HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_2010-02-02_AgendaPacketCITY OF ATASCADERO
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, February 2, 2010 — 7:00 P.M.
City Hall
Council Chambers
6907 El Camino Real
Atascadero, California
CALL TO ORDER
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call: Chairperson Jack
Vice Chairperson Moreno
Commissioner Bentz
Commissioner Colamarino
Commissioner Schmidt
Commissioner Sturtevant
Commissioner Ward
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
PUBLIC COMMENT
(This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on any matter not
on this agenda and over which the Commission has jurisdiction. Speakers are limited to three minutes.
Please state your name and address for the record before making your presentation. The Commission may
take action to direct the staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda.)
PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINE
A. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE CHAIRPERSON
The Commission will select a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(All items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and non -controversial by City Staff and will
be approved by one motion if no member of the Commission or public wishes to comment or ask questions.)
City of Atascadero Planning Commission Agenda
Regular Meeting, February 2, 2010
Page 2of4
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING ON JANUARY 5, 2010.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORTS
2. PLN 2010-1354 / TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FOR 8255 & 8265 SANTA YNEZ
Property Owner/
Eric & Vicky Winslow, PO Box 6014, Atascadero, CA 93423
Applicant:
Certified Arborist:
Henry Curtis, PO Box 3028, Atascadero, CA 93423
Project Title:
PLN -2010-1354 / Tree Removal Permit 2010-0138
Project
8255 & 8265 Santa Ynez Ave., Atascadero, CA 93422
Location:
APN 031-231-038, 039 (San Luis Obispo County)
Project
Proposed removal of five (5) native trees on a multi -family parcel. All trees
Description
proposed for removal have been evaluated by a Certified Arborist and are
recommended for removal as they are considered to be hazardous and have
the potential for major stem failure. Trees proposed for removal include a
24 -inch Valley Oak, a 46 -inch multi -trunk Live Oak, a 38 -inch Live Oak, a 48 -
inch Valley Oak, and a 48 -inch multi -trunk Black Walnut.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
DISCLOSURE OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS:
Prior to a project hearing Planning Commission Members must disclose any communications they have had on any
quasi-judicial agenda items. This includes, but is not limited to, Tentative Subdivision Maps, Parcel Maps,
Variances, Conditional Use Permits, and Planned Development Permits. This does not disqualify the Planning
Commission Member from participating and voting on the matter, but gives the public and applicant an opportunity
to comment on the ex parte communication.
(For each of the following items, the public will be given an opportunity to speak. After a staff report, the Chair will open the public
hearing and invite the applicant or applicant's representative to make any comments. Members of the public will be invited to provide
testimony to the Commission following the applicant. Speakers should state their name and address for the record and can address the
Commission for three minutes. After all public comments have been received, the public hearing will be closed, and the Commission
will discuss the item and take appropriate action(s).)
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND REPORTS
City of Atascadero Planning Commission Agenda
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Regular Meeting, February 2, 2010
Page 3 of 4
The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for February 16, 2010, at
City Hall, Council Chambers, 6907 El Camino Real, Atascadero.
Please note: Should anyone challenge in court any proposed development entitlement listed
on this Agenda, that person may be limited to raising those issues addressed at the public
hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning
Commission at, or prior to this public hearing.
City of Atascadero Planning Commission Agenda Regular Meeting, February 2, 2010
Page 4 of 4
City of Atascadero
WELCOME TO THE ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
The Planning Commission meets in regular session on the first and third Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. at City
Hall, Council Chambers, 6907 EI Camino Real, Atascadero. Matters are considered by the Commission in the order
of the printed Agenda.
Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the Agenda are on
file in the office of the Community Development Department and are available for public inspection during City Hall
business hours at the Front Counter of City Hall, 6907 EI Camino Real, Atascadero, and on our website,
www.atascadero.org. An agenda packet is also available for public review at the Atascadero Library, 6850 Morro
Road. All documents submitted by the public during Commission meetings that are either read into the record or
referred to in their statement will be noted in the minutes and available for review in the Community Development
Department. Commission meetings are video-taped and audio recorded, and may be reviewed by the public. Copies
of meeting recordings are available for a fee. Contact the City Clerk for more information (470-3400).
