Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/25/2015 MinutesMINUTES OF OF r r :... MEETING OF THE PLANNING r AUGUST 25, 2015 Chair/Low called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Windmill Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 1. ROLL CALL: C/Farago led the Pledge of Allegiance. Present: Commissioners Frank Farago, Jennifer "Fred" Mahlke, Bob Nishimura, Raymond Wolfe, Chairperson Ruth Low Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; James DeBerry, City Attorney; Josue Espino, Assistant Planner; Natalie T. Espinoza, Assistant Planner; and Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator. 2. SELECTION OF VICE CHAIRPERSON: Chair/Low nominated C/Mahlke to serve as Vice Chairperson of the Planning Commission. C/Farago seconded the nomination. With no further nominations offered, C/Mahlke was unanimously elected to serve as Vice Chairperson of the Planning Commission by the following. Roll Call vote: Chair/Low Yes ClFarago Yes C/Nishimura Yes CMolfe Yes C/Mahlke Yes 3. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCEIPUBLIC COMMENTS: 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented 5. CONSENT CALENDAR: 5.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 28, 2015. None VC/Mahlke moved, ClFarago seconded, to approve the Minutes of the July 28, 2015, Meeting as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AUGUST 25, 2015 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 6. OLD BUSINESS: 7. NEW BUSINESS: 91 COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS:. COMMISSIONERS: PUBLIC HEARING(S): None None Farago, Nishimura, Chair/Low None Wolfe None VC/Mahlke, 8.1 Development Review No. PL2015-240 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Section 22.48, the applicant and property owner requested Development Review approval to construct a 1,359 square foot, two-story addition, 311 square feet of balcony area and a 246 square foot covered patio area to an existing 1,843 square foot, two-story single family residence with an attached 438 square foot two -car garage on a 0.23 gross acre (10,134 gross square foot) lot. The subject property is zoned Low Density Residential (RL) with an underlying General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential. PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER: 24139 Afamado Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Lidia Bondanelli 16763 Vanowen Street Van Nuys, CA 91403 APPLICANT: Bruno Bondanelli 17008 Evergreen Place, Unit A City of Industry, CA 91745 AP/Espinoza presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission .approval of Development Review No. PL2015-240, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Nishimura asked if in general there was an intrusion on the neighbor's property would it be a major concern for the Commission. CDD/Gubman responded that staff attempts to identify potential privacy issues and see if those can be minimized or eliminated through design. In this case, existing AUGUST 25, _015 COMMISSIONPAGE 3 PLANNING landscaping provided the landscape screening; if that had not been the case staff may have looked into adding a condition of approval .for landscape screening or to somehow reorient the window placement to avoid those types of issues. C/Nishimura said he noticed the addition is 20 feet back from the existing house and was concerned that the house was on a hill and there is a deck below it and whether the balcony would affect the privacy of the view of the neighbors below because their backyard and bedrooms face that slope. AP/Espinoza stated that when she visited the site she stood at the edge of the slope to determine what would be visible below and it is screened with large trees and shrubs so there is no ability to see below. C/Nishimura asked if the balcony was on the second floor and it would be several feet above AP/Espinoza's, point of view from where the rear setback would be. He again asked if AP/Espinoza was definitely able to tell the Commission that the applicant would not be able to look into the neighbor's property because it seems that the applicant took pictures of the neighboring properties on either side of the subject property only, so the Commission does not know anything about the view into the property below. And if there are trees, are they deciduous or evergreen trees; and if the trees were gone and people were standing on the master balcony on the second level if they were looking at that angle it appears they would look into the second floor windows of the houses down below. AP/Espinoza further explained that the balcony is located about 30 feet from the edge of a slope which descends to the rear property line, which she verified by pointing out the area using the site plan. CDD/Gubman said it appears the area was not fully analyzed to address C/Nishimura's concern regarding privacy impacts to the neighboring property to the rear so unless the applicant has additional information to help the Commission make an informed decision there is the option of continuing this matter so that additional privacy analysis of the site can be done. VC/Mahlke said that viewing from the photos that were included in the packet she agrees with what has been discussed because she also had the same concerns. She asked if the trees were on the neighbor's property or on the applicant's property and AP/Espinoza responded that the trees in the rear are on the neighbor's property. VC/Mahlke asked if the neighbor's property were left vulnerable it would have to be from their own property and not from the project site and AP/Espinoza responded "correct." The AUGUST 25, 2015 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION trees along the sides are'located on the neighbor's property and not on the subject property. The trees on the rear slope are located on both the subject property and the property behind the subject property. CNVolfe said that the neighborhood has been noticed of the project and the Commission has