the City. It shall be the applicant's
obligation to insure that the waste contractor
utilized has obtained permits from the City of
Diamond Bar to provide such services.
(c) Plans shall conform to State and Local Building
Codes (i.e. 1994 editions of the Uniform
Building Code and 1993 edition of the National
Electrical Code) as well as the State Energy
Code.
(d) Proposed signs wall attachment shall be
enclineered to meet wind loads of 80 m.p.h. with
an exposure "C".
(e) Sign shall be U.L. approved.
(f) No electrical conduit shall be exposed.
(g) The Planned Sign does not include a monument
sign or any other secondary signs.
(h) The: applicant shall comply with all Planning
Division, Building and Safety Division and
Public Works Division requirements.
(i) This grant is valid for one year and
construction shall commence within this one
year period or the grant shall expire.
G
WA
(j) This grant shall not be effective for any
purpose until the permittee and owner of the
property involved (if other than the permittee)
have filed, within fifteen (15) days of
approval of this grant, at the City of Diamond
Bar Planning Division, their Affidavit of
Acceptance stating that they are aware of and
agree to accept all the conditions of this
grant. Further, this grant shall not be
effective until the permittee pays any
remaining City processing fees.
(k) If the Department of Fish and Game determines
that Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 applies
to the approval of this project, then the
applicant shall remit to the City, within
five days of this grant's approval, a cashier's
check, payable to the County of Los Angeles, of
$25.00 for a documentary handling fee in
connection with Fish and Game Code
requirements. Furthermore, if this project is
not exempt from a filing fee imposed because
the project has more than a de minimis impact
on fish and wildlife, the applicant shall also
pay to the Department of Fish and Game any such
fee and any fine which the Department
determines to be owed.
The Planning Commission shall:
(a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution;
and
(b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this
Resolution, by certified mail to:
The Ayres Holding Group, 355 Bristol Street #A,
Costa Mesa, CA 92626.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27th DAY OF OCTOBER, 1997 BY
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
Joe Ruzicka, Chairman
I, James DeStefano, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby
certify that the forgoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed
and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar,
0
9
at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th
day of October, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
James DeStefano, Secretary
�7-
-
r-
71a3JC��jI
Aug -08-97 04:06p City.�f Diamond Bar
CJrrV OF DI MOND BAR
COMMUMTY DZVZLIMMM DBPARZ` E 1T
T 1660 F. Copby Drive Sviw 190
(909)M.3676 Fat (909' 1.32)7
SIGN VATWW A> MWATtON
Ayplit.aot
�— -(We wows W
peon*
Dam Rev'd /
y" S Co -
Racsipt/► 3 �-
ttY ld.Z_
Applitaat't A;artt
d
(Last a mm rsmu
-
Nth: )t is the app)ieawt'f refpoeeit+i)itrto aottfy tis Gtee>t»uryty Dsvetot,�ewt Director io wricis of any tbaust
of the principwk iwmlved Jurist the procowAst of this cars.
(Aetaoh +sw vq ONW, if a.wuary. iso odkg mwm, a4618ss, Qw 64ftflarp or mm"n ar larmraaspa, joint vtaWrtc M14
duvabn of ear"094.0
comw t. t wig& Sher t osr the owner of the henfa dstrnfbed pgfl& amd peAw f)re ROPOI +oat to files thin
Si4nsJ �L� � `Gc•� ` G7 ..� � Dati /ip �_
(AU
Cerstfj[ew10 a: 4 AS v4 dersidatlr iesrvby eeoq& aaderre.otq► t►vrnjury Neer the try mottorr hemla provWd b
eopmct to the best oj/ mW krsowk*r
priat Neuse
(App)lsaat wr Atm)
Sit"dDow
(Apphv ►t oa Av*Q
UMMivn
(Street address ur tnet aad lot svw"I
7.omnf HrtM
Un sttrttbu *ism and t"s of ogab) rstpwdW.
($4+wi•, l • It, x 9• flowtaniiot, okmh% twat tio" - 6 A, bid
I - 3' 0.74' wait stip)
U[AIM11U QKK�R
C;1:CY` OF DLA -MOND BAR
COl`DAW DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190
(909)396-5676 Fax (909)861-3117
SIGN REVIEW APPLICATION
Record Owner
Name C (.' Lov k?�
(Last nam first)
Address " 5 L
City A�i/ff
Zip/�/
Phone( ) ��`T -6-0 6 cj(e
case,7 Y7 -3c
Date Recd
Fee $ . O o
Receipt#
3r IV—
By
Applicant / Applicant's Agent
(Last ame first) (Last name first)
ysJ Y /�lcr� �i�•�/o5
Phone( ) Phone(
NOTE: It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Community Development Director in writing of any change
of the principals involved during the processing of this case.
(Attach separate sheet, if necessary, including names, addresses, and signatures of members of partnerships, joint ventures, and
directors of corporations.)
Consent: I certify that I am the owner of the herein described property and permit the applicant to file this
request.
Signed - .��c" rd oPaf� Date
(All record owners)
Certification: I, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information herein provided is
correct to the best of my knowledge.
Print Name
ppliea or' Agent)
Signed
y�� Date
(Ap cant or gent)
Location
(Street address or tract and lot number)
Zoning HNM
List number size and type of sign(s) requested.
(Example: 2 - 8' x 9' Freestanding, double faced signs - 6 ft. high
1 - 3' x 24' Wall sign)
iui 23/iyyr it): 34 11435835JU PPUMUSIGr1S cHa_
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioners
FROM: Ann J. Lungu, Associate Planner 4 -
SUBJECT: Continued public hearing for Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 50314, Zone Change No. 96-1,
Conditional Use Permit No. 96-1 and Oak Tree
Permit No. 96-1.
DATE: October 22, 1997
The referenced project was presented to the Planning Commission on
July 22, 1997. At that time, the public hearing was opened.
Comments were received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report
No. 97-1 (SCH 96-071104) and the project entitlement. Since July
22, 1997, the project's public hearing was continued several times
per the applicant's request.
At the October 14, 1997 Planning Commission meeting, the
Commission continued the project's public hearing to October 27,
1997. Attached is a correspondence from the applicant, Kurt
Nelson of Windmill Development Company requesting a continuance to
November 25, 1997.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the public
hearing for VTTM 50314, Zone Change No. 96-1, Conditional Use
Permit No. 96-1, Oak Tree Permit No. 96-1 and Mitigation
Monitoring Program and EIR No. 97-1 (SCH 96-0711104).
Attachments:
1. Correspondence from the applicant, dated October 21, 1997.
'AvF 2, 2
LLC Windmill, Inc.
3480 Torrance Blvd., Ste. 300
Torrance, CA 90503
tdePh~ (310) 540-3990
facsimile (310) 326-7133
October 21,1997
City of Diamond Bar
Mr. James DeStefarto, Community Development Director
21660 East Copley Drive, Ste. 190
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
RE- VIM 50314 - Planning Commission hearings
Dear Mr. DeStefano,
We respectfully request that the above referenced matter be continued to the
November 25, 1997 Planning Commission agenda, or as
We 1ecognize that ibis is not the first soon thereafter as practical.
time we have made such postponement
request We therefore agree not to assert any applic&tion rights we may
�ie2Y Processing, Whether under the California EnvironmentalQuality eve as to
Subdivision Map Act, or the Permit Streamlining Act, with respet to the delay e
re"ting from our continuted postponement.
Sincerely,
Kw -t Nelson
Windmill Development Company
cc Ann Lungu
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
To: Chairman and Planning Commissio r
From: James DeStefano, Deputy City M
Subject: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULE or
November and December 1997
Date: October 23, 1997
Background:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider approval
of a meeting schedule for the balance of the calendar year.
The Agenda Packet for the adjourned regular meeting of October
27, 1.997 has been transmitted under separate cover.
There are no scheduled agenda items for the regular meeting of
October 28, 1997. Due to the anticipated lack of quorum the
meeting will be adjourned to Wednesday, November 12, 1997.
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission is Tuesday,
November 11, 1997 (Veterans Day). City Hall is closed for the
holiday. In accordance with the Government Code, the regularly
scheduled meeting must be moved to Wednesday. The only business
item scheduled for discussion is the Development Code. If a
majority of the Commissioners are not able to attend the November
12, 1997 meeting, staff would recommend that a special meeting
night be selected for consideration of the Code.
As of this date the only item envisioned for the meeting of
November 25, 1997 is the continued public hearing for the JCC /
Tract 50314 project.
There are presently no other scheduled items for the Planning.
