Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985/10/03 - Agenda Packet HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGF NI)A - 1977 Lions Park Community Center 9161 Base Line Road Rancho Cucamonga, California Thursday, October 3, 1 985 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance to Flag. B. Roll Call: Arner , Banks , Billings , Cooper , Schmidt ,Stamm and Strane C. Approval of Minutes: September 5, 1985 2 · ANNOUNCEMENTS 3. COMMISSION ITEMS A. Selection of Commissioner to serve on County Museum Long Range Planning C ommi ttee. B. Discussion of Christeson Company request regarding Garrett & Co. Winery. C. Review of City Tree Ordinance amendments. D. Discussion of Historic Resources Survey. E. Review of Tentative Inventory List. 4 · STAFF RE~ORTS A. Status update on Albert House. 5 · PUBLIC COMMENT 6. ~JO~NMENT Minutes Rancho Cucamonga Historic Preservation Commission September 5, 1985 Regular Meeting Meeting was called to order by Chairman Arner at 7:05 p.m. Ca]] to 0rder Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Arner. Pledge 0f Allegiance Present were commissioners Arner, Banks, Billings, Cooper. R0]] Ca]] (Absent: Commissioners Strane and Schmidt). Minutes of August 1, 1985, Regular Meeting were reviewed. Minutes 8./1/85 Motion: Moved by Banks, seconded by Cooper, that minutes of August 1, 1985, regular meeting, be approved as posted. Motion carried 4-0-2. Arrival of Commissioner Schmidt at 7:07 p.m. Arrival 0f C0mmissi0nE Schmidt ANNOUNCEMENTS: Commissioner Arner announced the resignation of Commissioner Schaff. Staff informed the Commission that all appointments to Resignation 0f Commissions will be made by a Council sub-Committee appointed to Commissioner that were Councilmember Chuck Buquet, and Councilmember Pam Schaff wright. Recommendation will be made to the City Council after applications have been reviewed. Commissioner Banks informed the Commision that the Etiwanda Historic Society will meet on September 9, 1985, at 7:00 p.m., [tiwanda Historic at the Buddhist Temple. Society Meeting commissioner cooper informed the Commission that she has been contacted by the property owners of the McKenna House located at 921 2 Turner Avenue regarding designating it as a Historic McKenna House Landmark. More information to follow. Commissioner Cooper informed the Commission that she has completed the survey of approximately 30 sites that are over 50 Commissioner years old. In the surrounding areas of Foothill Blvd. south to Cooper Survey Fourth Street and east of Grove Avenue to east side of Turner Avenue. COMMISSION ITEMS: Commissioner Banks requested discussion be held regarding the removal of the Victoria Avenue street trees, a City Historic Victoria Avenue Landmark. Palm Trees COMMISSION QUESTIONS and REQUESTS: Was a Landmark Alteration Permit applied for or submitted to the Community Services Department? Page 2 Historic Preservation Commission Me e ti ng September 5, 1985 Request that a copy of the Conditions for Approval as granted to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints by the Planning Victoria Ave. Commission for the construction of their project be forwarded to Palm Trees the Historic Preservation Commission. If permission was given for the removal of the trees, who gave that permission, and by what authority was it given? Request an investigation be conducted by the City Manager as to how this unauthorized tree removal occurred, and submit a written report of the results of the investigation to the Historic Preservation Commission, with copies to the Planning Commission and City Council. Further, what procedures are going to be adopted to avoid this type of occurrence in the future. The Commission requested a report to the Historic Preservation Commission from the City Attorney on the following question: Ordinance No.70, regulating Historic Landmarks is very specific in describing the process involved in altering a City landmark. If this prescribed procedure was not followed, was not a law broken? If a law was indeed broken, who broke it...the Developer...the City...or both? What form of penalty can be imposed and against whom? Motion: moved by Cooper, seconded by Schmidt, that answers to above questions be requested. Motion carried 5-0-1. Public comment was heard from Jim Frost regarding the history and concerns of the removal of the Palm Trees. Commission requested investigation into types of possible action regarding the following: Can a more severe fine on illegal tree removal be levied? Motion: Moved by Banks, seconded by Cooper, to recommend to City Council a resolution be passed to the Planning Department and Planning Commission concerning the following: Motion carried 5-0-1 . Replace one of the fallen trees in the original spot where removed. Plant a 35 foot replacement tree somewhere along the row of trees in conformity with others present. Set aside funding for replacement of the trees that do not survive. Page 3 Historic Preservation Commisswion Meeting September 5, 1985 Commission requested a report from staff concerning the Up-Keep of Trees condition and the up-keeping of the trees along Etiwanda Avenue and Highland Avenue. Commission requested to have an amendment to Ordinance 70 drafted to set forth strict fines for demolition or alterations 0rdi. 70 to Historic Landmarks. Staff to investigate this matter. Commission to draft a letter to the Planning Commission Chairman Commission to and other Commissions outlining concerns that the Historic draft letter Preservation Commission has. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Arner adjourned the meeting at 8:48 p.m. Adjournment Respectfully Submitted by: Bea Smiderle Community Services Depatment //~ CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA CC~CA~C MEMORANDUM Date: October 3, 1985 ~ To: Historic Preservation Commission 1977 From: Mary Whitney, Community Services Coordinator Subject: Christeson Company Request Regarding the Garrett & Company Winery. Agenda Item 3-B. Background In June of 1983, the Commission held a Public Hearing regarding the Garrett & Company Winery. At that time, the Commission approved of the general use design concept submitted by the Christeson Company. In January of 1984, another public hearing was held to decide whether or not to approve an alteration permit. The Commission delayed approval of an alteration permit while approving and adopting the conceptual design plan submitted for the site by the Christeson Company, thereby allowing the reconstruction/preservation of the tower. As you will recall, the approved conceptual design called for the preservation of the tower and the grape crushing room. Current Project Design In a meeting we had in late August with Christeson Company representatives, Don Christeson and Larry Tieman, they reported that current marketing trends indicate the popularity of 'food service courts.' Their new development plan for this site has incorporated this concept. Please find attached correspondence from Larry Tieman, Project Director for the Christeson Company; Glen Gellatly, architect for the development and William Taylor, Structural Engineer. The Christeson Company would like input from the Commission regarding their request to demolish the grape crushing area as it does not fit in with their current plans. A representative from the Christeson Company is expected to be present at the October 3rd meeting. MW: ks VIRGINIA DARE WINERY BUSINESS CENTRE Haven and Foothill Rancho Cucamonga, California September 3, 1985 Mrs. Mary T. Whitney City of Rancho Cucamonga P. O. Box 80? Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Mary: Thank you for your time to meet with Don Christeson and myself and for giving us the opportunity to share our enthusiasm about the Virginia Dare Winery Business Centre. Thanks to people such as yourself, the project has become a reality. We are extremely fortunate to have a successful project underway despite the high cost of the Tower rehab at $750,000 and cost overruns of $250,000. Construction interest alone is in excess of $40,000 per month. Needless to say, delays are costly. It is for this reason that we are asking for your help. As you know, we have submitted to design review a 10,000 square foot "food court" building. We ask that you review this submittal in order that we may proceed with development review. As you can see, we have taken Tower theme elements and have incorporated them into the "food court". I have enclosed a letter from our structural engineer, Taylor & Gaines, who inspected the Crusher building and concluded that the cost of rehabilitation would not be economically justified; and a letter from Bissell Architects, our project architect. Once again, thanks for your help and please call me if I can be of any assistance. Fours truly, LT/lh Enclosures Address inquiries to: The Christeson Company, 17922 Fitch Avenue, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92714, (714) 863-1227 August 29, 1985 Mary Whitney Community Services Department Coordinator City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Baseline Road P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Re: Virginia Dare Center Dear Mary, It has been brought to my attention that the proposed Food Court at the Virginia Dare Center has been held up in processing while a determination can be made by you as to the importance of the existing Crusher building. In our master planning of the center over the years, we have always tried to incorporate the building in some workable fashion, (i.e.: sales office, deli, flower shop, bar, etc.) however, as current marketing in the area indicates, our current Food Court proposal has met with a great deal of optimism not only from the planning department but from prospective clients as well. Our task of designing the best Food Court possible for the project could not facilitate this structure as it just simply is in an awkward location when considering all the factors. During our design process we really took a hard look at this building. We discovered that not only was it very small but all of the existing openings in the building created a strange dilemma from a user standpoint. To restructure the building to meet earthquake codes would be extremely costly as we found out on the tower building. Costs have exceeded all expectations. In our estimation, the Crusher building is insignificant and in the way of the best