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City
meeting or other services offered by this City, please contact the City Manager's Office or the City Clerk's Office,
both at (805) 470-3400. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will
assist the City staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or
service.
TO SPEAK ON SUBJECTS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
Under Agenda item, "PUBLIC COMMENT", the Chairperson will call for anyone from the audience having business
with the Commission to approach the lectern and be recognized.
1. Give your name for the record (not required)
2. State the nature of your business.
3. All comments are limited to 3 minutes.
4. All comments should be made to the Chairperson and Commission.
5. No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or negative personal remarks concerning any
other individual, absent or present.
This is when items not on the Agenda may be brought to the Commission's attention. A maximum of 30 minutes will
be allowed for Public Comment Portion (unless changed by the Commission).
TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS (from Title 2, Chapter 1 of the Atascadero Municipal Code)
Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda. The Chairperson will identify the subject, staff will
give their report, and the Commission will ask questions of staff. The Chairperson will announce when the public
comment period is open and will request anyone interested to address the Commission regarding the matter being
considered to step up to the lectern. If you wish to speak for, against or comment in any way:
1. You must approach the lectern and be recognized by the Chairperson.
2. Give your name (not required).
3. Make your statement.
4. All comments should be made to the Chairperson and Commission.
5. No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or negative personal remarks concerning any
other individual, absent or present.
6. All comments limited to 3 minutes.
If you wish to use a computer presentation to support your comments, you must notify the Community Development
Department at 470-3402 at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Digital presentations brought to the meeting on a
USB drive or CD is preferred. Access to hook up your laptop to the City's projector can also be provided. You are
required to submit to the Recording Secretary a printed copy of your presentation for the record. Please check in with
the Recording Secretary before the meeting begins to announce your presence and turn in the printed copy.
The Chairperson will announce when the public comment period is closed, and thereafter, no further public
comments will be heard by the Commission.
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 2-2-10
CITY OF ATASCADERO
PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
Regular Meeting - Tuesday, January 5, 2010 — 7:00 P.M.
City Hall Council Chambers
6907 EI Camino Real, Atascadero, California
CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m.
Chairperson Jack called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and Commissioner Bentz led
the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Jack, Vice Chairperson Moreno, Commissioners
Bentz, Colamarino, Schmidt, Sturtevant, and Ward
Absent: None
Others Present: Recording Secretary Annette Manier
Staff Present: Community Development Director Warren Frace, Deputy Director
of Public Works/Engineering David Athey, and Senior Planner,
Mimi Whitney.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: By Commissioner Bentz and seconded by
Commissioner Sturtevant to approve the agenda.
Motion passed 7:0 by a roll -call vote.
PC Draft Minutes of 1/5/10
Page 1 of 6
PUBLIC COMMENT
Bob Lloyd, Chief Engineer with AGP Video, stated they have been having issues with
the live broadcast with both Planning Commission and City Council meetings. He would
like to solicit the public's help in resolving where they are having problems within the
City. They are working closely with Charter Communications, and the problem appears
to be specifically through the digital cable boxes. Their email address is
agpvideo@agpvideo.com, and their phone number is 772-2715. He asked the public to
give them a call if they are having any problems seeing the live broadcast.
Chairperson Jack closed the Public Comment period.
PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
None
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORTS
None
PC Draft Minutes of 1/5/10
Page 2 of 6
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. PLN 2009-1344, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR 4255 EL
CAMINO REAL
Property
Mission Community Bank, 581 Higuera St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Owner/Applicant:
Project Title:
PLN 2009-1344 / Conditional Use Permit 2009-0246 / Variance 2009-0016
Project location:
4255 EI Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422
APN 029-261-021 (San Luis Obispo County)
Project Description:
The project consists of an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the
reinstatement of a legal, non -conforming use (auto dealer/new and used) and a
Variance to allow an auto dealer on a lot size of 0.22 acres, where 1 acre
minimum is required. The project is brought forward for consideration because
there was a gap in the period of time for continuing the use (more than six
months.)