Commission meetings of November 25, 1997, December 9, 1997 and
December 23, 1997. Several projects are in process including a 3
lot parcel map for the Best Western Hotel property, a sign
program for the Lucky Center, and a review of a wireless data
communication proposal upon City property. Although no specific
dates have been set, it is anticipated that these projects will
come before the Commission prior to the end of the year.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission discuss and
ascertain an appropriate meeting schedule for the balance of the
year.
w
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: CHAIRMAN AND PLANNING COMMISSION
l
FROM: CATHERINE JOHNSON, SENIOR PLANNER G ,
SUBJECT: HEARING DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE
DATE: OCTOBER 23, 1997
At its last meeting, the Planning Commission, emphasized that the
following items were discussed and agreed upon by the Commission:
Adult Businesses, the Commission concurred that the Code should be
the most restrictive Code permitted by law; Si ns, that signs should
include the maximum amount of English permitted under the law;
View Protection, the Commission concurred that the Laguna Beach
Ordinance was appropriate to Diamond Bar; and Item A under
Exemptions on Page III -131 was revised to include the following
language; "Trees, except those designated by the City Council as a
historical or cultural tree, and trees required to be preserved,
relocated or planted as a condition of approval of a discretionary
permit, located on all developed properties prior to the adoption of
the Development Code."
Since this meeting, additional research has been conducted on these
important issues. Staff is still in the process of researching the
appropriate options for adult business regulations and in discussion
with the City Attorney on this issue. Staff's recommendation will be
presented to the Commission at its next meeting. Staff's analysis
and recommendations on signs and view protection is presented
below. Also included within this report is a brief discussion of the
Initial Study which was prepared as part of the Negative Declaration
for the Development Code.
Additionally, please note that amended language to the tree
preservation chapter, the revised parking space size, other Planning
Commission revisions and additional staff "clean-up" revisions are
being completed and the revised pages will be provided at Monday
night's meeting.
SIGNS
In the process of drafting the proposed Development Code, City staff
and the consultants, with the input of the Planning Commission and
citizenry, has made every effort to create standards and regulations
which are responsive to the needs of the citizens of Diamond Bar.
It has also been the responsibility of the staff to create a document
that is legally defensible and up to date with regard to the mandates
of the federal, state and local governments. Staff has relied on the
expertise of the City Attorney, who has reviewed the entire
Development Code to make sure that if challenged, it will be upheld
by the courts.
The First Amendment issue of free speech is critically important in
sign regulation. Local sign regulations raise this issue because
messages on signs are considered to be a form of free speech.
According to Daniel R. Mandelker in his book Land Use Law, "The
effect of the free speech clause on the constitutionality of sign
regulations is dramatic: it reverses the presumption of constitutionality
the courts usually apply to police power regulations. The burden
placed on municipalities to show that sign ordinances are justified by
the usual governmental interest, such as traffic safety and aesthetics
is heavier."
According Mr. Mandelker, the Supreme Court reviews the
constitutionality of sign regulations under a four-part test:
(1) It must be determined whether the expression is protected by
the First Amendment. For commercial speech to come within
this provision, it must at least concern lawful activity and not
be misleading.
(2) The asserted governmental interest must be substantial.
(3) If 1 and 2 may be asserted, the regulation must directly
advance the governmental interest asserted.
(4) The regulation may not be more extensive than necessary to
serve that interest.
2
When staff raised the issue of requiring a minimum of 50% of all
signs in English to the City Attorney, staff was advised that cities'
similar regulations had been overturned. For your information I have
briefly summarized the case law information provided by the City
Attorney.
The specific case that the City Attorney cited involved the Asian
American Business Group v. City of Pomona, (1989). The City's sign
ordinance required commercial and manufacturing signs with
advertising copy in foreign alphabet characters to devote at least one-
half of the sign area to English and further required that the
addresses be displayed in Arabic numerals. The Court held that the
ordinance violated the business establishment's freedom of speech,
equal protection and due process rights. The court stated that the
language chosen by the user was an expression of culture and
national origin, and therefore applied a strict scrutiny standard,
requiring the ordinance to serve a compelling government interest and
be narrowly tailored to meet that interest.
While it was recognized by the Court that the City had a compelling
governmental interest in requiring a structure to be readily identifiable
to facilitate reporting emergencies, the ordinance was still found to be
invalid because an undisputed portion of the ordinance already
required addresses to be posted in Arabic numbers.
The court questioned the requirement that only establishments
advertising in foreign alphabetical characters state the name of the
establishment in English. According to the court, because this
requirement was only applied to foreign businesses it suggested that
the requirement was not related to interests in safety. The ordinance
also failed because it required one-half of the sign space to be used
for English characters. The Court found the space required should
only be that necessary to identify the building.
It was stated by the Court "By requiring one half of the space of a
foreign alphabet sign to be devoted to English alphabet characters,
the ordinance regulates the cultural expression of the sign owner.
Since the language used is an expression of national origin, culture
and ethnicity, regulation of the sign is a regulation of context."
According to our City Attorney, the only way to regulate language is
to require all commercial establishments to have certain information on
signs (i.e. business name) and require that the name be in English in
3
addition to any other language. The City would have. to have a
"compelling" interest in the requirement.
The City's current sign ordinance contains the following language:
"Sign copy in non-Latin/Roman symbols, numerals, or alphabet
characters must contain thereon a generic description written in
English of the nature of such business or use. Such translation shall
be visible from the nearest public street." Based on the advice of
the City Attorney, the language in the proposed Code has remained
essentially the same, with the additions of examples of generic
translations (i.e. "Restaurant," "Dentist," "Bakery," etc.).
In section 22.36.120 B. 6. under Freestanding Monument Signs, signs
are required to contain an address plate with Arabic numbers.
However, the same provision is not included under wall signs and it
should be noted that many commercial uses, particularly those within
commercial centers don't have individual monument signs.
In researching this issue, staff surveyed, several local cities. The
results of staff's research are summarized below.
City of Arcadia (1990)
9262.4.14. Allowable area for identification. With regard to any
business in the City, applicable to the signs listed here, no more than
one-third of the allowable sign area of each such signs may contain
a non-English translation of the business identification; the remaining
sign area identification shall be set forth in the Roman alphabet,
English language and include Arabic numerals. The sign(s) must be
clearly readable from a distance of one hundred feet (100).
City of San Gabriel (5/16/95)
For the purpose of public safety the name of the business must be
indicated in the English language or English alphabet in at least one
location on each business.
City of Walnut (4/95)
Sec. 25-260, Signs --Use of Roman alphabet, Arabic numerals, and
English language. All signs in an alphabet other than the Roman
alphabet, and/or any language other than the English language shall
meet the following criteria:
(a) A sign in a foreign alphabet must also contain the same
words in the Roman alphabet. To protect the public
health, safety and welfare by assisting the easier location
0
of premises, both by the reporting party and the
responding agency in cases of emergency, the minimum
size of letter height for Roman characters shall be as
follows:
(1) Six inches on monument signs.
(2) Two inches on directory signs.
(3) For wall signs less than or equal to one hundred
fifty feet from the centerline of the nearest public
street, five -inches. For each additional fifty feet
from the centerline of the street the height of the
letters shall increase one inch.
(b) All signs written in a language other than the English
language shall also contain an English-language translation
of the words. written in the foreign language. To protect
the public health safety and welfare by assisting the
easier location of premises, both by the reporting party
and the responding agency in cases of emergency, the
minimum size of letter height for the English translations
shall be as follows:
(1) Six inches for monument signs.
(2) Two inches on director signs.
(3) For wall signs less than or equal to one hundred
fifty feet from the centerline of the nearest public
street five inches. For each additional fifty feet
from the centerline of the street, the height of he
letters shall increase one inch.
(c) The following are exempted from English -translation
requirement of subparagraph (b):
(1) Words which are proper names.
(2) Words which do not describe a product, brand or
service provided on the premises.
(d) All street addresses written on signs shall be printed in
Arabic numbers.
5
(e) A sign application for a sign containing a foreign language
or characters in an alphabet other than , the Roman
Alphabet, shall contain an English translation of the sign
copy.
The following cities surveyed do not address this issue in their
ordinances or zoning codes; Buena Park, Chino Hills, City of Industry,
Pomona, West Hollywood, Rancho Cucamonga
RECOMMENDATION
Based on staff's research acrd the advice of the City Attorney, it is
recommended that the language in the Development Code pertaining
to signs remain as proposed. It is further recommended that the
Commission add a requirement under Section 22.36.030.E General
Provisions for All Signs as follows, "All commercial businesses shall
contain the address or unit number or letter of the occupant. Unit
numbers shall be in the English alphabet. Address numbers shall be
in Arabic numerals. All letter and numerals shall be provided in digits
which are are visible from the adjacent street or parking lot drive
aisle."
VIEW PROTECTION
The issue of view protection has been previously raised by the
Planning Commission during the process of creating the Development
Code. In response to these concerns, Section 22.16.130 was added
to Article III, Chapter 22.16 General Property Development and Use
Standards, establishing general standards requiring new projects to
respect the views of existing residential development. Staff has also
included design guidelines addressing view protection within the draft
Citywide Design Guidelines
Diamond Bar's current Planning and Zoning Code and the proposed
Development Code establish standards for the development of single
family homes with respect to lot size, maximum height and setbacks.