possible plan for the center. The meaningful Historical statement has already been made with the preservation of the wonderful tower building. We hope you concur. ~~1~~ GG:ktb cc: Don Christeson Larry Tieman OHCNE ~REA CODE B 18 35 I 8881 ~agast 29, 1985 The Christeson Company 17922 Fitch Avenue CHP!S'TESONCO. Irvine, CA 92714 Attention: Larry Tieman - Project Manager RECEIVED Subject: Crusher Building Virginia Dare Winery Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, I inspected the existing Crusher Building at the Virginia Dare Winery in Rancho Cucamonga, California. The purpose of the inspection was to determine the structural condition of the building and to recommend what rehabilitation would be required so that it would be made to conform to current building code requirements. The building is approximately 36'-0" long in an east-west direction and approximately 18'-0" wide in a north-south direction and is approximately 18'-0" high. The walls are approximately 12" thick poured-in-place concrete and the roof is of wood frame construction with straight sheathing. the condition of the building is very bad with some large cracks in the walls, which are somewhat eroded, indicating weak compressive strength and the roof is deteriorated with large areas of sheathing missing. There does not appear to be adequate wall to roof anchorage. The Crusher Building is the type of structure that experience has shown suffers badly in a strong earthquake. The massive walls, lack of reinforcing, weak concrete, poor roof diaphragm and lack of wall to roof anchorage are all potential weaknesses in the lateral resisting system. Bresent building codes would not allow this building to be constructed as it was. In order to rehabilitate the structure, a new roof should be constructed with a plywood diaphragm and adequate wall anchors. The concrete walls should be strengthened by applying a layer of reinforced gunite concrete with proper preparation to provide vertical bending strength and shear resistance. It is highly questionable whether the cost of the rehabilitation would be economically justified. The Christeson Company Page 2 Attention: Larry Tieman August 29, 1985 If there are any questions, please call me. Sincerely, C~--'r; c"','7-,S,nN CO. SEP 0 s ~ECEiVED _J , ~ ~ 4~. PROFESSIONAL · . '~"PR'O'FBU~..:;~', BUILDIN~ ,, ~ :,~'~ EXISTING ' , ~ -'~.;, ' G.~.~. ;:,: .......... , /" BUILDING ~., ' ........................ FQOTHLL BLV~ CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: October 3, 1985 TO: Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Dan Coleman, Senior Planner SUBJECT: TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE REVISIONS Unfortunately, I will unable to attend this meeting in person to receive your comments and suggestions on tree preservation because of prior commitments to the Design Review Committee. However, I have asked your staff to place this item on your agenda in order that the Historic Preservation Commission participate in this major revision to the Tree Preservation Ordinance. The attached staff report fully outlines the major revisions to the City's tree preservation policies. You will note that sections have been added to the ordinance for consistency with the Historic Preser- vation Ordinance 70. All trees designated as historic landmarks are specifically listed. In addition, staff is preparing an exhibit to attach to the ordinance which will illustrate the location of all trees designated as historic landmarks and also trees required to be preserved by any specific plan or community plan (eg - Olive grove in Etiwanda, Pepper grove in Victoria, etc.). Please review the proposed revisions and forward any recommendations. If you would like to discuss the proposed changes in more detail, please do not hesitate to call me at (714) 989-1861. The recommendations of the Historic Preservation Commission will be included in the final draft of the ordinance to be reviewed later this month by the Planning Commission and City Council. Respectfully submitted, Dan Coleman Senior Planner DC:dc Attachment: Draft Tree Preservation Ordinance ( CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: September 11, 1985 ~977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission F~O~: Jack Lam, Community Development D~ector BY: Dan Coleman, Sen~or Planner SUBJECT: TREE PRESERVATION O~DINANCE ~EVISIONS I. ABSTRACT: In response to the City Council and Planning Commission concerns regarding tree preservation policies and tree removal permit process, Staff has prepared a comprehensive amendment to the Tree Preservation Ordinance 37. The purpose of this report is to introduce the draft amendments and initial concepts for tree preservation policies. II. ANALYSIS: There are two basic issues with regard to tree preservation: 1. The process whereby permits are issued, and 2. Preservation versus replacement of Eucalyptus windrows. The present ordinance does not require an application for a tree removal permit for a construction project prior to appUoval by the Planning Commission. Typically, the applicant puts off applying for a tree removal permit until shortly prior to construction. TherefOre, the ten day notification