General Plan Designation: General Commercial
Zoning District: Commercial Retail
Proposed
Based on an analysis of the proposed use, the project will be Exempt from CEQA
Environmental
Section 15301 — Existing Facilities. Class 1 consists of the operation, leasing, or
Determination:
minor alteration of existing facilities, including minor repairs with little or no
expansion of use. The prior use was an auto dealer; the same use as proposed.
Mimi Whitney, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. Ms. Whitney and Director Frace
answered questions from the Commission.
DISCLOSURE OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS:
• Commissioner Ward visited the property, saw no one, and spoke with no one.
• Commissioner Colamarino visited the site and spoke with no one.
• Commissioner Bentz visited the property, saw no one, and spoke with no one.
• Chairperson Jack visited the site and spoke with no one.
• Vice Chairperson Moreno visited the site. No ex parte.
• Commissioner Sturtevant visited the site. No ex parte.
• Commissioner Schmidt visited the site, and watched how traffic flowed. No ex
parte.
PC Draft Minutes of 1/5/10
Page 3 of 6
PUBLIC COMMENT
Anita Robinson, CEO of Mission Community Bank, explained that they inherited the
property through foreclosure in May 2009. At that time, they did not realize that there
would be a sunset clause on the Conditional Use Permit. All interest in the property
was all from car dealerships. Planning staff was very accommodating in helping to
determine if there might be an alternate use for the site. The consensus she came away
with, was that because of the size of the lot, and challenges with ingress and egress, a
conversion to retail or other use would not be feasible. She believes this to be a suitable
use for the corner. She explained that her client, Mr. Rajah, is willing to come forward,
and do we want with the property. She would like to appeal the request, however, to
put trees around the planter. There is no water there now, so they would have to saw
cut the concrete, and it would not be desirable to hand water. The trees also create a
visibility issue, so she would like to request that the trees be eliminated. They will do
nice landscaping instead which would be an improvement. She is anxious to hand this
property to a viable business which would allow the City to collect sales tax. Ms.
Robinson answered questions from the Commission.
Harry Rajah, CEO and owner of Integrity Motors, explained that the property is very
desirable for his business, the lot is in a great location, and will give his business better
visibility, as well as generate sales tax for the City. He currently owns Integrity Motors in
Atascadero and Santa Maria. This location will be the same business (Integrity Motors)
and will allow him to park some of their cars at this new location. He is willing to make
the site look its best; however, the trees will limit visibility, and may be a problem for
him. Mr. Rajah answered questions from the Commission.
Chairperson Jack closed the Public Comment period.
MOTION: By Commissioner Bentz and seconded by Commissioner
Colamarino to adopt PC Resolution 2010-0034 approving
PLN 2009-1344, a Conditional Use Permit 2009-0246 to
allow an auto dealer sales lot to be re-established and
approve Variance 2009-0016 which would permit the
continuing auto sales use on a lot less than 1 -acre, at 4255
EI Camino Real, based on findings and subject to Conditions
of Approval.
Commissioner Schmidt asked if the motion included the waiver of the trees. Discussion
followed. Senior Planner Mimi Whitney and Community Development Director Warren
Frace answered questions from the Commission and provided clarification.
Commissioner Bentz withdrew his motion.
Commissioner Bentz made a new motion.
PC Draft Minutes of 1/5/10
Page 4 of 6
MOTION: By Commissioner Bentz and seconded by
Commissioner Sturtevant to adopt PC Resolution 2010-
0034 approving PLN 2009-1344, a Conditional Use
Permit 2009-0246 to allow an auto dealer sales lot to be
re-established and approve Variance 2009-0016 which
would permit the continuing auto sales use on a lot less
than 1 -acre, at 4255 EI Camino Real, based on findings
and subject to Conditions of Approval. Condition #8
shall read that the trees be limited to 3 trees with the
type, style, and location to be approved by the applicant
and City staff.
