Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_2002-06-04_MinutesCALL TO ORDER '.3I1iJ�R CITY OF ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting June 4, 2002 — 7:00 P.M. Chairman Bentz called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and Commissioner Norton led the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Bentz announced that the Commission would take a ten-minute break to read the document submitted just before the meeting by Council Member Luna. Chairman Bentz called the meeting back to order at 7.10 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Eddings, Jones, Kelley, Norton, O'Malley and Chairman Bentz Absent: Vice Chairman Fonzi Staff: Community Development Director Warren Frace, City Engineer Steve Kahn, Assistant Planner Glenn Rider, Planning Services Manager Steve McHarris, City Attorney Roy Hanley and Recording Secretary Grace Pucci. PUBLIC COMMENT City Manager Wade McKinney thanked the Commission on behalf of the City for their efforts and service to the City of Atascadero. Mr. McKinney spoke about the new strategic goals adopted by the City Council referring specifically to "Council and Commission Preparedness." In an effort to provide a higher level of training for the Council and Commission, Mr. McKinney passed out a pocket guide purchased by the City through the Institute of Local Self Government. Chairman Bentz closed the Public Comment period. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON MAY 21, 2002. City of Atascadero Planning Commission rv:mutes Regular Meeting June 4, 2002 Page 2 of 10 MOTION: By Commissioner Norton and seconded by Commissioner Jones to approve the Consent Calendar. AYES: Commissioners Norton, Jones, O'Malley, Kelley and Chairman Bentz NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Eddings Motion passed 5:0 by a roll -call vote. Chairman Bentz suggested the Commission move Public Hearing Item #2 to the end of the agenda, allowing more time to deal with this item. There was Commission consensus to move Public Hearing Item #2 to the end of the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: CONDITION USE PERMIT 2002-0061 — CORNERSTONE COMMUNITY CHURCH MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT Applicant: Cornerstone Community Church Project Title: Conditional Use Permit 2002-0061 Project 7920 Santa Rosa Road, Atascadero, CA (San Luis Obispo County) Location: APN 054-151-030 Project The proposed project consists of an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit to Description: change the Master Site Plan to allow the phased addition of two 1400± square foot modular building on the site. The proposed structure will be located in a flat grass area next to the main building. The building will be used as classroom space for the church. General Plan Designation: Public Zoning District: Public Proposed The Environmental Coordinator is recommending that the Planning Commission Environmental re -certify the Negative Declaration that was prepared for the original CUP. Determination Staff Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution 2002-0031 approving Conditional Use Recommends: permit 2001-0061, a request to amend the Master Site Plan to allow the phased addition of two 1400± square foot modular building on the site subject to findings and conditions. Community Development Director Warren Frace provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission. City of Atascadero Planning Commission Minutes PUBLIC COMMENT Regular Meeting June 4, 2002 Page 3 of 10 Dick Agar, Marco Road, facilities person for Cornerstone Community Church, stated that this project would provide much needed classrooms for the church. Mr. Agar indicated that parking is not currently an issue as he has never seen the parking lot full on Sunday mornings, however, they are hoping to work with PG&E to lease a strip of land next door to the church for additional parking for future phases of church development. If the church were unable to secure the additional land for parking, they would not develop beyond the second modular unit. Commissioner Norton asked about parking for those attending the church. Mr. Agar responded that all church attendees have space to park in the lot and are not parking on the street. Commissioner O'Malley complimented the church on their well-maintained grounds. Additionally, he thanked contractor Dave Rogers who met with him on site. Geraldine Braser, 3202 Monterey Road, stated that she was pleased that the applicant is addressing future parking issues. Chairman Bentz closed the Public Comment period. Commissioner Norton indicated that she felt the extension was reasonable and is pleased to see that the church is growing, however, she is uncomfortable voting on the second phase, as there is much uncertainty with it at this time. She suggested that the Commission vote on the first phase only. MOTION: By Commissioner Norton and seconded by Commissioner O'Malley to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-0031 approving Conditional Use Permit 2001-0061, a request to amend the Master Site Plan to allow the phased first addition of two 1400± square foot modular building on the site subject to findings and conditions Commissioner Eddings asked if this Motion would not approve the second addition at this time. Commissioner Norton stated that this was correct and the addition of the church extension which is dependent on procuring the additional land for parking. Commissioner O'Malley withdrew his second based on this clarification of the Motion. The Motion failed by the lack of a second. MOTION: By Commissioner O'Malley and seconded by Commissioner Eddings to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-0031 approving Conditional Use Permit 2001-0061, a request to amend the Master Site Plan to allow the phased addition of two 1400± square foot modular building on the site subject to findings and conditions. AYES: Commissioners O'Malley, Eddings, Jones, Kelley and Chairman Bentz NOES: Commissioner Norton City of Atascadero Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting June 4, 2002 Page 4 of 10 ABSTAIN: None Motion passed S:1 by a roll -call vote. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORTS 4. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT, TRP 2002-0002: 7305 Santa Cruz Road Request to remove five native oaks over 24 -inches in diameter within the Residential Suburban zoning district located at 7305 Santa Cruz Road. The trees have been determined by a certified arborist and planning staff to be obstructing proposed improvements that cannot be reasonably designed to avoid the need for tree removal. Staff Recommends: The Planning Commission adopt Resolution PC 2002-0029 approving the removal of f ve native oaks subject to the mitigation requirements set forth in the Atascadero Native Tree Ordinance and specified within the project conditions and exhibits. Assistant Planner Glenn Rider provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT Mike Messer, 9265 Carmelita, applicant, answered questions of the Commission. Commissioner Jones, inquired about a tree at the corner of the property with a line -of -sight problem, and commented that the tree should be trimmed in the interest of public safety. The applicant indicated that he would look at the tree when construction begins. Chairman Bentz directed staff to look at the tree in question. Joan O'Keefe, 9985 Old Morro Road East, expressed her appreciation to staff and Mr. Messer for working to preserve trees on this site. She questioned a comment in the report that indicated the site plan had not been approved and asked if this was different from the usual procedure. Additionally Mrs. O'Keefe suggested that the Commissioners read and compare the two arborists' reports. Chairman Bentz closed the Public Comment period. MOTION: By Commissioner O'Malley and seconded by Commissioner Kelley to adopt Resolution PC 2002-0029, approving the removal of five native oaks subject to the mitigation requirements set forth in the Atascadero Native Tree Ordinance and specified within the project conditions and exhibits, and directing staff to look at increasing visibility on the roadway by possible tree trimming. AYES: Commissioners O'Malley, Kelley, Eddings, Jones, Norton and Chairman Bentz City of Atascadero Planning Commission Minutes NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Motion passed 6:0 by a roll -call vote. Regular Meeting June 4, 2002 Page 5 of 10 5. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. TRP 2002-0003: 8200 Graves Creek Road Request to remove three native oaks over 24 -inches in diameter within the Residential Suburban zoning district located at 8200 Graves Creek Road. The trees have been determined by a certified arborist and planning staff to be obstructing proposed improvements that cannot be reasonably designed to avoid the need for tree removal. Staff Recommends: The Planning Commission adopt Resolution PC 2002-0030 approving the removal of three native oaks subject to the mitigation requirements set forth in the Atascadero Native Tree Ordinance and specified within the project conditions and exhibits. Assistant Planner Glenn Rider provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT — None Commissioner Kelley stated that he had gone to the site and had a difficult time identifying the trees to be removed. He recommended that this item be put on hold and that the applicant go to the site and mark the trees and indicate where the house is to go. MOTION: By Commissioner Kelley and seconded by Commissioner O'Malley to send the application back to the applicant with the direction to identify all the trees to be removed with the appropriate blue tape and to do a preliminary stakeout of the site for the tennis court, house or any buildings that will be near the tree removal areas. AYES: Commissioners Kelley, O'Malley, Eddings, Jones, Norton and Chairman Bentz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Motion passed 6: 0 by a roll -call vote. City of Atascadero Planning Commission minutes; Regular Meeting June 4, 2002 Page 6 of 10 2. APPEAL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORS DETERMINATION ON BLD 2001-1056 - 3F MEADOWS PHASE 1 ROAD CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Appellant: George Luna Title: Appeal of Community Development Directors Determination on BLD 2001- 1056 (3F Meadows Phase 1 Road Construction Permit) Project 3F Meadows / Planned Development 11, Location: Approximately 802 acres consisting of 115 undeveloped Atascadero Colony lots located west of the terminus of San Marcos Road. Atascadero, CA (San Luis Obispo County) Project The proposed project consists of a construction permit (BLD 2001-1056) to Description: construct roads and subdivision improvements for Phase 1 of PD -11. The appeal regards a determination that the permit is consistent with the project EIR that has been certified for the project. Staff Recommends General Plan Designation: Single Family Suburban (SSF) Zoning District: Residential Suburban (RS / PD -11) 1. The Planning Commission holds the hearing as follows allowing equal time for both the appellant and project applicant to make presentations and rebuttals: • Staff Report • Appellant's Presentation • Applicant's Presentation • Public Testimony • Applicant's Rebuttal • Appellant's Rebuttal • Planning Commission Deliberations 2. The Planning Commission adopt Draft Resolution PC 2002-0032 thereby upholding the Community Development Director's April 18, 2002 determination that the Phase I Road Improvement Construction Permit is consistent with the project EIR and Planned Development 11. Community Development Director Warren Frace and City Attorney Roy Hanley provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission. Dean Coker, Senior Planner Castlerock Development, Don Ritter, Operations Manager Castlerock Development and Dennis Law, Attorney, made the applicant's presentation to the Commission. (Attachment A) Council Member George Luna, appellant, made his presentation to the Commission. (Attachment B) City of Atascadero Planning Commission `minutes PUBLIC COMMENT Regular Meeting June 4, 2002 Page 7 of 10 Joanne Main, 8940 San Gabriel Road, stated that the project had undergone strict scrutiny by the Community Development Director and staff and she felt they had done an excellent job in mitigating all areas of concern. She feels it is time for the project to move forward. Tim O'Keefe, 9985 Old Morro Road East, read from a prepared statement expressing his concern regarding the lack of information available and the rush for a hearing date. He requested the City Attorney clarify the role of Appendix B in the EIR and of the PD overlay in regard to the development of this project. (Attachment C) Joan O'Keefe, 9985 Old Morro Road East, commented, in a prepared statement, on the staff report addressing the following issues: non compliance with the EIR, canopy and canopy replacement, retaining walls and tree count. (Attachment D) Bruce Bonifas, 5735 San Pedro Avenue, expressed his support of the appeal of the Community Development Department's decision in a written statement. He felt any changes to the EIR must allow for public comment and not be left to the sole discretion of the Community Development Department. (Attachment E) Eric Greening, 736 Valle, addressed the issues of precedent and process in relation to the appeal. He was concerned with the lack of information available to the public on the changes proposed, and urged the Commission to return to the pre -approved project and not set a precedent whereby it would be acceptable to change the mitigations of an approved project. Ursula Luna, Atascadero, stated that she felt staff had made their decision on this project based on Map 1, which she feels is wrong. Mrs. Luna explained her concerns in a prepared statement with corresponding maps. (Attachment F) Darlene Blaser, 12055 Cenegal Road, read a letter written by Ellen Beraud, 9608 Laurel Road. Ms. Beraud stated her concern over the lack of long-term planning with regard to tree mitigation and urged the Commission to require a new EIR for the project. (Attachment G) Kevin Blaser, Atascadero, stated that he was not opposed to development in the city, but was concerned with the omissions of the conditions of the EIR in the Comprehensive Recovery Plan (CRP). Because of the significant changes made to this project, he feels the project should proceed as originally proposed or ensure that the CRP is in line with the original EIR. Mr. Blaser also inquired whether the issue of Native American artifacts on the site had been considered. Rick Mathews, 6950 Navarette Avenue, read from a prepared statement urging the Commission to uphold the appeal of this project. He felt the Commission should require a new EIR as the project has changed substantially from that which was originally approved. (Attachment H) Jim Patterson, 9312 North Santa Margarita Road, stated that