Further, Administrative Development Review is required for all new
single family residences, and residential additions which exceed 50%
of the existing floor area. As part of this discretionary process
projects are evaluated for compliance with the Development Review
Ordinance which sets forth as two of its primary purposes to
"Reasonably ensure that new development, including residential
institutional, commercial and industrial developments do not have an
C
adverse aesthetic, health, safety or architecturally related impact upon
existing adjoining properties or. the City" and "Encourage the use of a
variety of housing styles, split level grading techniques, varied lot
sizes, site design densities, maintenance of views (underline added)
and arrangement and spacing to accomplish grading policies."
Further, these projects are subject to public hearing and notification
procedures requiring that all property owners within a 300' radius of
the project site are notified of the proposed development. At the
time of public hearing the Hearing Officer evaluates all proposals for
their compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and impacts on
adjacent property, including impacts to privacy and views.
As proposed, the Laguna Beach ordinance "establishes procedures and
evaluation criteria for the resolution of view and/or sunlight claims so
as to provide a reasonable balance between trees/vegetation, privacy
and views and or sunlight related values." The Laguna Beach
Ordinance, attempts to address obstructions to views caused by
overgrown or poorly placed trees blocking a neighbors view or access
to sunlight.
This is. done through a resolution process. The ordinance outlines a
series of steps for resolving disputes between neighbors, with each
subsequent step taken if the previous step is unsuccessful. The
process begins with initial discussion and progresses to evaluation by
a City Tree Preservation Board, then mediation, arbitration and finally
litigation. The ordinance also establishes criteria by which views
and/or sunlight claims are evaluated, and a hierarchy of restoration
actions which provide the appropriate methods for the pruning of
trees to mitigate the view blockage issue.
While the processes and resolution criteria outlined in the Laguna
Beach ordinance are logical and sound, staff does not believe that
their appropriate place is within the Development Code.
Historically, it has been
the City's policy to not be
involved
in private
disputes. It is staff's
position that disputes over
conflicts
such as
those described by the
Laguna Beach ordinance are
a private
issue.
The Development Code, in addition to use regulations, contains
specific, quantifiable standards regulating the form of physical
development. Because these standards are defined, it is clear when
a structure or use is not in compliance with the Code.
7
The circumstances that are described by the Laguna" Beach ordinance
do not easily fall within the review authority of the Development
Code. There is nothing that prevents a resident from planting trees
in their yard, and nothing that requires them to keep their tree from
block their neighbor's view. Conflicts like those that the Laguna
Beach ordinance will attempt to resolve are not the result of a lack
of adherence to typical development standards.
The definition of a
"view" is difficult
to quantify.
The quantity and
quality of a view varies from site to
site and from
different locations
on the site. It is
also individually
subjective.
For example; one
individual may feel
that a tall stand
of trees provides
privacy and
shade, while another
may value a clear unobstructed
view.
While recognizing the difficulty in quantifying a view, the City
recognizes their importance. Design guidelines were created to assist
the property owner, architect and landscape architect in appropriately
planning and locating structures and landscaping to maximize their
views, while respecting the views of their neighbors.
Since the last Planning Commission meeting, staff has done further
research on this issue and has obtained the City of Berkeley's
development code chapter entitled Solar Access and Views. (attached)
This chapter is similar to the Laguna Beach ordinance in that it
establish processes and criteria for resolving and mitigating disputes,
except it does not include the establishment of a City -created
mediation board.
Based on this example, staff offers as an alternative to a codified
view protection process, a City -created pamphlet integrating the best
features of the Laguna Beach ordinance and Berkeley's standards and
information on local mediation services. This booklet would be readily
available at the public information counter to any resident with
concerns about this issue, or any resident or developer who comes
into the City for Building or Planning permits, or other approvals.
This guide would be similar in its form to what the City is currently
providing citizens in response to numerous concerned inquires about
the upcoming "EI Nino." The Homeowners Guide for Flood Debris,
and Erosion Control, compiled by the L.A. County Department of
Public Works, describes what the homeowner can do to prevent or
minimize damage from flooding.
M
The proposed booklet would be similar in that while it recognizes a
significant problem, it provides residents with the necessary
information and tools needed to solve the problem themselves, rather
than relying entirely on the City to address their concerns.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider and discuss
alternatives to the inclusion of a view protection process within the
Development Code.
INITIAL STUDY
Transmitted with the adopting ordinances for the Development Code
was the Initial study for the Negative Declaration. A Negative
Declaration is a written statement, accompanied by an Initial Study,
explaining why a proposed project will not have a significant
environmental effect. An Initial Study is a preliminary analysis
prepared to determine whether an EIR or Negative Declaration is
needed.
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Master Environmental
Assessment (MEA) were prepared for the General Plan, to address the
environmental impacts that would result from the proposed changes in
land uses designations, development standards, changes in the
circulation systems, and other changes to the City's physical
environment that would occur as a result of the implementation of
the General Plan.
The Development Code is the primary implementing tool of the
General Plan, and it must be consistent with the General Plan.
Therefore, there will be no environmental impacts created as a result
of the adoption of the Development Code that have not been
addressed within the General Plan EIR and MEA.
The attached Initial Study, primarily consists of a checklist. The
numbered Strategies cited in this list refer to General Plan strategies
and the page numbers where the strategy appears.
It is recommended that the Planning Commission review and discuss
the Initial Study.
a
Attachments:
Draft Laguna Beach View Protection Ordinance
City of Berkely, Development Code Chapter Solar Access and
Views
10
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH ADDING
CHAPTER 12.16 TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO VIEW
PRESERVATION.
WHEREAS, on November 20 and December 4, 1996, and on January 8, February 12,
and March 26, 1997, the Planning Commission conducted legally noticed public hearings and,
after reviewing all documents and testimony, voted to recommend that the City Council approve
additions to the Laguna Beach Municipal Code relating to view preservation; and
WHEREAS, on May 13, 1997, June 24, 1997, September 2, 1997, and October 7, 1997,
the City Council conducted legally noticed public hearings and, after reviewing all documents
and testimony, desires to approve additions to the Laguna Beach Municipal Code relating to
view preservation.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Laguna Beach does ordain as
follows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 12.16 (`View Preservation's is hereby added to the Laguna
Beach Municipal Code to read in its entirety as follows:
Chapter Sections:
12.16.010
12.16.020
12.16.030
12.16.040
12.16.050
12.16.060
12.16.070
12.16.080
12.16.090
12.16.100
12.16.110
12.16.120
12:16.130
Chapter 12.16
VIEW PRESERVATION
Findings and declarations
Intent and purpose
Definitions ,
View and/or sunlight claim limitations
View and/or sunlight claim
View and/or sunlight claim resolution process
Initial discussion
Tree/View Review Equity Evaluation (TREE) Board
Mediation
Arbitration
Litigation
Restoration action limitations
View and/or sunlight claim evaluation criteria
12.16.140 Hierarchy of restoration actions
12.16.150 Responsibility for restoration action and subsequent maintenance
12.16.160 Liability
12.16.170 Severability
12.16.010 Findings and declarations
The City Council finds and declares as follows:
(1) Both views and trees/vegetation contribute to the aesthetic value, quality of life,
ambiance and economic value of properties within the City. Similarly, access to sunlight across
property lines contributes to, the health and well being of community members, enhances
property values and provides an opportunity to utilize solar energy. Utilization of passive solar
energy reduces air pollution, visual blight and ill health.
(2) Views, whether of the Pacific Ocean, islands, the surrounding hillsides and
canyons, or other natural and manmade landmarks produce a variety of significant and tangible
benefits for both residents and visitors. Views contribute to the aesthetic visual environment of
the community by providing scenic vistas and inspiring distinctive architectural design. Views
contribute to property values.
(3) Trees and vegetation produce a wide variety of significant psychological and
tangible benefits for both residents and visitors to the community. Trees and vegetation provide
privacy, modify temperatures, screen winds, replenish oxygen to the atmosphere, maintain soil
moisture, mitigate soil erosion and provide wildlife habitat. Trees and vegetation contribute to
the visual environment and aesthetics by blending, buffering and reducing the scale and mass of
architecture. Trees and vegetation within the City provide botanical variety and a sense of
history. Trees and vegetation also create shade and visual screens and provide a buffer between
different land uses. Trees contribute to property values.
(4) The benefits derived from views, trees/vegetation and sunlight may come into
conflict. The planting of trees and other vegetation and their subsequent growth, particularly
when such trees are not properly maintained, can produce unintended harmful effects both on
the property on which they are planted and/or on neighboring properties. It is, therefore, in
the interest of the public health, safety and welfare to:
(a) Recognize that every real property owner in the City of Laguna Beach is entitled
to a process to resolve such conflicts; and
(b) Establish procedures and evaluation criteria for the resolution of view and/or
sunlight claims so as to provide a reasonable balance between trees/vegetation, privacy and
views and/or sunlight related values.
12.16.020 Intent and purpose
The intent and purpose of this Chapter is to:
(1) Recognize that real property owners are entitled to a process to resolve disputes
about view and/or sunlight access within the immediate vicinity of their property as set forth in
Section 12.16.040.