Motion passed 7:0 by a roll -call vote.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND REPORTS
None
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
• Director Frace announced that the City Council is scheduled to do Strategic
Planning this month. There will be a special meeting Thursday evening to
discuss employee union issues. Next week, they will be discussing visions and
goals. On Saturday, January 30, 2010, there will be a day -long Strategic
Planning session.
• Rite-Aid is going up quickly.
• The foundation is being poured on the Colony Square Theatre project.
• The Highway 41 interchange project is ahead of schedule, and is slated to be
completed by this summer.
• We are working with Tractor Supply to obtain their grading permit.
• The La Plaza Theatre project is still out for corrections.
• The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for January 19, 2010.
• Commissioner Schmidt asked about the status on the Jack-in-the-Box downtown
which closed. Director Frace explained that the City found out they were closing
the morning they closed, and that the City has not had any formal discussions
with the property owner on their long-term plan. This parcel was included with the
La Plaza vision. Director Frace is confident that we will be able to find a new use
for the parcel consistent with our downtown vision.
• Commissioner Colamarino asked Director Frace if he had heard that the Carlton
Hotel is being sold, based on an article he read in today's newspaper. Director
Frace stated he has no additional information on this, other than what he also
read in the newspaper.
PC Draft Minutes of 1/5/10
Page 5 of 6
ADJOURNMENT - 8:04 p.m.
The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for January 19,
2010, at City Hall, Council Chambers, 6907 EI Camino Real, Atascadero.
MINUTES PREPARD BY:
Annette Manier, Recording Secretary
\\Cityhall\cdvlpmnt\- PC Minutes\PC Minutes 10\PC Draft Minutes 1 5 10.doc
PC Draft Minutes of 1/5/10
Page 6 of 6
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 2-2-10
Atascadero Planning Commission
Staff Report - Community Development Department
Callie Taylor, Associate Planner, 470-3448, ctaylorC@atascadero.org
Tree Removal Permit 2010-0138
PLN 2010-1354
8255 and 8265 Santa Ynez Ave.
(Winslow)
SUBJECT:
A request to remove five (5) native trees located on two multi -family parcels. Trees
proposed for removal include a 24 -inch Valley Oak, a 46 -inch multi -trunk Live Oak, a
38 -inch Live Oak, a 48 -inch Valley Oak, and a 48 -inch multi -trunk Black Walnut.
The applicant's arborist has determined that the five native trees are hazardous and
in need of removal due to potential stem failure. The City arborist has evaluated the
trees and agrees that the 48" Valley Oak and the two (2) Live Oaks are in need of
removal, but does not believe that the Black Walnut or 24" Valley Oak are
hazardous trees in need of removal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends either:
The Planning Commission adopt PC Resolution A to approve the request to remove
five (5) native oak trees subject to conditions of approval.
Or
The Planning Commission adopt PC Resolution B to approve the request to remove
three (3) native oak trees (Trees 3 a inch multi -trunk Live Oak, Tree 5 a 38 -inch Live
Oak, and Tree 7 48 -inch Valley Oak) subject to conditions of approval.
Situation and Facts:
1. Owner/ Applicant: Eric Winslow, PO Box 6014, Atascadero, CA 93423
2. Applicant's Arborist: Henry Curtis, PO Box 3028, Atascadero, CA 93423
3. Project Address: 8255 & 8265 Santa Ynez, Atascadero, CA 93422
APN 031-231-038, 039
5 native
trees
proposed
for removal
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 2-2-10
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is proposing the removal of five (5) native oak trees located on two
adjacent multi -family parcels on Santa Ynez Ave. On January 20, 2010, staff met
with the applicant to discuss potential tree removals at 8255 & 8265 Santa Ynez Ave.