and possibility of a lengthy appeal process before City Council can result in frustration for the applicant and the general public. With respect to the issue of whether Eucalyptus windrows should be saved or replaced, recent City Council direction follows Staff's recommendation in a 1980 report that Eucalyptus windrows be gradually replaced as development occurs with other varieties of Eucalyptus which will not cause 'as many problems as the Blue Gum variety, yet stil3 maintain the desired windrow character. This is the policy established in the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. The proposed amendments to the Tree Preservation Ordinance 37 will significantly modify the ordinance in the followinq key areas: ITEM P September 11, 1985 Page #2 The tree removal process for those applications associated with development projects will be tied to the development approval process~ which will run concurrently with public hearings with tentative tract maps and design reviews. The intent here is to bring all issues to the forefront of the approval process. By reviewing all elements of a project up front, the public is made more aware of the related issues early on. Expand the authority of the City to preserve trees because of their aesthetic quality to create neighborhood character. This was not explicitly expressed in the existing ordinance and Staff feels it needs greater emphasis and clarification. Clarify preservation policy for trees designated as historic landmarks. Tree removal permit requests for these trees must be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission pursuant to Ordinance 70. The Historic Preservation Commission would forward recommendations to the Planning Commission. Historic trees will be listed in the Ordinance. Define City policy to gradually replace Blue Gum Eucalyptus windrows. As development occurs, Blue Gums will be replaced with cleaner, safer variety of Eucalyptus that will retain windrow character. This approach is consistent with replacement policy of Etiwanda Specific Plan. Strengthen fines for illegal tree removal. Emphasis placed on replacement with mature trees rather than monetary fine. Trees removed in violation of the Tree Preservation Ordinance will require replacement with the largest nursery grown trees available. The intent is to make it more costly to violate the Ordinance than to comply and emphasize the significance the City places upon tree preservation. Public notice of a Tree Removal Permit request will be made before the decision has been made by the Planning Commission, versus our current process which says that the decision has been made by Staff and people were notified to appeal the decision. In essence, the current process basically puts people on the defense and leads to confusion. By placing the issue up front, we can work with the public regarding ~heir concerns before a decision is made. Appeals of Tree Removal Permit actions would be heard by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is most familiar with the design of a project and the rationale behind any action taken with respect to the preservation, removal, or relocation of trees. Tree Preservation Ordinance Revisions September 11, 1985 Page #3 Establishes measures to ensure the protection of existing trees to be preserved. All trees to be saved must be enclosed by a chain link fence prior to grading permits and cannot be removed until construction is complete. This will deal with past problems of construction crews not knowing which trees were to be saved. Establishes tree maintenance guidelines to ensure continued health and preservation of trees. Particularly for Eucalyptus windrows, the revisions set forth standards for proper maintenance. III. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the report and provide Staff with direction in the following areas: 1. Tying the tree removal process into the development approval process; and 2. General consensus on a gradual Eucalyptus windrow replacement policy. With appropriate direction, Staff will set a public hearing on the draft Tree Preservation Ordinance revisions at the following meeting. ,~_________~~ted, Jack Lam Community Development Director JL:DC:cv Attachments: Draf~ Tree Preservation Ordinance CHAPTER 19.08 TREE PRESERVATION Section 19.08.010 Purpose and Intent The eucalyptus, oak, sycamore, pine and other trees growing within the City of Rancho Cueamonga are natural aesthetic resource which help define the character of the City. Such trees are worthy of protection in order to preserve the scenic beauty, prevent soil erosion, provide shade, wind protection, screening and counteract air pollution. It is pertinent to the public peace, harmony and welfare that such trees be protected from indiscriminate cutting or removal, especially where such trees are associated with a proposal for development. It is the intent of this chapter to establish regulations for the preservation of heritage trees within the City, in order to retain as many trees as possible consistent with the purpose of this chapter and the reasonable economic enjoyment of private property. Section 19.08.020 Definitions For the purposes of this chapter, unless otherwise apparent from the context, certain words and phrases used in this chapter are defined as follows: A. "Heritage tree" shall mean any tree, shrub or plant which meets the following criteria: 1. All Eucalyptus windrows; 2. All woody plants in excess of fifteen feet in height and having a single trunk circumference of fifteen inches or more, as measured twenty-four inches from ground level; 3. Multi-trunks having a total circumference of thirty inches or more, as measured twenty-four inches from ground level; 4. A stand of trees the nature of which makes each dependent upon the others for survival; 5. Any other tree as may be deemed historically or culturally significant by the City Planner because of size, condition, location, or aesthetic qualities. 