(2) Establish procedures and evaluation criteria by which real property owners may
seek resolution of such views and/or sunlight access disputes.
(3) Discourage ill-considered damage to trees/vegetation and promote proper
landscaping establishment and maintenance.
2_ October 21, 1997
It is not the intent and purpose of this Chapter for the City to create either a covenant
running with the land (for example, CC&R's or deed restriction) or an equitable servitude (for
example, easement or license).
12.16.030 Definitions
For the purpose of this Chapter, the meaning and construction of words and phrases
hereinafter set forth shall apply:
Al= To take action that changes the tree or vegetation, including but not limited to
extensive pruning of the canopy area, topping, cutting, girdling, interfering with the
water supply, applying chemicals or re -grading around the feeder root zone of the tree or
vegetation.
Arbitration A voluntary legal procedure for settling disputes and leading to a final and
binding determination of rights of parties, usually consisting of a hearing before an
arbitrator where all relevant evidence may be freely admitted as set forth in California
Code of Civil Procedure Section 1280 et sea.
Arbitrato A mutually agreed upon neutral third party professional intermediary who
conducts a hearing process, and who hears testimony, considers evidence and makes
binding decisions for the disputing parties. The arbitrator may be chosen from a list
available from the City of qualified and professionally trained (arbitrators/mediators),
including but not limited to members of the American Association of Arbitrators and
professionals associated with the Orange County Judicial Arbitration and Mediation
Service.
Arborist. Certified A person who has passed a series of tests by the International'
Society of Arboriculture (ISA), is governed by ISA's professional code of ethics and
possesses the technical competence through experience and related training to provide
for or supervise the management of trees and other woody plants.
Authorized Agent A person, as defined herein, who has been designated and approved
in writing by the property owner of record to act on his/her behalf in matters pertaining
to the processing of a View and/or Sunlight Claim as outlined in this Chapter.
CThe umbrella -like structure created by the over -head leaves and branches of a
tree which create a sheltered area below.
QIy The City of Laguna Beach.
C& Mamtained Trees Trees which are specifically designated for maintenance by the
City Council. "City maintained trees" include heritage trees which are located in the
unimproved portion of a dedicated and accepted street right-of-way easement and for
which the real property owner has requested and given written permission for the City to
maintain.
3- October 21, 1997
City Propgrt� Any real property of which the City of Laguna Beach is the fee simple
owner of record.
Claim. View and/or Sunlieht Documentation, as set forth in Section 12.16.050, that
outlines the basis of view and/or sunlight access diminishment and the specific
restoration action that is being sought.
Coglplainant Any property owner, group of property owners or authorized agent who
allege that trees)/vegetation located within the immediate vicinity of their property as
set forth in Section 12.16.040 is causing unreasonable obstruction of the view and/or
sunlight access benefiting such real property.
Crown The rounded top of the tree.
Crown Reduction/Shaning A method of comprehensive pruning that reduces a tree's
height and/or spread. Crown reduction entails the reduction of the top, sides or
individual limbs by means of removal of leaders or the longest portion of limbs to a
lateral large enough to assume the terminal. The diagram that follows is illustrative of
"crown reduction/shaping" within the meaning of this Chapter.
s J.
Crown Reduction/Shaping
Destroy To kill or take action that endangers the health or vigor of a tree or vegetation,
including, but not limited to, cutting, girdling, interfering with the water supply,
applying chemicals or re -grading around the base of the trunk.
Director The Director of the City of Laguna Beach Community Development
Department.
4- October 21, 1997
Headine Back The overall reduction of the mass of a tree by modification to major
limbs. The diagram that follows is illustrative of "heading back" within the meaning of
this Chapter.
Heading Back
Heritage Tree Any tree or stand of trees that have been placed on the heritage tree list
by the City Council, pursuant to Chapter 12.08 "Preservation of Heritage Trees" of the
Municipal Code.
S.- October 21, 1997
Lacin A comprehensive method of pruning that systematically and sensitively
removes excess foliage and improves the structure of the tree. The diagram that follows
is illustrative of "lacing" within the meaning of this Chapter.
ZI
Before After
Lacing
Landscape Consultant A landscape professional hired by the City to provide advice and
information regarding landscape plans, view and/or sunlight claims, and landscaping
techniques and maintenance procedures.
Maintenance Pruning Pruning with the primary objective of maintaining or improving
tree health and structure; includes "crown reduction/shaping" or "lacing," but not
ordinarily "topping" or "heading back."
Mediator A neutral, objective third party professional negotiator to help disputing
parties reach a mutually satisfactory solution regarding a view and/or sunlight claim.
The mediator may be, chosen from a list available from the City of qualified and
professionally trained (arbitrators/mediators), including but not limited to members of
the American Association of Arbitrators and professionals associated with the Orange
County Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service.
Obstruction The blocking or diminishment of a view and/or sunlight access attributable
to growth, improper maintenance or location of trees and/or vegetation.
Person Any individual, individuals, corporation, partnership, firm or other legal entity.
Pruning The removal of plant material from a tree/vegetation.
Real EMS= Rights or interests of ownership of land and all appurtenances to the land
including buildings, fixtures, vegetation and improvements erected upon, planted or
affixed to the land.
6. October21, 1997
Restoration Action Any specific steps taken affecting trees or vegetation that would
result in the restoration of a view and/or sunlight access across property lines.
Severe Pruning The cutting of branches and/or trunk of a tree in a manner which
substantially reduces the overall size of the tree or destroys the existing symmetrical
appearance or natural shape of the tree and which results in the removal of main lateral
branches leaving the trunk and branches of the tree in a stub appearance. `Topping" and
"heading back" as defined herein are considered to be severe pruning.
Stand Thinning The selective removal of a portion of trees from a grove of trees.
Street The improved portion of a right-of-way easement used for public purposes, such
as roadway improvements, curbs, gutters and sidewalks, dedicated to the City, and
formally accepted by the City into the City public street system for maintenance
purposes.
Sunlight The availability or access to light from the sun across property lines.
Tonving Eliminating the upper portion of the trunk or main leader of a tree.
Tree Any woody perennial vegetation that generally has a single trunk and reaches a
height of at least eight feet at maturity.
TreeNiew Review Equity Evaluation (TREE) Board An ad-hoc board consisting of
two (2) members of the Planning Commission as appointed by such Commission, two
(2) members of the Design Review Board as appointed by such Board and one (1)
member of the City Council as appointed by such Council, who shall convene
together as needed to facilitate public review and recommended resolution of specific
view and/or sunlight claim(s). Appointment to the TREE Board shall be for a
minimum six (6) month term upon the submittal of view and/or sunlight claim(s).
Tree(Vegetation Owner Any person owning real property in the City whereon tree(s)
and/or vegetation is located
Vegetation All types of plants, bushes and shrubs, including trees.
View A vista of features, including but not limited to bodies of water, beaches,
coastline, islands, skylines, ridges, hillside terrain, canyons, geologic features and
landmarks. The term "view" does not mean an unobstructed panorama of these features.
Vista Pruning The selective thinning of fi-Amework limbs or specific areas of the crown
of a tree to allow a view from a specific point.
7- October 21, 1997
12.16.040 View and/or sunlight claim limitations
Subject to the other provisions of this Chapter, a real property owner in the City may
initiate the claim resolution process as outlined in Section 12.16.060. However, a claim for
view and/or sunlight access may only be made regarding any tree/vegetation located on real
property, as defined herein, which is within 300 feet from the complainant's real property, and if
a claim has not been initiated against that real property by the complainant or any other real
property owner within the last two (2) years.
Requests for restoration action with regard to any tree and/or vegetation located on City
property, parks and for City maintained trees may only be initiated as outlined in Section
12.04.070 of the Planting and Maintenance Ordinance (Chapter 12.04).
Requests for restoration action with regard to any Heritage Tree not maintained by the
City may only be initiated as outlined in Section 12.08.070 of the Preservation of Heritage Trees
Ordinance (Chapter 12.08).
12.16.050 View and/or sunlight claim
A view and/or sunlight claim shall consist of all of the following:
(1) A description of the nature and extent of the alleged obstruction, including
pertinent and corroborating evidence. Evidence may include, but is not limited to, documented
and dated photographic prints, negatives, slides and written testimony from residents living in
the area. Such evidence must show the extent to which the view and/or sunlight access has been
diminished by trees and/or vegetation.
(2) The location of all trees and/or vegetation alleged to cause the obstruction, the
address of the property, upon which the trees and/or vegetation are located, and the present
treelvegetation owner's name and address.
(3) Specific view and/or sunlight access restoration actions proposed by the
complainant to resolve the allegedly unreasonable obstruction.
(4) Evidence that initial discussion as described in' Section 12.16.070 has been made
and has failed. Evidence may include, but is not limited to, copies of receipts for certified or
registered mail correspondence.
(5) Evidence confirming the ownership and the date of acquisition of the
complainant's property.