The applicant submitted an Arborist Report completed by Henry Curtis of Whit's Turn
Tree Care. The applicant's arborist evaluation, dated October 2008, recommended
removal of five (5) hazardous native trees on the two parcels due to potential stem
failure.
According to City policy and the Native Tree Ordinance, "emergency" tree removals
can be signed off by City staff without Planning Commission hearing for trees that
"require immediate removal due to structural instability and immediate danger to life
and property' (see Attachment 1, CDD Policy 2008-0027). Since the Arborist Report
was completed in October of 2008, and no action was made on the property owner's
behalf until January 2010 to remove the trees, staff could not apply the policy for
"emergency" removal in this situation. Therefore, the applicant has submitted an
application for Planning Commission review in order to remove the five trees. No
permit fees were charged for this application due to the hazardous situation of the
trees proposed for removal as evaluated by the applicant's arborist.
The Arborist Report completed by the applicant's Arborist, Henry Curtis, includes an
evaluation of nine (9) trees which are located on the two subject parcels. Five of the
trees evaluated are native trees which are recommended for removal by the
applicant's arborist in the 2008 report -
Tree 2:
24" Valley Oak
- Identified by applicant's arborist
Tree 3:
46" Multi -trunk Live Oak
Curtis) as hazardous trees
Tree 5:
38" Live Oak
Tree 7:
48" Valley Oak
Tree 8:
48" Multi -trunk Black Walnut
Tree 4:
1
azardous or dead
Tree 9:
25" Black Walnut
trees by applicant's arborist
■ Not proposed for removal
Tree 1:
29" multi -trunk Redwood
- Non-native trees
Tree 6:
42" Cypress
- No permit required to remove
The applicant's 2008 report identifies trees 2, 3, 5, 7, and 9 as having potential or
past major stem failure. Tree 7, a 48" Valley Oak, is of particular concern due to its
location near the residences. The applicant's arborist identifies all five trees as
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 2-2-10
hazardous and recommends complete removal of all five native trees. The Arborist
Report by Henry Curtis is included as Attachment 2 of this report.
In order to confirm the hazardous status of the trees proposed for removal and to
ensure that there was not an emergency situation; the City Arborist, Michael Bova,
evaluated the five subject trees on January 22, 2010. The report completed by
Michael Bova of Davey Resource Group is included as Attachment 3 of this report.
The City Arborist evaluated the trees, and recommends removal of only three of the
native trees being proposed for removal.
The City Arborist agrees that tree 7, the 48" Valley Oak is hazardous and should be
removed as soon as possible due to decay and its location near the residences.
Trees 3 and 5 (46" and 38" Live Oaks) are also recommended for removal due to
their poor structure and lean over the street which could be hazardous for cars or
pedestrians.
However, the Arborist Report completed by the City's Arborist does not identify trees
2 and 8 (a 24" Valley Oak and a 48" Black Walnut) as hazardous trees. The report
states that tree 2 is in fair condition and does not pose an imminent hazard. This
tree should be properly pruned to reduce weight and create space from adjacent
trees, but is not recommended for removal by the City Arborist. The City Arborist
also states that tree 8 structurally does not present itself as a hazard at this time.
The City Arborist agrees that the tree does have does have several undesirable
characteristics, including an invasive root system and being located too close to the
house, however, he does not believe that it is a hazard that warrants removal.
Summary of Applicant's Arborist and City Arborist Evaluations:
Tree 7:
48" Valley Oak
■ Identified by both applicant's arborist and City
arborist as hazardous tree in need of
immediate removal
Tree 3:
46" Multi -trunk Live Oak
■ Identified by applicant's arborist (Henry Curtis)
Tree 5:
38" Live Oak
as hazardous trees
■ City arborist (Davey Resource Group) agrees
trees have several factors which create a
hazardous situation in need of removal
Tree 2:
24" Valley Oak
■ Identified by applicant's arborist (Henry Curtis)
as hazardous tree
■ City arborist does not consider this to be a
hazardous tree; recommends pruning only
Tree 8:
48" Multi -trunk Black
- Identified by applicant's arborist (Henry Curtis)
Walnut
as hazardous tree
- City arborist does not consider this to be a
hazardous tree; agrees that tree has
undesirable characteristics (invasive root
system and located too close to the house) but
is not hazardous
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 2-2-10
The two conflicting arborist reports present different observations of the subject
trees. As stated in the report by Davey Resource Group, predicting tree failure is not
possible, but rather, an arborist can identify certain characteristics that make a tree
more prone to failure. The applicant is proposing the removal of all five native trees
at this time. The Planning Commission may consider both arborist reports in
making their decision as to which trees should be approved for removal due to
hazardous conditions.
