Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves two‑lot subdivision at 1161 North Cataract despite removal of mature oak
Summary
Council adopted Resolution 2026‑52 approving a parcel map and development plan to subdivide 1161 North Cataract into two lots and build a two‑story home and detached garage; the council accepted staff findings that relocating the mature oak is infeasible and required larger replacement trees.
The San Dimas City Council on Aug. 11 approved a subdivision and development review for 1161 North Cataract that will split an approximately 36,759‑square‑foot lot into two parcels and allow construction of a two‑story single‑family home with a detached three‑car garage.
Yasmin DeBose, the city’s assistant planner, told the council the project includes a tree removal permit for a mature coast live oak with a canopy roughly 35 feet across. Staff and a city engineer reviewed a waiver request to avoid the code requirement to underground nearby utility poles and recommended waiving undergrounding because it is infeasible beneath the LA County Flood Control District wash. DeBose said a certified arborist concluded the oak could not be relocated and that a trim large enough to preserve it would compromise the tree’s structural integrity.
Neighbors split in their views. Mike Sutton, who lives on the adjacent private Wehner Lane and identified himself as a first responder, warned that prolonged construction parking could reduce emergency access on the 32‑foot‑wide stretch and cited past fires. Opposing comments urged preservation of the century‑old oak. The property owners and the project architect described attempts to design around the tree and said they have worked with the city for years.
After discussion, the council voted 5–0 to approve Resolution 2026‑52, adopting the planning commission’s recommendation and allowing a 3:1 replacement ratio for removed trees but asking staff and the applicant to consider larger replacement specimens (24‑inch box trees were suggested). The approval included conditions of approval and a finding that the project is categorically exempt under CEQA Class 32 infill development provisions.
The city noted the applicant proposed three replacement "sweet shade" trees in 15‑gallon containers but councilmembers advocated for larger stock to compensate for the lost canopy. Staff said the planning commission had received two prior written comments — one opposing the tree removal and one supporting the project — and that the commission voted 5–0 to recommend approval.