12.16.060 View and/or sunlight claim resolution process
The complainant shall follow the process established by this Chapter in seeking view
and/or sunlight access restorative action. Fust, the complainant must complete the "initial
discussion" process described in Section 12.16.070. Second, if that process does not yield a
result mutually satisfactory to the complainant and the treelveget bon owner, then the
complainant may file a View and/or Sunlight Claim with the City and request a review by the
Tree(View Review Equity Evaluation (TREE) Board If the tree/vegetation owner does not
participate in the review by the TREE Board or if the TREE Board's review is unsuccessful in
resolving the claim, then the complainant may pursue resolution by mediation or arbitration as
set forth in Sections 12.16.090 or 12.16.100, respectively. If mediation or arbitration are not
chosen by the complainant, accepted by the treeNegetation owner or are unsuccessful in
resolving the claim, the complainant may initiate litigation as described in Section 12.16.110.
8 October 21, 1997
12.16.070 Initial discussion
A complainant, who believes that a tree or vegetation which has grown on another
person's property has caused unreasonable obstruction of a view and/or sunlight access from the
complainant's property, shall first notify the tee/vegetation owner of such concerns. The
notification shall request personal discussions to enable the complainant and tree/vegetation
owner to attempt to reach a mutually agreeable solution, and shall be followed-up in writing.
The notification shall include a copy of the View Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 12.16),
available from the City. The complainant shall invite the tree/vegetation owner to view the
alleged obstruction from the complainant's property, and the tree/vegetation owner is urged to
invite the complainant to view the situation from his/her property. Failure of the tree/vegetation
owner to respond to the written request for initial discussion within 60 days from the date of
delivery shall be deemed formal refusal by the treelvegetation owner.
If the parties do not agree as to the existence and nature of the complainant's obstruction
and to the appropriate restoration action or initial discussion is refused, the complainant may
proceed with the subsequent claim resolution process outlined in Section 12.16.060.
12.16.080 Tree/View Review Equity Evaluation (TREE) Board
If initial discussion under Section 12.16.070 fails to achieve agreement between the
tree/vegetation owner and complainant, the complainant may file a View and/or Sunlight
Claim with the City's Community Development Department requesting a review by the
Tree/View Review Equity Evaluation (TREE) Board. The required noticing materials. eight
complete copies of the claim and TREE Board review fee, as established by City Council
resolution for such review, shall be concurrently provided by the complainant.-Ir-swel; Fi
The Community Development Department shall send a
c4Ry of the view and/or sunlight claim to the tree/vegetation owner along with the TREE
Board review hearing notice and request that the tree/vegetation owner participate in the
review hearing by the TREE Board Participati y the tree/vegetation owner in the review
before the TREE Board shall be voluntary. However. t request ,hall infonm the
tree/vegetation owner that failure to participate in a review hearing by the TREE Board may
be brought to the court's attention in the event of subsequent legal action by the complainant.
A review hearing before the TREE Board shall be scheduled, and not less than t"
calendar days prior to the review hearing, a written notice of the date, time and
location of the review hearing by the TREE Board shall be sent to the complainant or
authorized agent, the tree/vegetation owner and all property owners within 300 feet of the
tree/vegetation owner's property. The review hearing shall be held regardless of
participation by the tree/vegetation owner, and public testimony shall be heard.
The TREE Board shall be governed by the provisions of this Chapter, including the
claim evaluation criteria and the hierarchy of restoration actions set forth in Sections
12.16.130 and 12.16.140, respectively, in attempting to help resolve the view and/or sunlight
claim. The TREE Board may request information from the City's landscape consultant
regarding any questions involving landscape techniques and/or maintenance procedures. The
TREE Board shall make a recommended resolution decision regarding the view and/or
sunlight claim, regardless of agreement by the complainant or tree/vegetation owner.
The role of the TREE Board shall be advisory in nature and shall not be binding in
establishing any view and/or sunlight restoration action. Any agreement reached between the
9- October 21, 1997
complainant and tree/vegetation owner as a result of the review hearing by the TREE Board
shall be reduced to writing and signed by both parties.
12.16.090 Mediation
If initial discussion under Section 12.16.070 and a review hearing by the Tree/View
Review Equity Evaluation (TREE) Board under Section 12.16.080 fails to achieve agreement
between the tree/vegetation owner and complainant, the complainant may send to the
tree/vegetation owner a request that the tree/vegetation owner accept participation in a
mediation process to attempt to resolve the view and/or sunlight claim. Acceptance of
mediation by the tree/vegetation owner shall be voluntary. However, the request may inform
the tree/vegetation owner that failure to participate in mediation may be brought to the court's
attention in the event of subsequent legal action by the complainant. Failure of the
tree/vegetation owner to respond to the notice requesting mediation within 60 days from the
date of delivery shall be deemed formal refusal of the mediation process by the tree/vegetation
owner.
If the tree/vegetation owner agrees to participate in a mediation process, the parties shall
agree in writing to the selection of an individual mediator, which may be chosen from a list of
professional mediators available from the City.
The mediator is encouraged to be guided by the provisions of this Chapter, including the
claim evaluation criteria and the hierarchy of restoration actions set forth in Sections 12.16.130
and 12.16.140, respectively, in attempting to help resolve the view and/or sunlight claim. The
mediator may request information from the City's landscape consultant regarding any questions
involving landscape techniques and/or maintenance procedures.
The role of the mediator shall be advisory in nature and shall not be binding in
establishing view and/or sunlight restoration action. Any agreement reached between the two
parties as a result of the mediation process described herein shall be reduced to writing and
signed by the mediator and all of the parties. The cost of mediation shall be paid by the
complainant or by mutual agreement between the parties.
12.16. 100 Arbitration
If the initial discussion under Section 12.16.070 and a review hearing by the Tree/View
Review Equity Evaluation (TREE) Board under Section 12.16.080 fails to achieve agreement
between the treelvegetation owner and the complainant, the complainant may send to the
tree/vegetation owner a request that the tree/vegetation owner accept participation in a binding
arbitration process. Acceptance of arbitration by the tree/vegetation owner shall be voluntary.
However, the request may inform the tree/vegetation owner that failure to participate in the
binding arbitration process may be brought to the court's attention in the event of subsequent
legal action by the complainant. The tree/vegetation owner shall have 60 days from delivery of
the notice to either accept or decline arbitration. Failure to respond within 60 days shall be
deemed formal refusal of arbitration. If accepted, the patties shall agree in writing to the
selection of an individual arbitrator, which may be chosen from a list of professional
arbitrators available from the City, within 30 days of such acceptance. If the parties do not
agree on a specific arbitrator within 30 days, either party may petition a court of competent
jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator.
10 October 21, 1997
The arbitrator is encouraged to be guided by the provisions of this Chapter, including the
claim evaluation criteria and the hierarchy of restoration actions set forth in Sections 12.16.130
and 12.16.140, respectively, in attempting to help resolve the view and/or sunlight claim and
shall submit a complete written decision to the complainant and the tree/vegetation owner. Any
decision of the arbitrator shall be enforceable pursuant to the provisions of California Code of
Civil Procedure Section 1285 et seq.
The costs of arbitration shall be paid by the complainant or by mutual agreement
between the parties.
12.16.110 Litigation
If a complainant has been unsuccessful in attempting to obtain agreement under Section
12.16.070 ("Initial Discussion') and afterwards by Section 12.16.080 ("Tree/View Review
Equity Evaluation (TREE) Board'1, the complainant may initiate civil action in a court of
competent jurisdiction for resolution of his/her view and/or sunlight claim under the provisions
of this Chapter. The complainant is encouraged to provide the court the results of the view
and/or sunlight claim resolution process.
12.16.120 Restoration action limitations
Except as otherwise authorized by law, no tree and/or vegetation on real property owned
or controlled by another person may be removed, destroyed or altered unless the complainant
either enters into a written agreement with the tree/vegetation owner or obtains an arbitration or
judicial decision specifying, in detail, the nature and timing of the restoration action and the
parties responsible for performing such action.
12.16.130 View and/or sunlight claim evaluation criteria
In evaluating a view and/or sunlight claim, the following unranked criteria shall be
considered:
(1) The vantage point(s) from which the view and/or sunlight is obtained or received.
(2) The extent of the view and/or sunlight obstruction.
(3) The quality of the view and/or sunlight access, including the existence of
landmarks or other unique view features, and/or the extent to which these views and/or sunlight
access are blocked by trees) and/or vegetation.
(4) The extent to which the view and/or sunlight access is diminished by factors other
than trees) and/or vegetation.
(5) The extent to which the trees) and/or vegetation have grown to obscure the
enjoyment of view and/or sunlight access from the complainant's property.
(6) The number of existing trees or amount of vegetation in the area, the number of
healthy trees that a given parcel of land will support, and the current effects of the trees) and
their removal on the neighboring vegetation.