not heard from the neighbor immediately behind the subject property and AP/Espinoza responded "correct." CNVolfe said that in looking at the dimensions it is about 28 feet from the improvement of the house and the balcony is set off a little bit to the side and so at best it is 25 or 26 feet looking diagonally that way. He does not know how far down the property is behind the subject property but it is a pretty good distance and said he would assume the. neighbor had a similar setback in the back because this is part of the same development. AP/Espinoza said that she believed the neighbor's building was 30 feet away from their rear property line. CNVolfe said in that case one is looking 50 to 60 feet at a nine foot elevation and the neighbor's property drops down as well which makes the drop down even further. He said he did not know if it was a:big issue or not. VC/Mahlke asked staff if the one call to staff was from the mouse in question and AP/Espinoza said it was the owner adjacent to the property to the northeast and VC/Mahlke said that complaint concerned "mansionization" and potential noise and disturbance. AP/Espinoza said that VC/Mahlke was correct. C/Farago asked how steep the slope is and how far down it goes and AP/Espinoza referred ClFarago to the applicant. C/Farago said it appears that there is a chain link fence between the two properties and there is no privacy issue from the back yard as it currently exists to which AP/Espinoza responded "correct." Chair/Low asked if there was a City ordinance that referred to privacy issues or is this simply common sense and good neighboring... CDDIGubman responded that the findings that are required include that the design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or future developments which he believes can easily be interpreted to include potential privacy impacts. Chair/Low asked if this was from the perspective of the project or from the perspective of the neighbors and CDD/Gubman said the finding specifically addresses whether or not the proposed project will interfere with the enjoyment of the neighboring properties and Chair/Low said it would then be from the neighbor's perspective to which CDD/Gubman responded "correct." AUGUST 25, 2015 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Low opened the public hearing. Bruno Bondanelli, 21250 Chirping Sparrow Road, architect for the project, explained that this house is for his mother. He thanked the Commission for bringing up this concern and assured the Commission that not only can one not see_ the backyard of the neighbors to the rear, one cannot even see the house. There is a 25 foot drop after the 30 foot line for the balcony and when one stands on the second floor and looks to the rear all one sees are the tops of trees, view and rooftops way in the distance. The immediate residence is not visible from the backyard or from the house. The neighbor to the southeast that has a pool has 11-15 foot trees on their property. The neighbor on the opposite side also has a very high landscape in their yard and there are trees on the subject property as well. There is no visual intrusion to any of the immediate neighbors. Lucy 4donnell said she owns 24147 Afamado which is the property that will be the most impacted because this is a two block long street that dead ends at both ends and there is nothing else like this in the neighborhood. The subject property was positioned wrong. Their family room looks into her family room and there is very little space between the two. The upstairs bedroom windows look right into each other. She has had to install drapes and blinds. To see that there will be a balcony out there is really distressing and it will block the light to her garden and block the breeze. She understands that the home will probably be flipped for $1 to 2 million and there is nothing that even comes close to this house in the neighborhood. Her main concern is the bedroom to bedroom windows and family room to family room because in all the years she has lived at the property, noise has been a tremendous issue because those two sides of the houses are so close to each other with only a wood fence between the two houses. For many years the noise has been a nightmare because it has been a rental almost from the beginning and she does not believe the neighborhood supports this type of property. C/Nishimura said he would like to see what the view is from another 18 feet out at the proposed height because looking out the existing second floor window he believes is different than moving 18 feet out and figuring out where the edges of the balcony are just to make sure that people in the houses down on Canoe Cove are not impacted. He believes it is different to say one stood at the edge and could not look in but this project proposes to change the dynamics and go out which will mean that the resident will be looking from a higher distance as well. He wanted to make sure there were AUGUST 25, 2015 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION no privacy concerns where their balcony is not looking into the upstairs bedrooms because he believes the homes on Canoe Cove are two-story homes as well. And to see if the trees that are in between (the two properties) are deciduous or evergreen because depending on what kind of trees they are they may only be blocking a view for half of the year. Chair/Low closed the public hearing. C/Nishimura moved that this project be continued based on the new information that staff would provide. The motion died for lack of a second. C/Wolfe asked if the property owned by the speaker is to the right or left of the subject property. AP/Espinoza said that the speaker's house is to the east of the subject property. C/Wolfe explained that the proposed project does not add any new windows on that side of the house so what is existing remains existing and the addition does not change that condition. Chair Low said she noticed that the windows in the existing house are in the back