he was an ISA -Certified Arborist and had worked extensively with the City Arborist in the early 1990's to develop the Native Tree Ordinance standards and guidelines. Mr. Patterson felt that a comprehensive look must be taken at this project and that there is not enough information available regarding the species and size of City of Atascadero Planning Commission iviinutes Regular Meeting June 4, 2002 Page 8 of 10 the trees to be removed for appropriate mitigation. He urged this item be sent back to staff for additional information. Don Ritter, employee of Castlerock Development and resident of Atascadero, stated that the CRP is not a tree replacement plan, and its goal is not to address the 4:1 issue. The goal is to recreate the oak habitat so that the oak trees can be restored and allowed to grow in their native conditions. Mr. Ritter spoke about the dedication of open space and conservation easements and indicated that these are primarily to address the issue of tree loss. Council Member Luna, appellant, presented his rebuttal. He felt the Comprehensive Restoration Plan from the original EIR should be looked at by the Commission and compared to what has been submitted. Mr. Luna urged the Commission to consider the tree canopy as well as the tree count. Dean Coker, applicant, presented his rebuttal. He expressed his support for the staff report and felt the tree protection plan is consistent with the E1R. Mr. Coker asked the Commission to conclude, under the resolution proposed, that the Community Development Director's determination was appropriate. Chairman Bentz recessed the hearing at 9:23 p.m. Chairman Bentz called the meeting back to order at 9:38 p.m. Chairman Bentz asked staff whether many of the questions raised by the public were appropriate to the item being considered. He felt that the current EIR does not identify or mark species in detail but rather states that these things will occur when development and grading begins. Director Frace stated that the EIR did analyze gross impacts to the tree canopy, but there are no calculations in the EIR that identify each tree by type or species. The Tree Protection Plan is currently under review and this plan will identify and number all the trees. The Comprehensive Restoration Plan is outlined in the EIR; the specifics are contained in the draft that is also currently under review. Chairman Bentz reiterated that the issue before the Commission is whether or not they would endorse the Community Development Director's interpretation that the changes as proposed are within the existing EIR. City Attorney Roy Hanley replied that while this is correct, the list of additional mitigation measures that are required by the EIR have not yet been approved and if the Commission decides to deny the appeal, it will not constitute an approval of any of those measures. Commissioner O'Malley stated, in response to a question from the public, that he has had no contact with the applicant or appellant, however he would have preferred to meet with both. Commissioner O'Malley indicated that he had several conflicting values: 1) the visual impact of any man-made structure tends to worsen over time whereas nature tends to replenish itself, and 2) it is important to maintain open discussion with the community over development issues. Additionally, there are several issues that he would like to see staff address: 1) canopy replacement analysis, 2) survivability issues, and 3) if there are fewer retaining walls, how can there be less cut and fill and not effect the road. Director Frace stated there were alternative road section options incorporated in the project, which eliminated the need for some of the cuts and fills and walls simultaneously. Commissioner O'Malley stated that the amount of open space City of Atascadero Planning Commission rwinutes Regular Meeting June 4, 2002 Page 9 of 10 given was a real asset and asked about the issue of on-site monitoring. Director Frace stated that there were RFP's out for the monitoring positions. Chairman Bentz asked the City Engineer if he had reviewed the cut and fills. Mr. Kahn stated that he had visited the site several times and reviewed all of the construction documents and the relationship to engineering standards. He indicated that the plans were well designed and the banks are set back correctly and would work from an engineering standpoint. Commissioner Norton indicated that she has had no contact with the applicant or appellant and that she was somewhat unclear about the grading and other changes due to the elimination of the retaining walls as well as the resulting visual impact. Commissioner Jones stated that he did not have a problem with this deviating from the EIR for the purposes of what is being done at this point. He feels certain that staff will look at the changes and see that the law is followed. Commissioner Eddings stated that the developers on this issue did not contact him. He was supportive of the staff report and expressed surprise that some of those present were in support of 20 to 30 foot retaining walls. He felt the size of the modified area does not create any substantial new impacts that would require a new EIR. Commissioner Kelley agreed with the Community Development Director's decision and that the changes made were consistent, feasible and reasonable and created less of an impact than the original EIR. He felt everything has been covered and it is time to move forward with the proj ect. MOTION: By Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Eddings to approve Resolution PC 2002-0032, a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero finding the permit BLD -2001-1056 for the construction of Phase 1 Road Improvements for the PD -11 3-f Meadows project is consistent with the Project EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program with all the findings as set forth in the Draft Resolution. AYES: Commissioners Jones, Eddings, Norton, O'Malley, Kelley and Chairman Bentz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Motion passed 6:0 by a roll -call vote. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS & REPORTS - None ADJOURNMENT City of Atascadero Planning Commission minutes Regular Meeting June 4, 2002 Page 10 of 10 Chairman Bentz adjourned the meeting at 9:58 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting on June 19, 2002. lu l D11 M �LCei-'� 114113 -in I ,`� U�\1111 M*3 ' 6A.1 1I Cdvlpmnt/PC Minutes 02/PC Minutes 06-04-02.gp.doc Attachment A —Dean Coker, Castlerock Development, Applicant Attachment B — Council Member Luna, Appellant Attachment C — Tim O'Keefe, 9985 Old Morro Road East Attachment D — Joan O'Keefe, 9985 Old Morro Road East Attachment E — Bruce Bonifas, 5735 San Pedro Avenue Attachment F— Ursula Luna, Atascadero Attachment G — Ellen Beraud, 9608 Laurel Road Attachment H— Rick Mathews, 6950 Navarette Avenue X_ y ® El 0 70-- Yap cu' m 4j 4-J 4J SOME rlr tv ... El- ONES*%moo' E .W MEMooh REME oa _ s o► . 40 s o a� ?;tv_ .a DOW a � c� .tW u 4i _ L p tA Wim:: � .v T3 3 ._ = tt u E p .> mm v r. Mc c�� �s tv cn to s OVER00 *,.o, a- E E omma ® 0 0 to 4. m o C. w A� =LA s tv w'--- -.-D - 0 u ago a� E ul a �. v v R eY�■i w 4J, �.. 4J E F i tv u F 4) 4J u • ed — a a.J , 4� 4 a R3 LI = a L 0 s Yl 4— � 41 4 a = 0 s Yl — 41 c� — L; 4J O V cid = 4J L •— © tv td (n 4J: Id > L � 4� vi. p ICL it 4 s C 0 u ._ w Yl > c� O V cid = 4J © tv (n 4J: Id > L � it s C r LJ -.4J 4-0 CL (A CD,. V 4J 0 CL 4 Q 4J S- 4J 70 (A CL 0 tv v 9� Lo 0 41 (A 4J M 4 LU 0 O �V O t � �a' LAin �3 t� W c V N 0 .