Mitigation
Per the requirements of the Atascadero Native Tree Ordinance, mitigation is required
for all native trees approved for removal, including dead or hazardous trees. If all
five trees are approved for removal, the following mitigation shall be paid to the City's
native tree fund. The applicant may choose to replant trees on site in -lieu of
payment to the tree fund:
Evergreen Native Trees (inches)
Deciduous Native Trees (inches)
Totals
28 five gal trees
dbh notes
0 five gal trees
dbh notes
0 box trees (24')
1
46 -inches Tree 3 LO
1
24 -inches Tree 2 VO
2
38 -inches Tree 5 LO
2
48 -inches Tree 7 VO
3
3
48 -inches Tree 8 Black Walnut
4
4
5
5
6
6
Total
84 -inches
Total
120 -inches
204 -inches
Mitigation Requirement
box trees 24"
req'd tree replacements:
28 five gal trees
Proposed Replanting
0 five gal trees
108 five gal trees ♦�•
0 box trees (24')
Remaining Mitigation
28 five gal trees
Tree Fund Payment: $
1,400.00
req'd tree replacements
Proposed Replanting
Remaining Mitigation
Tree Fund Payment: $
80 five gal trees 1 108 five gal trees
0 five gal trees 0 five gal trees
box trees 24"
0 box trees (24")
80 five gal trees
108 five gal trees ♦�•
4,000.00
$ 5,400.00
•••♦♦•♦■■■■■■■■•••1
If all five trees are approved for removal, the applicant shall pay either $5400 to the
tree fund or replant 108 native trees on site. Staff has conditioned that the applicant
follow the mitigation requirements of the Native Tree Ordinance, which would allow
for replanting, payment of mitigation fees, or a combination thereof for any removed
trees. Replanting or payment of fees shall be done prior of the removal of each tree.
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 2-2-10
FINDINGS:
In considering any tree removal request, at least one of the findings must be made.
Staff has identified the following finding as appropriate for the application request.
The tree is dead, diseased or injured beyond reclamation, as certified by a
tree condition report from an Arborist.
CONCLUSION:
The applicant is proposing the removal of five (5) native trees located on two multi-
family parcels. The applicant's arborist has determined that the five native trees are
hazardous and in need of removal due to potential stem failure. The City Arborist
has evaluated the trees and agrees that the 48" Valley Oak and the two (2) Live
Oaks are in need of removal, but does not believe that the Black Walnut or 24"
Valley Oak are hazardous trees in need of removal. The Planning Commission may
consider both arborist reports in making their decision as to which trees should be
approved for removal due to hazardous conditions.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: CDD Policy 2008-0027
Attachment 2: Applicant's Arborist report, completed by Henry Curtis of
Whit's Turn Tree Care, October 2008
Attachment 3: City Arborist's report, completed by Michael Bova of
Davey Resource Group, January 2010
Attachment 4: PC Draft Resolution A
Attachment 5: PC Draft Resolution B
Attachment 1: CDD Policy 2008-0027
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 2-2-10
POLICY NO. 0027
DATE: 06/19/08
CITY OF ATASCADERO
,...
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Community Development Department
Department Policy 2008-0027
The following clarifies and further defines the permitting requirements for emergency and hazardous tree
removals within the City of Atascadero.