6. Trees which are fruit or nut bearing and commercial nursery stock shall be excluded from the provisions of this chapter. B. "Remove" shall include any act which will cause a heritage tree to die, including but not limited to, acts which inflict damage upon root systems, bark or other parts of tree by fire, application of toxic substances, operation of equipment or machinery, changing natural grade of land by excavation or filling the drip line area around the trunk, or by attachment of signs or artificial material piercing the bark of the tree by means of nails, spikes or other piercing objects. C. "Drip line" shall mean a line which may be drawn on the ground around a tree directly under its outermost branch tips and which identifies that location where rain water tends to drip from the tree. D. "Associated with a proposal for development" shall mean any land area for which an application for a specific plan, variance, parcel map, subdivision, development/design review or a time extension thereof, or special or conditional use permit has been filed with and is pending consideration by the City or has been approved but the related project or applicable phase thereof has not been completed. E. "Historic landmark" shall mean, for the purposes of this Ordinance, any tree designated as an historic landmark by City Council pursuant to Section 2.24.100. Section 19.08.030 Permit Required A. No person, firm or corporation shall cut down, move, destroy or remove any heritage tree within the City limits, including an applicant for a building permit, without first obtaining a tree removal permit from the City Planner. B. No tree removal permit shall be issued for the removal of any heritage tree on any lot associated with a proposal for development, unless the project has been approved by the City and a grading permit therefor, if applicable to the project, has been issued, unless an emergency waiver is granted pursuant to Section 19.08.110. C. No tree designated as a historic landmark shah be altered, cut down, moved, destroyed or removed by any person, firm or corporation without first obtaining a landmark alteration permit and tree removal permit. Section 19.08.040 Permit Procedures A. Prior to the issuance of such permit, the City Planner or designee shah inspect the site and shall clearly designate the trees to be preserved. B. Where an application for a Tree Removal Permit is associated with a proposal for development, the City Planner shall complete his investigation and make a report to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall review the case, and shall conduct a public hearing where required. The Commission shall direct the City Planner to grant the request, grant the request with modification, or deny the request. C. Subsequent to investigation, the City Planner shall approve, conditionally approve or deny the application to cut down, remove, or move any heritage tree or trees. The City Planner may impose conditions deemed necessary to implement the provisions of this article, including, but not limited to, replacement of the removed or cut down tree or trees with tree(s) of species and quantity commensurate with the aesthetic value of the tree or trees cut down or removed; tree relocation to another site on the property, provided that the environment conditions of said new location are favorable to the survival of the tree, and provided further that such relocation is accomplished by qualified landscape architect or qualified tree arborist. D. Where the trees in question are designated as a historic landmark, a request for a Tree Removal Permit shall be subject to review by the Historic Preservation Commission and landmark alteration permit procedure pursuant to Section 2.24.120. The action of the Historic Preservation Commission shall be forwarded to the Planning Com mission. The following trees are designated as historic landmarks: Date Res/Ord # Highland Avenue Street Trees 4/1/81 141 Victoria Avenue Street Trees 3/4/81 138 Section 19.08.050 Protection of Existing Trees Care shall be exercised by all individuals, developers and contractors working near preserved trees so that no damage occurs to said trees. All construction shall preserve and protect the health of trees to remain, relocated trees, and new trees planted to replace those removed in accordance with the following measures: A. All trees to be saved shall be enclosed by a chain link fence prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit and prior to commencement of work. Fences are to remain in place during all phases of constr. uction and cannot be removed without the written consent of the City Planner until construction is complete; and B. No substantial disruption or removal of the structure or feeder roots of any tree; and C. No fill material shall be placed within three (3) feet from 'the outer trunk circumference of any tree; and D. No fill materials shall be placed within the drip line of any tree in excess of eighteen (18) inches in depth; and E. No substantial compaction of the soil within the drip line of any tree; and F. The City Planner may impose such additional measures determined necessary to preserve and protect the health of trees to remain, relocated trees, and new trees planted to replace those removed; and G. Eucalyptus windrows to be preserved shall have adequate provisions for deep watering and limit surface watering within fifteen (15) feet. ·, ' ° ° ' NO CONSTRUCTION WITHIN P · ' · DRI LINE OR WITHIN 10° OF  . · TRUNK' WHICHEVER IS GREATER. °.. PROVIDE TEMPORARY ,~ FENCING AT DRIP LINE DURING CONSTRUCTION ,-.;.. PROTECTIVE FENCING ~ ~ ~ DRIP LINE ~ ' T OUT OF DRIP LINE Section 19.08.060 Permit Application An application for a tree removal permit shall be filed with the City Planner on forms provided for the purpose. The City Planner shall require a tree removal permit application, together with any application for tentative subdivision maps or other proposal for urban development. The application shall be submitted with a report which shah contain the following information: A. A statement as to reasons for removal or relocation, B. The number, species, and size (circumference as measured fifteen inches from ground level and height), C. The location of all trees on site on a plot plan in relation to structures and improvements (e.g., streets, sidewalks, fences, slopes, retaining wails, etc.). If the application is associated with a proposal for development, the location of all trees on site shall be plotted on a grading plan· D. Photographs of the trees to be cut or relocated. E. If a tree is proposed to be relocated, the relocation site shall be identified and site preparation and relocation methods described, F. Proposed method of removal, G. The health of any tree declared diseased, infested, or dying shall be verified by a written report of a qualified landscape architect licensed by the State of California or by a qualified tree arborist. Section 19.08.070 Criteria for Evaluating Permits Upon receipt of the application, the City Planner or designee shall investigate the site and evaluate the application on the basis of the following criteria: A. The condition of the tree with respect to disease, danger of collapse of all or any portion of the tree, proximity to an existing structure, or interference with utility services; B. The necessity to remove a tree in order to construct improvements which allow economic enjoyment of the property; C. The number of trees existing in the neighborhood; and the effect the removal would have on the established character of the area and the property values; D. Good forestry practices, that is, the number of healthy mature trees a given parcel of land will support; E. Whether or not the removal of the tree is necessary to construct required improvements within the public street right-of-way or within a flood control or utility right-of-way; F. The suitability of the tree species for use in an urban area; G. Whether or not the tree could be preserved by pruning and proper maintenance or relocation rather than removal, H. Whether or not such tree(s) constitute a significant natural resource of the City, and I. Whether or not such trees are required to be preserved by any specific plan, community plan, condition of approval, or designation as historic landmark. The City Planner shall give priority to the inspection of those requests based upon hazardous conditions. The City Planner, or his or her designee, may refer any request to another department, committee, board, or the Planning Commission for a determination where it is determined the application involves unusual site development requirements or unique characteristics, or raises questions of policy substantially more significant than generally pertain and which require Planning Commission consideration. Section 19.08.080 Tree Replacement Policy A. The City Planner, or designee, shall condition a tree removal permit for the replacement of certain trees within a time period as prescribed by the City Planner as follows: 1. Eucalyptus windrows, including those required to be removed as a condition of approval associated with a proposal for development, shall be replaced with Eucalyptus Maculata (Spotted Gum) in 5 gallon size minimum, spaced at 8 feet on center and, except along public streets and trails, need not be staked. 2. Eucalyptus windrows removed in violation of any section of this Article, shall be replaced with Eucalyptus Maculata (Spotted Gum) in 15 gallon size minimum spaced at 8 feet on center and properly staked. 