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.