SUBJECT: Tree Removal Permits Required — Hazardous and Emergency Tree
Removals
The Atascadero Native Tree Ordinance and corresponding tree guidelines set forth procedures
for removal of hazardous and emergency native trees within the City and are interpreted as
follows:
1. Emergency tree removals — Emergency tree removals are exempt from permit and
mitigation fees. Emergency removals are trees that require immediate removal due to
structural instability and immediate danger to life and property. The City must be notified
within 48 hours prior to removal of the tree. Verification from an arborist is required. The
City arborist will also verify the condition of the tree. These are generally trees that will not
remain standing on their own for a period longer than 48 hours.
Dead and Diseased (Hazardous) tree removals — Hazardous tree removals are exempt
from permit fees are still subject to mitigation fees. These are trees that require removal due
to instability and disease but are not in danger of immediately harming life or property. A
removal application must be made at the Community Development Department. Trees that
measure 24" or greater dbh will require Planning Commission approval. A report of the
trees condition will be required to be submitted from a certified arborist. The City arborist
will also review and verify the trees condition and make recommendations to the Director
and/or Planning Commission regarding the need for removal.
By: Warren M. Frace, Director Date
Community Development Department
TA— CDD Policy & Procedures\CDD Policy 27. hazard and emergency tme removals.doc
6907 EL CAMINO REAL - ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 2-2-10
Attachment 2: Applicant's Arborist report
Completed by Henry Curtis of Whit's Turn Tree Care, October 2008
Eric Winslow
8255, 8256 Santa Ynez, Atascadero, Ca. 93422
1 have done a basic field evaluation on each tree at this property. I have looked
at all areas of each tree for potential hazards to property or people.
Nearly every tree at this property -with the exception of tree nine, has either
major main stem failure potential or has already failed and needs to be immediately
extracted. I am mostly concerned with tree number seven, a forty eight inch Valley Oak
(Quercus lobata). It is located in the back yard with both residents as a potential target.
Substantial weight has already been removed from tree seven but this tree is still very
unsafe therefore I am recommending complete removal as soon as possible.
Trees number one, two, three, five and eight are all very hazardous. Each has
major structural problems mainly because of multiple stems, bad attachments,
included bark, and poor structure. These are all problems that cannot be corrected by
pruning or bracing. Each tree listed is a potential hazard to the nearby street, yard and
surrounding houses. Complete removal is the best option for these trees.
Trees number four and six are not safety concerns at this time. Tree four, an
eighteen inch Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) is tall and has a heavy lean toward the
street. I recommend a tip weight reduction to lighten the outboard weight. Tree six, a
Monterey Cyress (Cupressus macrocarpa) is dying back. This tree has poor structure
and is losing its vigor. The top is dead and the rest of tree is very sparse. Tree six also
has bad structure at the trunk. Removal is warranted.
Tree nine; a twenty five inch Black Walnut auglans hindsii) is a non hazard. This
tree has minimal aesthetic value because of its size but is safe and healthy.