� • ILI may! .N Q n::� §SAN �: 1- L 'a L � V � s f c 0 may! n::� §SAN �: 1- ,t i• .y w�3 3:,� f c IV GE}.�i CL .. O,. Q. AA O O 4� V V •C _ L Q. � i � O� O .Q V � •� o a ._ Z ed 0 4J Ln ia) 4-J Z, 4-J r 0 : 00 On q CN L. CL a) O 4J -° a. o C> F4 4-J > 0 A mom CL� Lr) Lo rO 00 00 (A N Cl -4 Ln (A CL) (1) c 10 U_ _.a 64 J.>a I b C)0 ct E - Ln •C14 c) 0 M ob C%4 a) 0 CL t1d 4J 4, (V ct O � � CL A A 711 71 7.] j r s*a C: in.v, 0 '1 v c c Q) cU • ama � � (z In IA 0 w 0 + 0 J C 0 V0 u 0 g i/1 U u < U0 v u fn Lh Lu 1 x .F aFP ���� � � � y i• IN 4t i y �l' a y i V: t aya i � .��sL' •+� ILI 000Jti1 00002 Att< 'ment # PC Minutes of J Appeal of Staff Decision on Road mitigation for the 3F Meadows 800 ac expansion project PDA 1 , Phase 1 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, I have filed this appeal because of significant community concern. I met with representatives of Castlerock to discuss the matter twice including a visit with them to the site. I have not already determined how to vote should the matter come before the City Council. If it does come before the City Council I will give the matter a fair hearing. I would hear the appeal with an open mind and make a decision based upon the facts and the law just as I did when I voted for the project in 1995. I tell you this so that you will understand the structure of my appeal. I will present the facts and let you, the Commission, make the necessary Findings. RETAINING WALLS First Finding: Are retaining walls in the EIR required? Staffs letter of 4/18/2002: Staff based their determination on the information provided by Castlerock and concluded the impact difference: Native Tree Removal Cut Slope Fill Slope -17 trees - 0.41 ac - 0.17 ac PD1 1: "(8) Retaining walls shall be used wherever feasible to reduce the amount of grading necessary for the construction of roads and homes." EIR: 1. Page IV -B4, under B. Biological Resources, 4. Mitigation Measures: "Five types of mitigation measures have been identified that include design changes (shifting buildings, driveways and leach fields and changing road layout, adding retaining walls), restoration of slopes, and establishing wildlife corridors". 2. Page IV -B4, under B. Biological Resources, 4. Mitigation Measures, c: add retaining walls: as described in Section IV -A and D, and noted on the plans in Appendix B, construction of retaining walls are needed to limit grading ading impacts and preserve woodlands. 3. Page IV -A15, under 4. Mitigation Measures: "In some cases walls are noted in Appendix B on road segments that would be better re-routed to alternative alignments. These alternative routes are described in Section B and D of this George Luna, Appeal 6/4/2002 i 0k'�)�� EIR and are shown on Map 10 -Composite Mitigation... The walls recommended for these areas would mitigate some but not all impacts of road construction. Visual quality and wildlife habitats could have significant residual adverse impacts in this area even with wall construction." 4. Table D1 — Collector Road Impacts and Mitigation: This Table provides for the construction of retaining or crib walls to eliminate or reduce slope on the roads. Second Finding: (a) Do the dots on the maps accurately reflect existing trees? (b) Is the marginal difference in counting of dots (trees) on the 2 maps an accurate measure to determine the need for retaining walls? (c) Is counting trees (staff) equal to counting canopy (EIR)? (d) Are the trees in the field identified by, numbers to assure verification of accurate counting? (e) Are the cut and fill slopes identified in the field to assure verification of accurate counting? (f) Are the trees identified according to species, size and condition? Staffs letter of 4/18/2002: Staff, based on the table on the plans submitted by Castlerock, determined that 17 fewer trees would be removed with the new proposal. EIR: 1. Page IV -137: "The proposed plan would result in removal of about 5-6% of the site's woodland canopy. With avoidance measures about 3% of the site's woodland canopy will be removed with development, and this 3% would be replaced on a 1:1 basis by means of the restoration program. 2. Page IV -133, under 3. Environmental Impacts: The proposed project grading plans in Appendix B in this EIR shows surveyed tree locations for most of the areas of the site affected by the development. The MEA estimates about 743 trees requiring removal. However, significant areas have not been surveyed where proposed grading would indicate major tree removal. Based on these plans, it is expected that this figure would be hi her. Tree Ordinance, Tree Standards/Guidelines {in effect February 1995): Tree Standards/Guidelines (page 13, B) specifies for road construction: 1. "5. All native trees within the proposed area of disturbance shall be field tagged and numbered (recording species and approximate dbh) but may not appear on the site plan described above (depending upon the width of the area of disturbance). The number of trees to be removed shall also be recorded." 2. "6. For each tree that is identified on the site plan (those along the edges), complete a native tree inventory stating: (a) Species (b) Size, measured in dbh. (c) Approximate canopy area (3.14 x radius of canopy squared) George Luna, Appeal 6/4/2002 2 i) 0, 0, :: (d) general condition and health of the tree (e) How the tree will be impacted by proposed development (require removal, or affected by cut, fill, roots, branches, etc.) (7) Proposed tree protection measures for any inventoried trees, including ... retaining walls and tree wells for trees along the edge of disturbance (8) Tree replacement plans (9) Photos (optional, but sometimes helpful) Tree Standards/Guidelines (page 13-14 C) specifies for road construction: (1) The proposed center line of the road and area of disturbance (limits of cut and fill) shall be staked with markers designed to withstand a period of two years. (2) Field identify every native tree within the area of disturbance with non - damaging numbered tape designed to withstand a period of two years. Every tree shall be numbered and recorded as to species and approximate dbh. (3) Field survey and map all native trees that have driplines within 20'of the edges of disturbance. (Complete inventory on these trees is required). In addition to numbering, wrap trees to be removed with red or pink flagging tap and trees to be protected with yellow or green flagging tape. (4) The applicants' arborist shall identify quality trees along the edges of the road that should be saved through extra tree protection measures. Each of these trees shall be identified as such on the site plan. The applicant shall propose methods of tree protection for City review. (5) Applicants should anticipate the need for at least one field visit with City Arborist/Staff and field trips for elected officials for any major road building project involving tree removals. Site Example: The shown cut area (pink) on lot 100 of the revised map is new. There are no trees shown in the upper portion. The photos show the upper portion of this area. LOT 92 George Luna, Appeal 6/4/2002 0k")000a-,.5 1.07'g5 , LOT 101 LOT 100 GRADING AND TREE IMPACT • COMPARISON ILLUSTRATION 2 OF 2 • Inew proposal) George Luna, Appeal 6/4/2002 0k")000a-,.5 n'�,:�ik�. i� • �l=,lei -e',ti :•li L �,Y,r L. f !�' r'r•'�r. y +C' .r jig ML r ! fir. k �w F r 4 fir' r.j � !� ! .�. .� vim. V.+i.; 3•,Lr � � t.,j�' ■ , SET :r � �'"�•r= A : � �� .