so she is not understanding how the bedrooms would be looking into each other and if they are, they are because the orientation is not changing. She also noticed that the rear of the subject project with the addition as CANolfe pointed out leaves substantial space between the end of the subject house to the end of the lot and the house behind it has a large amount of setback. CANolfe moved, VC/Mahlke seconded, to approve Development Review No. PL2015-240, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farago, Wolfe, VCIMahlke, Chair/Low NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nishimura ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None CDD/Gubman stated that all decisions by the Planning Commission can be appealed to the City Council within 10 calendar days of the approval subject to filing an appeal form and payment of an appeal fee to the City Clerk, 8.2 Development Review PL2015-201 -- Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48, the applicant requested approval of a Development Review to construct a new 11,355 square foot, multi-level, AUGUST 25, 2015 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION single family residence with an attached 3,236 square foot, and a seven (7) car garage on a vacant 89,734 gross square foot (2.06 gross acre) lot. The subject property is zoned Low Density Residential (RL) with an underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential (RR). PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: 1810 Diamond Knoll Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Hon Ji Investments, LLC 18150 Rowland Street City of Industry, CA 91748 AP/Espino presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review PL2015-201, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval listed within the resolution. Chair/Low opened the public hearing. The architect for this project said he was present on behalf of the property owner to answer Commission questions. Linda Tran, 23529 Coyote Springs, asked how long the project would take to build and said she is pregnant and was concerned about the noise impacts and air quality impacts during and after the build and what kind of privacy would she be able to expect. Chair/Low closed the public hearing. CDD/Gubman responded to the speaker that he would defer to the applicant regarding 6onstruction impacts. Construction hours in Diamond Bar are restricted to Monday through Saturday 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. No construction is permitted on Sundays and Holidays. With respect to air quality impacts, the project is subject to NPDES requirements (as well as building requirements) which mandate that the soil be kept watered down to minimize airborne dust and dirt during grading phases, best management practices are required to be implemented which include features such as sandbags and other onsite installation of temporary devices to prevent mud flow runoff, standing water issues that would lead to breeding of vectors, etc. AUGUST 25, 2015 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION The applicant stated that the information about the length. of construction would be answered by the general contractor; however, in his experience the two-story garage should take six to nine months and ;the total building about a year to a year and a half. The project still has to go through plan check and the loan process so he estimates the project will start about March. Chair/Low asked how far Ms. Tran's house was from the project site and AP/Espino said that according to the notification map, it is approximately 280 lineal feet from the subject rear property line and the= boundary of her property does not touch the boundary of the property site. This property will be accessed through "The Country Estates" via Diamond Bar Boulevard or Grand Avenue and there will be no construction vehicles traveling through Coyote Springs. C/Nishimura asked how long the applicant had to commence construction without having to come before the Planning Commission again and CDDIGubman said that the project has to commence construction within two years of this approval. C/Nishimura asked CA/DeBerry if he could give Ms. Tran his copy of the resolution that contains the standard operating agreements about which CDDIGubman spoke (dust mitigation, etc.). Chair/Low advised C/Nishimura that AC/Marquez would provide Ms. Tran with a copy. VC/Mahlke moved, C/Nishimura seconded, to approve Development Review PL2015-201, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farago, Nishimura, Wolfe, VC/Mahlke, Chair/Low NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 8,3 Development Review No. PL2015-34 -- Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48, the applicant and property owner requested Development Review approval to construct a new 12,362 square foot, multi-level single family residence with an attached 3,125 square foot garage on a vacant 57,935 gross square foot (1.33 gross acre) lot. The AUGUST 25, 2015 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSIOL subject property is zoned Rural Residential (RR) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential (RR). PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER 2488 Alamo Heights Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 David Lilyquist PO Box 3294 Dana Point, CA APPLICANT: Richard Wang 1200 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard #101 Diamond bar, CA 91765 AP/Espino presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. PL2015-34, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Chair/Low asked if there was a requirement about accessory structures and if so, does this structure meet those requirements. APIEspino responded that the City has standards for accessorystructures which could be a 30 or 40 percent standard depending on how many structures and this structure in combination with the other accessory structures complies with the code. CMlolfe asked APIEspino to point out the location