3. Heritage tree(s), including those required to be removed as a condition of approval associated with a proposal for development, shall be replaced in kind with specimen size tree(s) as determined by the City Planner or Planning Commission. 4. Heritage tree(s) removed in violation of any section of this Article, shall be replaced in kind with the largest nursery grown tree(s) available as determined by the City Planner or designee. Heritage tree relocation to another site on the property may substitute for replacement. B. To assist the City Planner in making a determination, the applicant for a tree removal permit may submit an independent appraisal prepared by an horticulturist, arborist, or licensed landscape architect to determine the replacement value of the tree(s) to be removed. Such appraisal shall be based upon the most recent edition of the "Guide for Establishing Values of Trees and Other Plants", prepared by the Council of Tree Landscape Appraisers. Section 19.08.090 Permit -- Notification Procedure At least ten (10) days prior to making a derision, the City Planner or designee shall provide fop publie comment through notice to the property owners adjoining the subject property that such tree removal permit was requested and the results of the investigation. Where a request for a tree removal permit is associated with a proposed for development, the public hearing notifieation required by Section 17.02.110 shall include a description of the tree removal permit request. Section 19,08.100 Appeal Procedure Any person aggrieved by the denial or approval of a tree removal permit shall be afforded recourse of appeal pursuant to Section 17.02,080. The filing of an appeal shall automatically suspend the permit issued until action thereon is taken by the appropriate authority. Seerion 19.08.110 Emergeney Waiver Where a tree is determined by the City Planner or designee to be a dangerous condition requiring emergency action to preserve the public health, safety and welfare, the permit requirement may be waived. In the event of an emergency caused by a hazardous or dangerous tree, which condition poses an immediate threat to person or property, any member of the Fire Department of the City of Raneho Cucamonga may authorize the destruction or removal of such tree without securing a permit therefore. Section 19.08.120 Use of Explosives ALl persons engaged in fenlug or removing trees, and desirous of using explosives for this purpose within the City limits, shall first obtain approvals to use such explosives from the Building Division and the Rancho Cueamonga Fire Department, which approval shall be noted on the Tree Removal Permit prior to issuance of same by the City Planner. In addition, the appliearrt shall furnish such bond or insurance as shall be deemed necessary for the protection of surrounding property from any possible damage which might result from such activity. Section 19.08.130 Tree Maintenance A. The minimum standard of maintenance for trees standing upon private or homeowner owned property shall be equal to that of trees upon City property, as described in Section 19.08,130D. The owner or owners of those properties shall be responsible for maintenance and have an obligation to ascertain and implement additional measures where circumstances dictate. B. Builders shall be required to prune, treat, and maintain existing trees and plant new ones in such a fashion that when the trees become City, association, or private property the trees will be free of various damage, pests, diseases, and dead branches. The trees shall be in good biological and aesthetic condition upon acceptance. C. To insure adequate and uniform maintenance, Eucalyptus windrows should be maintained in a manner that preserves the aesthetics and history of the Eucalyptus windrows, as described in Section 19.08.130D. D. Pruning prior to transfer of mature Eucalyptus windrows to the City, associations or private owners must be done by builders as follows: 1. Leaves, debris, dead branches and suckers accumulated along the base of the windrow shah be removed periodically, or as may be necessary for reasons of public health and safety. 2. Dead or decaying branches shall be removed, trunks stripped, and tree structure trimmed at least every four years or as may be necessary for reasons of public health and safety as well as aesthetics. 3. Trees should be trimmed to preserve their natural structure; the practice of "topping" the trees is prohibited. 4. Remove unsightly or poorly crotched limbs and heavily leaning branches. 5. All cuts are to be made flush and/or in line with proper arboricultural practices. 6. Dead, diseased, or dying trees shall be removed as may be necessary, and shall be replaced with 15 gallon Eucalyptus Maculata. . E. Young Eucalyptus windrows trees shall be maintained, fertilized, and irrigated as may be necesary to sustain them in healthy condition. Dead trees shall be replaced with same species of appropriate size; replacement trees need not exceed 15 gallon size. Section 19.08.140 Penalty Violation of any section of this Article shall constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by imprisonment not to exceed six (6) months, or both such fine and imprisonment. Each tree removed in violation of this Article shah constitute a separate offense.