�,, =� � � �••.cfir-;-'��p��y,,'�" �`�'�. :4f'r� • � e • �50 WVn- 1 Third Finding: Are the shaded areas (brown = cut, blue = fill) on the Grading and Tree Impact Comparison Illustration map 1 of 2 (EIR proposal) correct? Inaccuracies would reduce the number of trees removed under the EIR proposal and thus change the tree count comparison. EIR: 1. Appendix B, exhibit 5: It shows the retaining wall completely eliminating the fill next to open space (lot) E. It does not indicate a revised limit of fill below the retaining wall and therefore no tree removal. 27 I � i o I, LU 9 � �1 sCMF a !rl , pll I?(! fl Ll w a 10 Uj • Lij4 J I6 .. � R. nY a • . 1 George Luna, Appeal 6/4/2002 5 , 0 2 Appendix B, exhibit 3: It shows the retaining wall completely eliminating the fill next to lot 8. It does not indicate a revised limit of fill below the retaining wall and therefore no tree removal. George Luna, Appeal 6/4/2002 6 0 €3 0 0 "Z, 8 ILLUSTRATION 1 OF 2 (reflectinq EIR conditions): 1. The map shows a blue colored fill area below the retaining wall next to lot E. Trees for removal are shown within that area. • . -• . .LST �c 98 ^ GRADING AND TREE IMPACT COMPARISON ILLUSTRATION 1 OF 2 (based on the EIR) kN 2. The map shows a brown colored cut area above the retaining wall next to lot 8. Trees for removal are shown within that area. Fourth Finding: If retaining walls are not installed, what avoidance technique will be used to mitigate the impacts in areas of significant grading and tree removal? Is the Comprehensive Restoration Plan sufficient mitigation for the areas where walls have been eliminated and "significant" grading will occur? Staff's letter of 4/18/2002: Staff's letter does not address this. EIR: Page IV-136, under B. Biological Resources, 5. Analysis of Significance: "...The preservation of 314 acres of open space, the creation of 56 acres of open space buffers (easements) and the restoration of major disturbed areas, combined with design changes such as road realignment, shifting building sites and construction of retaining walls will reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Design changes and a reduction in lots are "avoidance" techniques preferred by the George Luna, Appeal 6/4/2002 7 000029 DFG. "Replacement" via restoration is a secondary reference and does not substitute for avoidance as a primaTy mitigation measure". If avoidance techniques are replaced by the COMPREHENSIVE RESTORATION PLAN Fifth Finding: Is the Draft Comprehensive Restoration Plan (5/15/2002) in compliance with the EIR, Tree Ordinance and the General Plan? Staffs letter of 4/18/2002: Staff's letter does not address this. Staff report of 6/4/2002: Native trees are required by the EIR to be replaced at a ratio of four new trees for every tree removed. EIR: 1. Page IV -134, under B. Biological Resources, 4. Mitigation Measures: "Five types of mitigation measures have been identified that include design changes (shifting buildings, driveways and leach fields and changing road layout, adding retaining walls), restoration of slopes, and establishing wildlife corridors". 2. Page IV -135 lists the criteria for the Comprehensive Restoration Plan. Most listed specifications are included in the submitted Draft Plan (5/15/2002). The following are NOT included: "The Plan should include at least four times the number of removed native trees as replaced per the City Tree Ordinance, and shall include appropriate understory shrubs." "Oak trees removed bv_residence construction shall be replaced per the Citv Tree Ordinance at a 4:1 ratio." "Any deficiencies identified on an annual basis shall be remedied and monitored for an additional three years until areas are established." Tree Ordinance, Tree Standards/Guidelines (in effect February 1995): Page 17, Roads: Deciduous Oaks/Madrones: Plant 4 trees for every 6"dbh of tree removed. Other Native Trees: Plant two trees for every 6"dbh of tree removed. General Plan: General Plan page II -33, "Every tree removed shall either be replaced or in -lieu contributions..." � i �`�• � George Luna, Appeal 6/4/2002 8 -j Comprehensive Restoration Plan: 1. Page 13 lists 3 restoration zones. R1 17% of the plants would be trees (Quercus agrifolia 15% and quercus dumosa 2% ), resulting in every 6th plant being a tree with 450 plants per acre over the 3.04 acres. This is 1 tree seedling every 570 sq.ft. R1a 5% of the plants would be trees (Umbellularia californica), resulting in every 20th plant being a tree with 400 plants per acre over the 1.66 acres. This is 1 bay laurel seedling every 2178 sq.ft. R2 30% of the plants would be trees (15% quercus agrifolia and 15% quercus douglasii, resulting in every 3`d plant being a tree with 210 plants per acre over the 2.55 acres. This is 1 tree seedling every 691 sq. ft. A failure rate of 30% is tolerated without further mitigation. Thus, for example, all of the trees in the restoration zone R2 might fail with no monitoring or mitigation required. Site Example: Comprehensive Restoration Plan identifies these fill slopes as R1 zone. The Restoration Plan allows a 30% fatality of the plants. This would allow the potential loss of all trees since they are only 17% of the plants. George Luna, Appeal 6/4/2002 9 000031 - .�• �,7rF :�' � L - ,� _•,=��7 7►�'rT'.• • -fir; - W.i r llw 41 � ^- � w �{+'., �T • .:�' :• � �' 'meq .� i'. r � 3,�' r r k4 More R4pr ,-d' s 1 P or Iff It - +�'r' _. °J7 'fir• ` Fill area adjacent to lots E (B1) and 80 retaining wall has been eliminat6d Sixth Finding: Does the elimination of the retaining wall next to open space parcel E impact the protected spotted owl habitat preserve? Master Environmental Assessment for 3-F Meadows: Planning Consultants prepared a Master Environmental Assessment. This document was the basis for the EIR. The document identified potential spotted owl habitat on the project site. The Master Environmental Assessment (page 27) states, "Potential habitat exists in locations as noted on Figure 6 for the federally endangered spotted owl species, although the probability of their presence is considered low by the Biologists. Development in such a habitat area for these owls, should they exist on site, would be a significant effect. As further described in Section 8.2, Open Space, and on Figure 14, a central open space area is recommended as described on this Figure to coincide with the possible location of the owl(s). This open space area has been designated to attempt to establish an area where the owl would be most likely to occur, and could remain on site, if it is present." George Lana, Appeal 6/4/2002 11 '000033 the Escabrosa alternative access. Potential habitat exists in locations as noted on Figure 6 for the federally endangered spotted owl species, although the probability of their presence is considered low by the Biologists. Development in such a habitat area for these owls, should they exist on-site, would be a significant effect. As further described in Section 8.2, Open Space, and on Figure 14, a central open space area is recommended as described on this Figure to coincide with the possible location of the owl(s). This open space area has been designated to attempt to establish an area where the owl would be most likely to occur, and could remain on-site, if it is present. The creation of an open space area would not be practical over the existing underlying lots of the ranch (generally the area of Block 81), therefore the use of easements or other mechanisims to establish a protective zone for the owl would have to be implemented as an alternative to relocating lots from the possible habitat area The present design of the subdivision tends to fracture the habitat of the site, as well as raise the possibility of "partitioning" the site off from the adjoining habitats of this region. Open space corridors in the most sensitive or productive habitat areas of the site should be considered to reduce impacts to these animal species. Figure 14 suggests a possible series of such corridors between the major open space areas of the ranch and off-site habitat areas. In the areas where these corridors extend over existing or proposed residential lots, a series of open space or habitat easements could be developed, with accompanying restrictions on the construction of fences or other impediments to habitat movement in these isolated corridors. Fencing restrictions are also noted under the Visual Analysis, Section 4.6. 