of the Black Walnut on the second slide which he did. Chair/Low opened the public hearing. Robert Taft, Landscape Architect, said he was available to answer Commissioners' questions. Chair/Low remarked that the proposed landscape was very pretty and wondered how this project would meet the water conservation budget. Mr. Taft responded that this plan was started prior to Governor Brown's mandates and his firm is looking at various alternatives. A lot of the plant material is drought tolerant and he does not see a problem meeting the mandates. As everyone knows, grass/turf lawn is the major water use area so he is looking at alternatives and possible reduction of those areas. The project meets the ADA Guidelines and he keeps apprised of the local water district requirements and intends to comply. Chair/Low said there are water AUGUST 25, 2015 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION features on the property and asked if those were impacted by the water mandates. Mr. Taft said he has heard conflicting reports. Some are saying no water features and others are saying it is okay and he will determine the exact requirement and adhere to it. Chair/Low closed the public hearing. Chair/Low asked staff if the orders are effective retroactively or prospectively and CDDIGubman said this project would be subject to those requirements. The regulations will affect any project that has not already commenced by the end of December. Chair/Low asked whether approval of the landscape plan would have to come back or is it handled through the permitting process. CDDIGubman said he would have to look at the project and if the proposed modification consists of replacing natural turf with artificial turf for example, he would not bring that back to the Commission for approval. If there is a change in the plant palette wherein the fundamental character, color, structure and formality of the layout is being altered that could require Planning Commission review and approval of the modification. At this point, the landscape architect is going to need to look at the model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance that has been released by the State Water Board. The City will adopt its local version of that which he would believe would be a verbatim adoption of the model ordinance. The City's contract landscape architect will review the landscape plans to determine compliance with the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. In short, whether or not there are revisions to the landscape plan he will use professional judgment to determine whether or not it is largely in conformance and the new Water Efficient Landscape requirements may or may not warrant changes to the plant palette. If there are only changes required to the irrigation plan he would not refer that matter back to the Commission. C/Nishimura moved, C/Farago seconded, to approve Development Review No. PL2015-34, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution with the condition that it complies with the new irrigationlwater requirements by the State of California. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote.- AYES.- ote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farago, Nishimura, Wolfe, VC/ Mahlke, Chair/Low NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None AUGUST 25, 2015 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSIOLI 8.4 Development Review and Tree Permit PL2013-571 s Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48, the applicant requested Development Review approval to construct a new 12,362 square foot, multi- level, single family residence with an attached 935 square foot garage on a vacant 71,438 gross square foot (1.64 gross acre) lot. A Tree Permit was also requested to remove 13 protected trees and replace them at a 3:1 ratio. The subject property is zoned Rural Residential (RR) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential (RR). PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT 23121 Ridge Line Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Basant Bhatia BLML Investments, LLC 17753 Via San Jose Rowland Heights, CA 91748 AP/Espino presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review PL2013-571 based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Chair/Low said that the arborist report appears to her to be stale and APIEspino indicated he had not had any further contact with the arborist. APIEspino stated for the record a tree report was submitted late Friday afternoon after packets had gone out to the Commissioners. However, staff reviewed the report and it was verbatim of the report that the Commissioners received in their packets. The only difference was the date that was posted on the report received on Friday was August 13, 2015. There was no additional information that was included in the subsequent report other than the date. Chair/Low said that she noticed 13 trees were subject to removal and the report generally states that they were being removed due to bad health, severe pruning and bad structure but one cannot really tell which trees have these conditions. Do each of the 13 trees have these three issues or do some of the trees have some of the issues, etc. and to her the report is deficient in that regard. She also noticed that some of the existing trees are pretty tall, one being 40 feet tall and several are over 30 feet which takes her to the map which shows where the 3:1 ratio trees are contemplated to be planted. In this case, the proposal is to plant 39 trees in that property AUGUST 25, 2015 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION where there were only 13 before and if the existing trees can grow up to 30 - to 40 feet she is concerned that this mitigation plan is workable. C/Wolfe said in addition; looking at the aerial view of the site he is not sure there are 39 trees on the property today and he is not sure where 39 trees would fit. Lastly, in consideration of the Governor's Executive Order, can that level