(7) The extent to which the trees) and/or vegetation provide:
(a) Screening or privacy;
(b) Energy conservation and/or climate control;
(c) Soil stability, as measured by soil structure, degree of slope, and extent of the
tree's root system when a tree is proposed to be removed;
(d) Aesthetics;
(e) Community/neighborhood quality, value or significance;
(f) Shade;
11. October 21, 1997
(g) Historical context due to the age of the tree/vegetation;
(h) Rare and interesting botanical species;
(i) Habitat value for wildlife; and
0) Blending, buffering or reduction in the scale and mass of architecture.
(8) The date the claimant purchased his/her property.
(9) The date the tree/vegetation owner purchased his/her property.
12.16.140 Hierarchy of restoration actions
View and/or sunlight restoration actions must be consistent with all other provisions of
this Chapter. The practices of tree/vegetation establishment and maintenance outlined in the
City's Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document shall be referred to in establishing
restoration actions. Severe pruning should be avoided due to the damage such practice causes to
the tree's form and health. Restoration actions may include, but are not limited to the following,
in order of preference:
(1) Lacing Lacing is the most preferable pruning technique that removes excess
foliage and can improve the structure of the tree.
(2) Vistarumor 'ng Vista pruning of branches may be utiaed where possible, if it does
not adversely affect the tree's growth pattern or health. Topping should not be done to
accomplish vista pruning.
(3) Crown reduction Crown reduction shag -be a preferable to topping or tree removal,
if it is determined that the impact of crown reduction does not destroy the visual proportions of
the tree, adversely affect the tree's growth pattern or health, or otherwise constitute a detriment
to the tree(s) in question.
(4) Stand thinning The removal of a portion of the total number of trees from a grove
of trees, without any replacement plantings.
(5) Tooving Eliminating the upper portion of a tree's trunk or main leader. Topping
she4-should only be permitted for trees specifically planted and maintained as a hedge, espalier,
bonsai or in pollard form and if restoration actions 1 through 4, above, will not accomplish the
determined restoration and the subsequent growth characteristics will not create a future
obstruction of greater proportions.
(6) Heading Back Eliminating the outer extent of the major branches throughout the
tree. Heading back AM! should only be permitted for trees specifically planted and maintained
as a hedge, espalier, bonsai or in pollard form and if restoration actions 1 through 5, above, will
not accomplish the determined restoration and the subsequent growth characteristics will not
create a future obstruction of greater proportions.
(7) Treelveggtation removal Tree and/or vegetation removal, which may be
considered when the above-mentioned restoration actions are judged to be ineffective and may
be accompanied by replacement plantings or appropriate plant materials to restore the maximum
level of benefits lost due to tree removal.
12.16.150 Responsibility for restoration action and subsequent maintenance
ee die k costs of restoration action and subsequent maintenance shall be determined
either by agreement between the tree/vegetation owner and the complainant, or as required
pursuant to any final arbitration decision or court order.
12_ October 21, 1997
12.16.160 Liability
(1) The City shall not be liable for any damages, injury, costs or expenses which are
the result of any recommendations or determinations made by the Tree/View Review Equity
Evaluation (TREE) Board or mediator, or decisions made by other persons (e.g., arbitrator or
judge) concerning a view and/or sunlight claim or a complainant's assertions pertaining to views
and/or sunlight access granted or conferred herein.
(2) Under no circumstances shall the City have any responsibility or liability to
enforce or seek any legal redress, civil or criminal, for any decision that any other person or
entity makes concerning a view and/or sunlight claim
(3) A failure to comply with the provisions of this Chapter is not a misdemeanor, and
the enforcement of this Chapter shall be only by the affected and interested private parties.
12.16.170 Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Chapter is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Chapter.
The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this and each section,
subsection, phrase or clause of this Chapter irrespective of the fact that any one or more
sections, subsections, phrases or clauses be declared invalid or unconstitutional on their face or
as applied.
SECTION 2. One year after the first TREE Board review hearing,* City staff shall
prepare and submit for City Council's review a report that evaluates the View Preservation
Ordinance implementation impacts.
SECTION 3. This Ordinance is exempt from compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and a
Notice of Exemption has been prepared.
SEM014 4. This Ordinance is intended to be of City-wide effect and application.
All ordinances and provisions of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code and Sections thereof
inconsistent herewith shall be hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency and no finther.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk of the' City of Laguna Beach shall certify to the
passage and adoption of this Ordinance, and shall cause the same to be published in the same
manner required by law in the City of Laguna Beach. This Ordinance shall become effective
thirty (30) days after the final approval by the City Council.
13 October 21, 1997
ADOPTED this 21st day of October, 1997.
Paul P. Freeman, Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
I, Verna Rollinger, City Clerk of the City of Laguna Beach, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on October 7,
1997, and was finally adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on
October 21, 1997 by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCn-AEMBER(S):
NOES: COUNCILMEMBER(S):
ABSENT: COUNCILIVIEMBER(S):
City Clerk, of the City of Laguna Beach, CA
. 14 October 21, 1997
I
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A FEE FOR A REVIEW OF A
VIEW AND/OR SUNLIGHT CLAIM BY THE TREE/VIEW REVIEW
EQUITY EVALUATION (TREE) BOARD.
WHEREAS, Chapter 12.16 of the Municipal Code of the City of Laguna Beach,
allows the City Council of Laguna Beach to establish a fee for a review of a view and/or
sunlight claim by the Tree/View Review Equity Evaluation (TREE) Board;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
does RESOLVE and ORDER as follows:
SECTION 1. That the fee to be paid to the City of Laguna Beach for a review of a
view and/or sunlight claim by the Tree/View Review Equity Evaluation (TREE) Board shall
be $350.00.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to the California Government Code Section 66017, this fee
shall become effective sixty (60) days following the adoption of this resolution.
ADOPTED this 21st day of October, 1997.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Paul P. Freeman, Mayor
I, VERNA L. ROLLINGER, City Clerk of the City of Laguna Beach, California, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No.... was duly adopted at a_Regular Meeting
of the City Council of said City held on October 21, 1997 by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCELM EMBER(S):
NOES COUNCILMEMBER(S):
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBER(S):
City Clerk of the City of Laguna Beach, CA
OCT 23 '97 01:47PM BERKELEY CITr' CLERK
12.44.090 Nuisance growths—Abatement
—Work performed by city when
—Costs.
In case the owner or occupant neglects or refuses
to abate the nuisance pursuant to such notice, the di-
rscox of recreation and parks shall abate the same in
such manner as be deem proper, and the coat theta
of shall be levied and collected as a special assess.
ment against the property as hereinafter provided.
(Ord. 4420 -NS (part), 1969: Ord. 3380 -NS 15.3.
1954.)
12.
A.
e.
C.
44.090 Nuisance growths--Abate-
meat—Cost assessment and
collection procedures.
Upon completion of the abatement, the direewr
of recreation and parks shall file with the city
council his report containing a description of the
work pmformad in abating the nuisance, the cost
thereof and a description of the real property
upon which the work was done and against
which the cost thereof is proposed to be levied as
a special assasament.
The city council shall set the report for public
hearing, notice of which shall be mailed by the
city ck* to the owner of the real property de-
scribed in the report at his last known address at
least ten days prior to the hearing.
At the hearing, the city council shall consider the
report and all protests and objections of the
property owner, The council may make such
changes, corrections and modifications In the re-
port as it deems just and, by resolution, shall
confirm the report with at without changes, cor-
rections
ocrections or modifications. as the can may be,
and levy the cost of abatement as a special as-
sessment against the property described in the
report.
D. After confirmation of the report and levy of as-
sessmank do assessment is a lice on do proper-
ty and *AK be added to the next regular tax bill
for tura hvW against the property tintless paid
within thirty days after the adoption of said reso-
lution.
(Ord. 4420 -NS (part). 1969: Ord. 3380 -NS 15.4.
1954.)
SOLAR ACCESS AND VIEWS
12.44.100 Violation—Penalty.
Any person violating any provision or failing to
comply with any of the requirements of this chapter
shall be deemed guilty of an infraction as set forth in
Chapter 1.20 of this code. (Ord. 5591 -NS J 1 (part).
1994: Ord. 3380 -NS if 6, 1954.)
Chapter 12.45
SOLAR ACCESS AND VIEWS
Sections:
12.45.010 Purpose and objectives.
12.45.020 Deflnitions.
12.45.030 Procedures.
12.45.040 Standards for resolution of
dupates.
12.45.050 Apportionment of coati.
12.45.060 Liabilities.
12.45.070 Enforcement.
12.45.080 Severability.
12.45.090 Reserved.
12.45.010 Purpose and objectives.
A. The purpose of this chapter is to:
1. Set forth a procedure for the resolution of
disputes between private property owners
telatntg to the resolution of sunlight or views
lost due to tree growth.
2. This view chapter does not impair obliga-
tions imposed by an existing easement. or a
valid pre-existing enforceable covenant or
3. Nothing in this chapter is meant to replace
the peaceful, sensible and just resolution of
differences between neighbors acting in
good faith. The provisions contorted in this
chapter are 'meant to encourage that such
teaolution occurs prior to engaging in the le-
gal remedies provided by it.