1. Oak tree surveys shall be submitted with all applications for road extension and residential unit construction. These surveys shall include identification of all oak trees by species, location and diameter at breast height (dbh) at 4" or greater of all healthy trees identified within proposed construction areas. This survey shall be used by the City in considering project designs that eliminate or minimize disturbance to the oaks. Trees selected for removal should be replaced at a ratio of 4:1. Maximum flexibility should be exercised to relocate road segments and building sites where impacts are identified. 2. A Tree Preservation/Replacement Plan will be developed by a qualified person, as defined by City regulations for these types of studies. as a component of any road or house project where trees would be removed. Grading or trenching in the vicinity of oak trees shall be '3F Msadon Ra -A. Sara Mam Road, Almcadwo (Oddber 22,1993) Paps 27 George Luna, Appeal 6/4/2002 12 000034 Figure 6 shows the primary spotted owl habitat. George Luna, Appeal 6/4/2002 13 1300035 Figure 14 shows the approximate recommended open space for spotted owl habitat protection. George Luna, Appeal 6/4/2002 14 Figure 18 shows the proposed open space parcel for spotted owl habitat protection. dFdb Oub dNb Ala nr •wr a�a rra ■r 4". arlr d JWb .rJ6 dFAb� dM ,ria, um 4"dM yr. dM `�+vr drs MAN dM dM d �i �. Jai rlf� •rim .M�i .YW s�a>•�' Orli •• .. .N x r George Luna, Appeal 6/4/2002 Figure 18 Master Environmental Assessment 3F Meadows Project alternative 15 J000:37 EIR: The EIR (page IV -B3) includes a report from Dr. Hanson, Ph.D. Wildlife Biologist, on the spotted owl. He explains, "Populations in San Luis Obispo County live in habitats entirely different but they are still in danger of disruption. This owl is irregular in distribution, inhabiting a particular local for a few years and then abandoning that site, even though it seems suitable, only to appear in a new locality. Cool canyons covered with large, dense blocks of oaks and other big trees are likely sites, especially if a stream trickles through the bottom. A couple of years ago a pair bred for a few years in Cerro Alto Campground about three miles from the 3F Meadows site. Although no streams trickle through canyons on the site, proper habitat and nearness to Cerro Alto make the site a distinct possibility for harboring a pair." The EIR and the project incorporated open space parcel E located within the spotted owl habitat. The EIR calls for a retaining wall below San Marcos Road where it borders open space parcel E, avoiding the removal of old growth tree habitat within the identified and spotted howl habitat preserve. O �O y � ara shot �• '�%'OK' SN4' . _-. �64V 44 l w, pj•/ � arorsw7 ' OPEN SPACE LOT s !UILVINO WE Q LEACH l9EL0 I 2N 6N4 ac 1 rxror�.v�. �, Cf/✓�G�Rc Sr wfr Open space parcel E in green 3F-ME40OWS EIR 1 =1000, NORTH 4 MMP 3 PROPOSE® PROJECT George Luna, Appeal 6/4/2002 16 LU z V. O ;¢J George Luna, Appeal 61412002 17 900039 GRADING AND TREE IMPACT COMPARISON i ILLUSTRATION 2 OF 2 1 (new proposal) LOT E Open space parcel Spotted owl habitat Revised Proiect Pr000sal: The revised proposal eliminates the retaining wall, extending the site disturbance into protected owl habitat, open space parcel E. The blue area shows the proposed fill slopes adjacent to open space parcel E after elimination of the retaining wall. (Overhead) Site condition: The photos presented on pages 9 and 10 above show the tree dense habitat on the proposed fill slope. George Luna, Appeal 6/4/2002 18 0061040 AttaC ,ent # L/ PC Minutes of Tim O'Keefe 5-7-02 9985 Old Morro Rd E. Chairman Bentz The City attorney has said this is a de novo hearing. This means you could be recommending some significant changes. I think one of the key questions tonight is do you have the information you need and the understanding of the issues given the paucity of information in the staff report. By the way the public was given even less information than you have. The hearing date was originally set for mid July and these were the time frames staff and the public were planning for My wife has reviewed the file and found that Castle Rock challenged these dates and insisted it be moved up. This has given you very little time to acquaint yourself with the information. Most of you were not involved with the EIR process. The city attorney discouraged Castlerock from changing the hearing date. He said in a letter to their attorney "my understanding is that staff wanted to prepare an excellent presentation on this issue. To do so would have required significant staff time that is not now available. I offered to try and convince Councilman Luna to withdraw the appeal if you would agree in writing that he could still raise the issue at a later date. You refused to state such an agreement in writing." Castlerock's argument for rushing the hearing date was with regard to time frames to start work before the rains started. But we wouldn't be having this hearing if they hadn't tried to push for significant changes in the EIR. Their argument for not complying is that Appendix B of the EIR can only make recommendations, its informational etc. and the PD 11 is the overriding document. Quoting Castlerock, "PD #11 is the determinant regulation guiding conditions for construction and appendix B in an information portion and not intended to be interpreted to require walls as exactly shown." I don't think anyone would say it has to be exactly as shown but if changes were to be made they would decrease impacts, not increase them. The city attorney's position is that plans need to be consistent with Appendix B. A lot of quibbling went on between staff and Castlerock and then to and behold there was a "surprise". They hired EDA to re -compose a large scale drawing of the original design and found that 64 more trees would be lost if they used the design in appendix B. I'm assuming the chart in the letter to 000041 Mr. Coker summarizes those findings. That is exhibit 5 in your packet. This is the letter that prompted Councilman Luna's appeal. The problem with this summary is that I can't find the information to back it up and this is a critical piece of information. There should be clear documentation in the record. I would appreciate it if the city attorney clarified the role of appendix B in the EIR and of the PD overlay with regard to the development of this project. 