of planting be accomplished? He believed that Black Walnuts, for example, required a significant amount of water to get established and he was concerned about having the ability in today's environment to be able to mitigate to that degree. C/Nishimura asked if all 39 trees would have to be planted on the subject property. APIEspino said that generally the applicant is required to plant replacement trees on the property. If there was going to be offsite mitigation there are tree banks or space that can be made available to accommodate mitigation for these trees. There are other alternatives including payment. However, this may require further environmental review than merely being an exempt project through CEQA. To Chair/Low's question about the location of the trees that are scheduled to be replaced, there is no indication on the report. which trees are in what type of condition. The applicant is proposing to remove 13 trees to make room for the new home as well as retaining walls toward the rear which is the reason for the removal. If they were all in fair condition he would believe they would still be proposed for removal. So staff looked at this from a worst case scenario which is the reason for the 3:1 replacement value for each one of the tree if they are all in "fair" condition. Chair/Low said there was a statement in the report that the trees were in too poor of a condition for them to be relocated. Again, the report is old and she does not know if that is still the situation or if they have deteriorated since the report was submitted. VC/MahIke said that in the arborist report she just received, it states that the insect infestation or disease is minor. The other report that was contained in the packet said the trees could not be moved because they are in such bad condition and she finds it curious that in the year and a half since the report was first fled that they were so bad they could not be moved why would not the new report have been updated accordingly. APIEspino said that staff asked for an updated arborist report which was not provided and AUGUST 25, 2415 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION the only update that staff received was changing of the date on the report the Commission received this evening. C/Nishimura said he understands that the applicant wants to remove the 13 trees to build the house and retaining wall and if this project were approved all of the trees would probably have to be removed because "the project would impact the root systems, etc. Looking at the photo 13 trees are being taken out but the space to accommodate 39 trees is being reduced as well. It seems that more than half of the planting area is being taken away with structure. He also understands that in'the cycle of nature one plants trees and the healthiest survive but what he believes the Commission is looking. for is some guidance on the density and the concerns about the steep slope. C/Farago said the tree report specifically identifies on a 1 to 1 basis the tree and its condition throughout the report and it seems that the majority are fair to bad. He asked if the ratio was designed for the canopy coverage because when he looks at the proposed smaller trees in the 3:1 ratio it appears they will provide the same canopy cover. CDD/Gubman said that the intent of the 3:1 ratio is that when there is an existing tree that is 40-50 years old, one 15 -gal or 24 -inch box does not sufficiently compensate for the loss of that resource. Three trees is a more proportional compensation for that loss so he believes it is more in line with the intent of that requirement. CDD/Gubman said that staff looked at the code and wanted to provide additional information because there are questions about the adequacy of the arborist's report. The code states that tree relocation or replacement shall be on the same site to the extent feasible. But it is not mandated that they be located on the same site. Alternatives that can be implemented in substitution for onsite replacement include a monetary donation to the tree replacement fund such as the Park Development Fund so staff can fairly easily determine the materials and labor costs for a 15 -gallon 24 -inch box walnut, oak or sycamore tree and require the applicant to make an in lieu payment to the City's Park Development Fund so that those funds can be utilized in existing or new park settings. CNVolfe said that he looked at the May 2014 tree report and the landscape architect sites the tree plan as his representation of where these 39 trees would be located and although CNVolfe is not a landscape architect nor is he an arborist he questioned whether 39 trees could be placed on this property and actually have an opportunity to thrive. He believes it is fair question to the arborist to expand on his statements. AUGUST 25, 2015 PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Low opened the public hearing. The architect for the project, said that the applicant has been working on this project for the past few years and has gone through a lot of back and forth with the review and recommendations and has complied with all of the requirements and recommendations as well as, zoning and development standards and would like to move forward with the project. He was sorry he was not able to speak for the arborist but could respond to architectural questions. Chair/Low asked if the architect was in touch with the arborist and could arrange to have him prepare an adequate report. The architect said he spoke with the landscape architect this morning who told him that the date was not consistent but that everything else was okay and mentioned that when he spoke with APIEspino he was told everything should be okay so he did not get into the details of the report because he is a professional and surely knows what he is doing and he would hope that the Commission would accept the recommendation from staff. A.C. Kaushal, 22927 Lazy Trail Road, said he was looking forward to working with the