B. The objectives of this chapter are:
1. To preserve and promote the aesthetic and
practical benefits which trees provide for
individuals and the entire community.
2. To discourage ill-considered harm to or de -
struction of area.
3. To encourage the use of solar energy for
heat and light:
325 (Baku* 6.30.95)
U�- T Ld '37 01 : 48PP1 BEki ,�"E, CITY C.LEBK
HEALTH AND SAFETY
4. To encourage food production in private
gardens;
5. To mston access to light and views from the
surrounding locale;
6. To encourage the maintenance of positive
relationships within a neighborhood when
there is conflict between objectives 1-2 and
3-5 above.
7. It is not an objective of this chapter to facili-
tate or encumber the transmission of radio
and television signals.
(Ord. 62WNS § 1 (part). 1995: Ord. 6173 -NS $ 1
(part). 1993: Ord. 5817 -NS $ l (part), 1987.)
12.45.020 Definitions.
A. For the purposes of this chapter, the meaning
and construction of words and phrases here-
inafterset forth shall apply:
I. "Solar access" means the availability of san-
light to a property.
2. "Views" mean a distant vista or panoramic
range of sight of Berkeley, neighboring ar-
eas or the San Francisco Bay. Views in-
clude but are not limited to skylines,
bridges, distant cities, geologic features.
hillside terrains and wooded canyons or
ridges.
3. "Trees" means any woody perennial plant,
usually with one or mote major trunks
attaining a height of at least fifteen feet at
maturity.
4. "Complaining party" means any property
owner (or legal occupant without objection
of property owner) who wishes to alter or
remove a tree(s) on the property of another
which creates an obstruction to his or her ac-
cess to sunlight or view whether such access
is gained from an original dwelling or any
addition uretero used as a dwelling.
S. "Tree owner" mans any individual owning
teal property in Bedwky upon whose land is
located a tutee or trees alleged by a complain-
ing party to cause an obstruction.
6. "Obstruction" means any Substantial block-
ing or diminishment of a view from a struc-
ture lawfully used as a dwelling or access to
sunlight to the real property which is at-
tributable to the growth, mainte Lance or lo-
cation of tree(s).
(e.Aa ley r -sass) 326
7. "Tree mediator or tree arbitrator" means any
trained and experienced mediator or media-
tor/arbitrator acceptable to both complaining
parry and tree owner to mediate or arbitrate a
tree dispute.
8. "Restorative action" means any specific re-
quirement to resolve a tree dispute.
9. "'I7rianing" means the selective removal of
entire branches from a tree so as to improve
visibility through the tree and/or improve the
tree's structural condition.
10. "Tree removal" means the elimination of any
tree from its present location.
11. `T riauning" means rhe selective removal of
portions of branches from a tree so as to
modify the tme(s) shape or profile or alter
the tree's appearance.
12. 'Topping" means removal of the top portico
of a tree's main leader stems, resulting in an
overall reduction in the tree's height and
size.
13. "Tree claim" rears the written basis for ar-
bitration or court action under the provisions
of this article which includes all of the fol-
lowing:
a. The nature and extent of the alleged
obsnvctioa, including pertrnew and cor-
roborating physical evidence. Evidence
may include, but is not limited to pho-
tographic prints, negatives or slides.
Such evidence must show absence of
the obstruction at any documentable tine
during the tenure of the current property
owner (or legal occupant without objec-
tion of property owner), hereinafter re-
ferred to as complaining party. Evi-
dence to show date of acquisition must
be included
b. The location of all trees alleged to cause
the obstruction, the address of the
property upon which the tree(s) are lo-
cated, and the present era ovames name
and address. This requirement may be
satisfied by the inclusion of the tree loca-
tion, property address, and tree owner
information.
c. Any mitigating actions proposed by the
parties involved to resolve the tree
claim
OCT 23 '97 01;48W BERKELEY CITY CLERK P.4/ -
d. The failure of personal communication
between the complaining party and the
tree owner to resolve the alleged ob-
structian as set forth in Section
1245.030 of this chapter, The eom-
PIWOmg Part must provide physical evi-
dence that written attempts at concilia-
tion have been made and failed_ Evi-
dence may include, but is not limited to,
copies of and receipts for terrified or
registered mail correspondence.
(Ord. 6286 -NS $ 1 (part), 1995: Ord. 6173 -NS J 1
(part), 1993: Ord. 5817 -NS § 1 (part), 1987.)
12.45.030 Procedures.
A. The procedures described in this section shall be
followed in the resolution of tree disputes be-
tween private parties,
1. Initial reconciliation: A complaining Ply
who believes in good faith that the growth,
maies�ahanee or location of trees) on the pri-
vate property of another (hereinafter referred
to as tree owner) diminishes the beneficial
use of economic value of his or her property
because such tree(s) interfere with the access
to sunlight or views which existed prior to
such growth, maintenance or location of the
t7c(s) on the Ply during the time the
complaining parry has occupied the prop-
erty, shall notify the tree owner in writing of
such concerns. The notification should, if
possible. be accomplished by personal dis-
cussions to enable the complaining party and
tzar owner to attenpt to reach a mutually
agreeable sohrtiam.
2. Mediation: If the initial reconciliation at-
tempt fails, the complaining party shall pro-
pose mediation as a means to settle the dis-
puee OR a relatively informal basis. Accep-
MM of Madiadon by the tree owner shall be
vokmtwy. If mediation is elected, the parties
SMI adoptally agree upon a brw mediator.
The rnodiation meeting may be informal,
and no written record is necessary unless
desired by the parties. The mediation pro-
cess may include the hearing of viewpoints
of lay or expert witnesses, and shall include
a site visit to the properties of the complain-
ing party and the tree owner. Parties should
SOLAR ACCESS AND VIEWS
be encouraged to give notice to immediate
neighbors and solicit input Tie true media-
tor shall consider the objectives, benefits and
burdens set forth in this chapter in attempt-
ing to help both parties reach a resolution of
the dispute. The tree mediator shall not have
the power to issue binding orders for
restorative action. but shall strive to enable
the parties to resolve their dispute at this
stage in order to eliminate the need for
binding arbitration or litigation.
3. Tree claim preparation: In the event that the
initial reconciliation process fails and media-
tion either is not elected or fails, the com-
plaramg party must prepare a tree claim (as
defined in 1245.020) and provide a copy to
the tree owner. in Order to pursue either
binding arbitjraaon or lidption. This consti-
tutes a filing of a tree claim.
4. Binding arbitration: In those cases where
the initial reconciliation process fails and
where n►ediation has not resolved the dis-
pute. the complaining party crust offer to
submit the disptae to binding arbitration and
the tree owner may elect binding arbitration,
The identity of the tree arbitrator shall be
agreed upon by both the complaining party
and the tree owner who shall indicate such
agreement in writing. This agreement may
provide for employment of experts repre-
senting the parties or may be limited to an
investigation of the tree claim conducted by
the tree arbitrator, The tree arbitrator shall
follow the provisions of this chapter to reach
a fair resolution of the tree claim and shall
submit a complete written report to the
complaining party and the tree owner. This
report shall include the tree arbitrator's
findings with respect to all standards lisped
in Section 12.45.040 (Standards) of this
chapter, a pertinent list of all mandated
restorative actions with any appropriate
conditions concerning such actions including
a schedule by which mandates must be
completed. Such actions threat be completed
with due regard for the health of the tree. A
copy of the arbitrator's report shall be filed
with the city cleft.
326.1 Makeky 6:30.")
OCT c3 197 0:.: -19PM SERKEUE =" CLERK
SOLAR ACCESS AND VIEWS
5. Litigation: In those cases where initial rec-
h. Other true -related factors. including but
onciliation fails and binding arbitration is not
not limited to:
clacud. civil action may be pursued by the
(i) The degree to which the species in
complaining party for resolution of the sun-
native to the local region or area
light access or view tree claim under the
(n7 Indigenous nature of the species to
provisious of ttris chapter. The litigant must
which the tree belongs
ante in the lawsuit that arbitration was of-
(iii) Specimen tree quality
fared and not accepted, and that a copy of
(iv) Rare tree species, said the frequency
the lawsuit was filed with the city clerk_ A
of new planting of a tree
copy of any order or settlement in the lawsuit
2. Burdens:
shall also be filed with the city clerk_
a. The hazard posed by a tree or trees to
(Ord, 6286 -NS 11 (part), 1995: Ord 6173 -NS I 1
persons or structures on the property of
(part), 1993: Ord. 5817 -NS J 1. (part), 1987.)
the complaining pony including but not
-
limited to fire danger and the danger of
falling limbs or trees.