00 042 Attachment # PC Minutes of -0� n Joan O'Keefe 9985 Old Morro Rd E. I want to comment on staff's report. Staff references the Comprehensive Restoration Plan (CRP) but the report does not tell you that it is not in compliance with the EIR. Their CRP recommends tree placement as a percentage of total plants. The percentage is 17% and does not begin to meet the requirement of 4:1 replacement of native trees by species. The arborist who did the tree count did not identify species of oak. It doesn't show canopy and canopy replacement is another mitigation. Retaining Walls: Staff would have you believe that 10 foot walls were not considered by the EIR. That is not true. The staff report says "Detailed engineering analysis of the Appendix B walls, which was not done at the time of the EIR, revealed that many of the walls would exceed 10 feet in height with some approaching 20 feet high." ....some 600 feet in length." This was not new information. Its all in the EIR. The report, IV -Al 1, says, "about twenty road segments, totaling many hundreds of feet in length, have proposed cut or fill slopes at or in excess of 20 feet high. Further the EIR says Earthwork impacts related to road construction can be mitigated by constructing retaining walls to reduce slope height, tree removal and visual impacts." It was acknowledged there would be visual impacts from the walls but that was a trade off to reduce grading. On p. IV B5 the report says "add retaining walls: as described in Sections A & D and noted onlap ns in Appendix D ... " So the reason given in the report does not reflect what is in the EIR. On page 10 of staff's report where it shows wall locations I would like you to look at the section around lots 95, 96 and 100. In one rectangle it says wall not needed. In the other rectangle it says no wall shown in Appendix B where there is a large shaded triangle indicating there will be grading. If you looked at exhibit 35 in Appendix B you would see that triangle area was not assessed with regard to impacts because the wall would have contained most of the impacts. What happened is that the vertical alignment was changed so the wall was not needed but it created impact on the other side of the road and staff has not told you about these impacts which considering the slope will probably be significant. In fairness the elimination of two other walls was accomplished by avoidance — is narrowing the road. 0(100,43 Regarding the tree count. The arborists count showing which trees will be destroyed does not jibe with any of the figures provided by staff. His count was 347 trees. I asked Warren about all these discrepancies and he basically said this is a constantly changing figure and they expect it to get lower. Also the trees to be removed are not marked so there is really no way to identify what is what. I understand that on a project of this size it will be difficult to get an exact number. Canopy has also not been measured and that is one of the criteria's for restoration. The maps being used by the city and the developer to count number of trees are the maps with colored cut and fill. There is no topographical information. Also the two maps are not the same so its difficult to make comparisons. Dots indicate trees. Every time I try to count the dots I come up with a different figure and I bet if I asked each of you to count the dots you would come up with a different number. We don't know if trees will be saved using Castlerocks startling findings. In summary the information on which staff is recommending a change is not substantiated in the record. There has not been sufficient time for the commissioners to really study the project and since this is a de nova hearing I would urge you to continue it until there is more accurate information available to support Casterocks position. The CRP is not in compliance with the EIR and needs to changed. 0000,14 Atta. ,vent # E PC Minutes of dl To: Planning Commission City of Atascadero June 4, 2002 Subj: 3F Meadow Extension EIR Consistency Determination This statement is in support of the appeal of the Community Development Department's decision allowing Castlerock Development to change the requirements of the approved Environment Impact Report for the 3F Meadow Development. As you know, the 800 acres of land within this development is a beautiful example of Native california Oak Woodlands. The environmental impact report took this into consideration when outlining the necessary steps to protect this land and its emphasis on "avoidance" as a technique to protect the land from the impacts of development. This is the preferred technique of the California dept. of Fish and Game. The retaining walls as outlined in the EIR enable the development to occur with a minimum of disturbance to the adjacent land. The elimination of these walls will require more extensive grading and subsequent land disturbance and eliminate the possibility for the "avoidance" technique to protect this land. Additionally, the proposed restoration plan is grossly inadequate in terms of tree replacement. The Atascadero Tree Ordinance establishes very specific replacement ratios in terms of both size and species. For the restoration plan to avoid these requirements and to emphasize and rely on "local recruitment" rather than direct planting for the reestablishment of this oak woodland is directly in violation of the Tree Ordinance. The EIR calls for tree replacement at 4x's the amount outlined in the Tree Ordinance. The restoration plan needs to be reworked adhering to the requirements of the Tree Ordinance and the recommendations of the EIR. The existing EIR for the development is a well thought our legal document. It's provisions need to be followed without diluting them to meet the developers wishes. Any proposed changes to the EIR need to allow for public comment and not be left solely to the discretion of the Community Development Department. Si nX 6r?.ly Bruce Bonif 5735 San Pe o ave, Atascadero, CA 93422 000045 Attachme,' '# PC Minutes of � k A ;q Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission: Staff based their decision on the fact that Map 1, which is supposed to reflect the EIR, removes 17 more trees and creates more grated areas than the Castlerock proposal. However, these figures are wrong because Map 1 is wrong. Let me explain: All roads and colored areas indicate where grading will occur. All dots — representing trees - within the road and the colored areas are counted as removed. Map 1 shows several areas where walls were added. EIR exhibit 2 shows a black outline of the grated area if no retaining wall would be constructed (highlighted in yellow). This is also shown on Map 1. Exhibit 2 shows a shaded area (highlighted in blue) called the "revised limit of fill with wall". This is the area that would be graded even with a wall. Map 1 shows this area as striped and colored. The white portion between the black outline and the striped colored part is the area which will be saved from grading because of the wall. EIR exhibit 23 shows a black outline of the grated area if no retaining wall would be constructed (highlighted in yellow). This is also shown on Map 1. Exhibit 23 shows a shaded area (highlighted in blue) called the "revised limit of fill with wall". This is the area that would be graded even with a wall. Map 1 shows this area as striped and colored. The white portion between the black outline and the striped colored part is the area which will be saved from grading because of the wall. Some other areas with walls are shown the same way. 00001% EIR exhibit 5 shows a black outline of the cut or fill areas without a