applicants who are law abiding, honest, hardworking and very reputable. He has known them for more than 25 years and when they build this house it will be like a jewel in the City's crown. He recommends that the project be approved today and in the future the staff should give the applicant full cooperation and assistance. He looks forward to welcoming them into his neighborhood. Chair/Low closed the Public Hearing. Chair/Low asked what the Commission options were at this point and CDDIGubman responded that the Commission's options would be to 1) approve the project as presented subject to the conditions contained in the resolution, or 2) approve the project with modifications to the resolution with conditions of approval that would address the concerns relative to the tree removals and replacement. One approach to that would be to craft a condition that enables staff to work out these issues so that through consultation with the City's landscape architect determine whether it is feasible, likely or unlikely to meet the water budget requirements because it does require more irrigation to establish a tree and if the number of onsite trees should be reduced, require contribution to the Park Maintenance Fund, 3) continue the matter and direct the applicant to provide an updated arborist report and answer any additional question the Commission has AUGUST 25, 2015O&U 01 voiced to be more specific about the physiological/ structural. condition of the trees and any additional information the Commission believes is necessary to make an informed decision; and 4) the Commission can deny the project. C/Farago said that assuming the arborist's report is accurate, correct and current, he does not believe that the trees existing in the current drought conditions would have gotten any healthier overthe last year and most likely have further deteriorated because they are on an empty lot. So the applicant would be replacing bad trees with healthy trees. What happens and within what period of time if these trees do not survive. Does the City go back to make sure the trees take and remain healthy? CDD/Gubman responded that the City's Tree Ordinance contains a requirement for an establishment and monitoring period so that any trees that fail during that period would need to be replaced. C/Farago said that if the Commission approved the project as it stands it would still be subject to review by the contract arborist or landscape architect to make sure it met the water conservation consideration as well as the tree replacement requirements and CDDIGubman responded that C/Farago was correct. C/Wolfe said there had been substantial conversation about the tree portion of this project and did not believe this matter needed to come back to the Commission to be resolved. ClWolfe moved, C/Farago seconded, to approve Development Review PL2013-571, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution with the stipulation that staff work out whether or not 39 trees can be planted and successfully maintained on the balance of the property or that staff implement another alternative be implemented as described by CDDIGubman. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farago, Nishimura, Wolfe, VC/ Mahlke, Chair/Low NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None VC/Mahlke asked if the applicant could opt not to plant all 39 trees and pay the in lieu fee or is it something the Commission has to offer. CA/DeBerry said this is not an option for the property owner, it is an option that is implemented by the Commission. AUGUST 25, 2015 PAGE 16 PLANNING COMMISSION 9. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Nishimura asked everyone to pay attention to school children as they are driving to work or through the City. Please observe the speed limits and bus law rules. He did some enforcement today and said it was quite disheartening to see people speeding through school zones at 62 mph. Take care of the children and pay attention to the crossing guards and school buses when the red lights are flashing. C/Farago welcomed CIWo_1fe to the Commission and said he looked forward to working with him. VC/Mahlke welcomed CNVolfe. CNVolfe said he would have to study up on arborist reports so that he could be better prepared for future meetings. He did not realize that the Commission would be so focused on trees for the last project. It is an important issue and he is excited at the opportunity to serve on the Commission. He wanted to clarify that he made a motion that allowed staff to work with the applicant to resolve the issue if it is determined not to be feasible for the applicant to plant all 39 trees on the premises. Chairll_ow thanked Commissioners and staff for doing a great job this evening. She is excited about what the Commission will be doing from now until the end of the year. 10. STAFF COMM ENTSIINFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDD/Gubman welcomed C/Wolfe to the Commission. This has always been an excellent Planning Commission. He has worked in other cities and this City Council does an exemplary job selecting Commissioners. Welcome and thanks to everyone for engaging in staff's efforts. CDD/Gubman stated that the next Planning Commission is scheduled for September 8 and there are three items slated for that agenda, 1) a Conditional Use Permit for Art Tutoring in an existing multi -story office building at Brea Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard next door to the ARCO ampm; 2) an addition to a single family residence at 1222 Calbourne Dr. and, 3) the Sign Program potentially slated for the remodeled building the Commission approved at the July 28 meeting, the former Walnut Pools building. AUGUST 25, 2015 PAGE 17 PLANNING COMMISSION 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Low adjourned the regular meeting at 8:31 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 8th day of September, 2015. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director Ruth Low, Chairperson