12.45.040 Standards for resolution of dis-
b. The extent to which the t== diminish
putes.
the amount of sunlight available to the
A. In resolving the tree dispute, the tree mediator,
garden or bottle of the complaining
tree arbitrator or court shall consider the benefits
patty.
and burdens derived from the alleged obstruction
c. The extent to which the iters irtterfere
within the framework of the objectives of this
with efficient operations of a complain -
chapter' u set forth in Section 12.45.010 in de-
ing party's pre-existing solar energy
tarmining what restorative actions, if any, are
system.
appropriate. The boaden of proof shall be on the
d. The existence of landmarks, vistas or
complaining party.
other unique features which cannot be
1. Benefits:
sewn because of growth of trees since
a. Vis ial quality of the tree(s), including
the acquisition of the property.
but not limited to species characteristics.
e. The anent to which the alleged obsuuo-
size, growth, form and vigor.
tion interferes with sunlight or view.
b. Location with respect to overall appear.
The degree of obstruction shall be de
ance, design, and/or use of the tree
termined by means of a measuring in-
ownei s property.
sttunmt or photography.
c. Soil stability provided by the ave(s)
f. The extent to which solar access or the
considering soil structure. degree of
view is diminished by factors other than
slope and extent of the tree's root sys-
tre=
tan.
S. Deleterious effect of the trees upon the
d. Visual. auditory and wind
complaining party's vegetation through
provided by the trees) to the tree owner
loss of heat and light except that the
turd to neighbour- Enlisting privacy pro-
dropping of leaves or maintenance fac-
vided by the tree(s) to the tree owner's
tors shall not be a burden under this
hater shlan be given paMCWW weight.
chapter.
e. Energy conservation and/or climate
3. Restorative actions: The tree mediator shall '
A 01111�0i provided by the eee(s)..
recommend or the tree arbitrator or court
f. Wr'ldga habitat provided by the tree(s).
shill order restorative action or no action ae-
g. The economic value of the tree(s) as
cording to Section 12.45.040 (Standards)_
measured by criteria developed by the
Restorative actions may include written &
International Society of Arboriculture
mations as to appropriate timing of trim -
and the economic value of dee property
ming. thinning, topping or removal. Such
as a result of die Uve(s).
restorative actions are to apply only to cur-
rent pm=ts to the dispute. 'fie troe arbitrator
327 (Batziay 6-30-95)
OCT 23 '97 01:49PM BERKELEY CITY CLERK R.5%7
fMALTH AND SAFETY
of court may require compensation to the
tree owner for value lost due to restorative
actions.
Possible restorative actions may include:
Trimming
Delayed trimming or thinning
Topping
Tree removal, possibly with re -
Placement pigs
a. Restorative actions shall be limited w the
trimming and/or thinning of branches
where possible and practical.
Trimming or thinning may be on a
delayed basis, providing time for the cop
of the tree to grow above the point
where it obstructs sunlight or view.
b. When trimming and/or thinning of
branches is not a feasible solution, the
impact on the health of the tree shall be
considered and replacement may be re-
quired. Topping is not a generally ao-
eepted arborieulturai practice and
therefore is not recommended by the
city.
c. In those cases w►herc tree trmoval elimi-
nates or significantly reduces the tree
owner's benefits, replacement plantings
shall at the tree owner's option be set
forth in writing prior to the tree removal.
The tree owner may elect tree removal
with replacement plantings (as an alter-
native to trimming, thinning and top-
ping).
d. All trimming, thinning, copping and tree
removal required under this chapter shall
be performed by a person or farm se-
lected by the tree owner with the concur-
rence of the complaining party, except
that in the event that the complaining
party is not obligated to bear any of rhe
cost far such action, his or her concur-
rence is not rsgobed. The use of a certi-
fied arborist for such work is encour-
aged bat not required.
e. The extent of solar access or view avail-
able and documentable as present at any
time during the tenure of the present
owner or legal occupant is the limit of
restorative action which may be re-
(9aioeter 63045) 328
quired. If the complaining party is
seeking a view or sunlight from an ad-
dition. the complaining party has no
right to a view or solar access greater
than that which existed at the time the
construction of the addition was com-
pleted, or August 6, 1987, whichever
date is later.
f. No restorative action may be required
concerning any tree the base of which is
MOM than time hundred feet from the
immediate vicinity of the dwelling of the
complaining party's property. If no
dwelling exists, the distance shall be de-
termined from the most likely dwelling
site upon the property or from the geo-
graphical center of the property at the
discretion of the mediator. arbitrator or
court as appropriate.
g. A tree which has been the subject of
restorative action under the tests of this
chapter is exempted from other property
owners' claims for a period of five years
from date of filing of a etre claim.
h. Nothing in this section shall be con-
strued to deny compensation to a age
owner to which a tree owner would be
entitled under any other provision of
law.
(Ord. 6286 -NS § I (part), 1995: Ord. 6173 -NS 4 1
(part), 1993: Ord. 5817 -NS § 1 (part), 1987.)
12.45.050 Apportionment of costa.
A. Cost of mediation and arbitration:
1. The complaining party shall pay all the
coats, if any. of mediation.
2. The complaining parry and the tree owner
shall each pay fifty percent of all the costs of
the arbitrator's professional foe, if any.
B . Cost of litigation:
I. The complaining party shall pay one hun-
dred percent of both parties' reasonable
attorneys' fees in the event that his or her
claim is finally denied. or no action is or-
dered pursuant to Section 12.45.040, unless
the tree owner has refused to participate in
either the initial rwonciliadon or mediation.
2. In all other cases, the complaining party and
the tree owner &hail each pay his or her at-
OCT 23 '97 'D1:59FM FERKEL=- CTT'r'
INSPEMON OF HOTELS, APARTl UWr HOUSES AND RESIDENTIAL -RENTALS
tomey's fees. Court costs shall be allocated
to the parties at the cart's discretion.
C. Cost of restorative actions: At any time during
the procedure specified in this chapter, the par-
ties may agree between themselves as to the allo-
cation of the costs of restorative action. If such
an agreement is not reached, the following shall
swr•
L As to trees planted prior to August 6, 1987,
the complaining party shall pay one hundred
percent of the costs of the initial restorative
action. The complaining party shall pay the
cost of subsequent restorative action as the
result of the recurrence of the stone obstruc-
tion.
2. As to trees planted subsequent to August 6,
1987, the tree owner and the complaining
party shall each be responsible for fifty per-
cent of the costs of restorative action and
subsequent recurrence of the same obstruc-
tion.
D. Compensation for value of restorative actions:
In the event a tree arbitrator or court orders
restorative action and compensation to the tree
owner therefor, the tree arbitrator or court may
use any of the following methods to determine
value lost: fair maxim value, replacement value,
or trunk formula. "Trunk formula" shall mean
the method of deternmriag value as set forth in
latest edition of the "Guide forPlant Appraisal,"
published by the Council of Tree and Landscape
Appraisers.
(Ord. 6286 -NS § 1 (part). 1995: Ord. 6173 -NS § 1
(part), 1993: Ord. 5817 -NS 11 (part), 1987.)
12.45.060 Liabilities.
A. The issuance of mediation frmdings, an arbitra-
tion report or a coact decision shall not create any
liability of the city with regard to the restorative
actions 1e 6e peft O'er'
B. The camplakft party shall hidemnify and hold
hao rdess rhe tree ow= with respect to any dam-
ages or liability incurred by said owner,arising
out of the petfacmamce of any work at the behest
of the comps pay as follows:
1. With respect to trees planted prior to August
6, 1987, the complaining party shall in-
demnify the tree owner as to one hundred
percent ofany such damages or liability.
2. With respect to trees planted after August 6,
1987, the complaining party shall indemnify
the tree owner as to fifty percent of any such
damages or liability,
C. Failure to enforce on the part of the city will not
give rise to my civil or criminal liabilities.
(Ord. 6286 -NS f l (par). 1995: Ord. 6173 -NS § 1
(pact), 1993: Ord. 5817 -NS § 1 (part). 1987.)
12.45.070 Enforcement.
A violation of this -1, - i er is not a misdemeanor,
NW the enforcement of this chapter shall be by pri-
vate parties involved. The complaining party sM11
have the right to bring injunctive action to enforce
any restorative anion ordered pttruran I to this chap-
ter. (Ord. 62WNS $ 1 (part). 1995: Ord. 6173 -NS
§ I (part), 1993: Ord. •5817 M § 1 (part). 1987.)
12.49.830 Severability.
If any portion of this chapter is struck down by
court action, all other ponk m will smarm in dfact.
(Ord. 6286 -NS § I (part), 1995: Ord. 6173 -NS I 1
(put), 1993: Ord. 5817 $ I (part), 1987.)
12.45.090 Reserved.rs
Chapter 12.48
INSPECTION OF HOTELS,
APARTMENT HOUSES AND
RESIDENTIAL -RENTALS
Sections:
L Apartment Houses and Hotels
12.48.010
Definitions.
12.48.020
Owner or representative to
reside on premises.
12.48.030
Annual inspection and notifi-
cation of violations required.
12.48.040
Correction of violations re-
quired—Revocation of certifi-
cate of occupancy authorized
when.
12.43.050
Impaction fee.•..Payment re-
quired.
12.48.060
Inspection fee—Exemptions.
328-1 (saeetey 6-304S)