wall (highlighted in yellow). This line is also shown on Map 1. Exhibit 5 does not show a revised limit of fill, probably because the grated area without a wall is in this case smaller. The proposed wall would eliminate the need for grading. Therefore, the area should not be colored on Map 1. The trees should not be counted as removed and the graded area should not be counted. EIR exhibit 3 shows a black outline of the grated area without a wall (highlighted in yellow). This line is also shown on Map 1. Exhibit 3 does not show a revised limit of fill, probably because the grated area without a wall is in this case smaller. The proposed wall would eliminate the need for grading. Therefore, the area should not be colored on Map 1. The trees should not be counted as removed and the graded area should not be counted. The same is true for the small wall on San Marcos Road, shown on exhihit 2_ There are 31 dots representing trees within the areas that should not be shaded. Therefore, instead of saving 17 trees, Castlerock's proposal will remove 14 trees more. For the same reason, accurate calculations would most likely also show more cut and fill with the Castlerock proposal. 0000.1'7 • iA rNAT 3 • �� � . • 1 eiP 6 fin • ~; r * • Ul so 1 .... _..... • Y d` • o t r�i Q . /At aY . ..... �......, • . \. !.+ O •,. ACS ...:._.. _ I I s � ..._ ��� \'. •• � ,�I•f • �. -.. r � i •est �� `...�.,\ ........, t• , I r •at �� • •ate'• .`gip .: • .. aQ �. 0 ECT SOUNDpgy� . ,� - .... -�,°` • `� .pit tit ;._ rn•1 � � r r. .I �� A ' �' • m: ',." •.. •'"� :: II i'`-tif a '. m:. `�{�:' '+ sm SHUT 10 171 • -4 r = owl r = ea01 f1 • M • • sau j • ! tiN a 't y • + zo S • •° w i � i J t vim` ° o •� • arne 1 rn _ a ISO J • it �� 1,► `.. pft • , con we 9 .• o • o o r ° r • a � -'-' • .. mop ° 46 ` • WO r r to [ O ami �, ` :...�- • m r I O ° e • s• • rJi. t 4 m • co J \.. it ey - J��S • �■ 0:1 VT \ Ir w r1r1.1 Ili 20 T 60 . Itt s Rs t i rr 4 v" ..... ....... ... ta' + .� 1 I • Mr • `{•�'!� rn • :.. r FMi o• •. - .. O �• a €� - co . ........ . ` co • I:.:.. .. t _...._I....... r.... ... 5 r . ' � - • • Q... �" •fir �.•• ...... � : ��i �j� r,•::. , .i ' q. y'•, PRcr iF D ...............cn `{ I m �= v `� r • r t Attach, nt # PC Minutes of -JUN'. City of Atascadero 650 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 Ellen Beraud vAJ 9608 Laurel Road Atascadero, CA 93422 June 4, 2002 mwewpGatmcil, I am here tonight to defend the natural beauty of the remaining parcel of 3F meadows. this parcel has been in the news several times in the last 10 years. Approximately 7 years ago, a project was approved by the planning commission after a comprehensive EIR was completed. This approved project required many mitigations because of topography and numerous trees. Since then the land has exchanged hands a couple of times. The most current owner wants to change the project to eliminate the costly retaining walls. Castlerock also has presented a CRP, Comprehensive Restoration Plan, that falls extremely short of our Tree Ordinance requirements and the projects own EIR recommendations. Having reviewed the document, I noticed a lack of longterm planning if the original plantings fail. When talking about the huge number of trees to be removed, the comparison is not justifiably accurate. Looking at the maps there are errors in the counting, the dots don't take into account the species or size of the tree. Many trees exist but there is no dot to represent them. There needs to be more study to verify the change in impact. Due to the many hours of effort on the community's part historically to protect this parcel and the surrounding area from environmental degradation, I urge the commission to require a new EIR be prepared to evaluate Castlerock's new version of the project. Castlerock bought the property with full information on the previously approved project. They have no right to change it without public input and environmental studies being performed. The community is looking to you, as their representative, to do the right thing. Stick to the rules and make everyone play fair. Reject this change in the project. Thank you, Hen Beraud 4-c 5 -4-c Go c- vim%, a', U/n�oc SYu- -oc a A 000000 Rick Mathews 6950 Navarette Ave, Atascadero, CA 93422 Attachm # PC Minutes of I urge you to uphold the appeal of the substantial changes to the approved 3-F Meadows project and EIR mitigation. If the project changes substantially from the one determined allowable by the EIR, the applicant,5should submit a new EIR. There is more involved than a numbers game with treeeAd cubic yards of cuts and fills. The tree trade-off determinations by staff don't address exact species, size and health issues, all required by the EIR as well as the City's Tree Ordinance. The EIR also addressed woodland canopy cover and based specific mitigation on avoiding, where possible, the grading impacts by using retaining walls. You can't just trade these factors out using an over -simplified math formula. Although canopy cover does grow on trees, it does take a while. Also, this is not a good precedent to set so early in a huge project such as this, with three more phases. , ,oL41-kf6 -1 If staff is relying on the comprehensive restoration plan to mitigate the areas where walls would not now be required, then there are additional problems as well. The draft plan dated May 10, 2002 called for using a concept that will be inadequate as mitigation as required by the EIR, when considering the ratio of canopy avoidance mitigation to tree removal and restoration. Tlkkr ' concept W `recreating favorable conditions for natural succession, leading to a climax oak woodland plant community." TRS y liatsL-a K p�U, LT11t-*L MI -C14 �-T)Z*J While I would agree that planting hundreds of oak trees doesn't by itself create those favorable conditions, and that the strategies of including appropriate succession plants in the mix and suppressing weeds are vital. But in the EIR (EIR page IV -B5) it states that the plan should include four times the number of removed native trees to be replaced per the City Tree Ordinance. Why so many? The EIR correctly recognizes the difficulty of natural regeneration. To restore a woodland in this steep terrain, especially when blue oaks are a dominant species over much of the area, it will take hundreds of years, literally, if our descendants are lucky enough for the processes to occur. This is the western skyline of Atascadero and the community deserves a thorough, viable restoration effort on this site. The restoration plan should include all of the following, and the EIR says so: -Replace native trees according to the standards of the tree ordinance(except at four times the amount). That means same species trees as those removed (not all Live Oaks), and the trees should be five gallon size, planted with appropriate browse and gopher protection. Maintainance will of course be key. -Plant the appropriate indigenous native shrubs to provide the conditions for the woodlands to restore themselves according to the concept proposed. -Control exotic weeds according to the concept proposed. Extending the monitoring period would improve the chances for survival of more plants. There is more to these changes than the trade-offs shown by staff. If they must build on this wonderful and sensitive site, make them do it right. If they are changing the project this much, have them submit a new EIR. LfgAvL,p 1-1 L�b lS rs6eb r G�6 1 wo kTl dA Sincerely, Rick Mathews R6�5>_&) f'Ls (Xr--b.