Henry Curtis -Arborist WE -6345-A (805)674-8147
ITEM NUMBER:
DATE:
Whit's Turn Tree Care Field Evaluation Report
Prepared by Henry Curtis: Certified Arborist = WE -6345
PROJECT:
LOCATION:
CLIENT: (5rl G 0j n5/ow
BOTANICAL SPECIES: s���c„c. Se.tperv,ielie,
COMMON NAME: R„ J WooA
HEIGHT: S CANOPY SPREAD: �U J
I. ROOT EXAMINATION
Root Problems Evident
Damaged Roots
Exposed Roots
Girdled Roots
Covered Soil/Debris
Diseased Roots
Insect Damage
Excess Moisture
Rodent Damage/Activity
Gas/Herbicide Injury
Other
II. TRUNK EXAMINATION
Sound & Solid
Vertical Fissures
Exudations
Buried
Cavity
Size
Parasitic Fungi
Interior Decay
Hollow Trunk
Multiple Stem/Included Bark
Conks
Insects
Leaning
Dead Branches
Tom Branch Scars
Mechanical Injury
Previous Pruning
Poor Callus
Unhealed Wounds
Stump/New Growth
Exfoliating Bark
Fire Damage
Other
DATE: 70- 1 � —6
CONTACT: F-rr"&
TELEPHONE
TREE NUMBER:
NUMBER TRUNKS
DBH: , '� j 3 'i
YES NO III. CROWN EXAMINATION
Defects Evident
k Full, Well Balanced
Loss of Vigor
Sparse Foliage
Necrotic Time
Margin Leaf Scorch
Wilt
Chlorotic
Abnormal Leafs/buds
Annual 'Twig Growth
Twig/Branch Dieback
Branch Cavities
Dead Wood
Dead Branches
Broken Branches
Tom Branch Scars
Mechanical Injury
Excessive Pruning
Epicormic Growth
Unhealed Wounds
Poor Callus
Exudations
Fire Damage
Diseased Tissue
Insects/Mites
Environmental Stress
Structural Weakness
Major Diehack
Other
2
2-2-10
YES NO
ITEM NUMBER:
DATE:
Whit's Turn Tree Care Field Evaluation Report
Prepared by Henry Curtis: Certified Arborist = WE -6345
PROJECT: DATE:
LOCATION: CONTACT:
CLIENT: �c ��'�5�n TELEPHONE
BOTANICAL SPECIES: TREE NUMBER: a
COMMON NAME: C1C,11r/ NUMBER TRUNKS
HEIGHT:
,0-- CANOPY SPREAD: y0 J
I. ROOT EXAMINATION
Root Problems Evident
Damaged Roots
Exposed Roots
Girdled Roots
Covered Soil/Debris
Diseased Roots
Insect Damage
Excess Moisture
Rodent Damage/Activity
Gas/Herbicide Injury
Other
II. TRUNK EXAMINATION
Sound & Solid
Vertical Fissures
Exudations
Buried
Cavity
Size
Parasitic Fungi
Interior Decay
Hollow Trunk
Multiple Stem/Included Bark
Conks
Insects
Leaning
Dead Branches
Tom Branch Scars
Mechanical Injury
Previous Pruning
Poor Callus
Unhealed Wounds
Stump/New Growth
Exfoliating Bark
Fire Damage
Other
DBH: J-11 '
M. CROWN EXAMINATION
Defects Evident
Full, Well' Balanced
Loss of Vigor
Sparse Foliage
Necrotic Tissue
Margin Leaf Scorch
Wilt
Chlorotic
Abnormal Leafs/buds
Annual 'Twig Growth
Twig/Branch Dieback
Branch Cavities
Dead Wood
Dead Branches
Broken Branches
Tom Branch Scars
Mechanical Injury
Excessive Pruning
Epicormic Growth
Unhealed Wounds
Poor Callus
Exudations
Fire Damage
Diseased Tissue
Insects(NEtes
Environmental Stress
Structural Weakness
Major Dieback
Other
YES NO
0
2-2-10
ITEM NUMBER:
DATE:
Whit's Turn Tree Care Field Evaluation Report
Prepared by Henry Curtis: Certified Arborist = WE -6345
PROJECT:
DATE:
F,, ; r- L✓
LOCATION: $2 S-5- ^% yrc i CONTACT:
CLIENT: TELEPHONE
i
BOTANICAL SPECIES: &Dv 00? (( /S a6rqU/,, TREE NUMBER:
COMMON NAME: `'cie Oa /c NUMBER TRUNKS
HEIGHT: L/S CANOPY SPREAD:�iJ O
I. ROOT EXAMINATION
Root Problems Evident
Damaged Roots
Exposed Roots
Girdled Roots
Covered Soil/Debris
Diseased Roots
Insect Damage
Excess Moisture
Rodent Damage/Activity
Gas/Herbicide Injury
Other
11. TRUNK EXAMINATION
Sound & Solid
Vertical Fissures
Exudations
Buried
Cavity
Size
Parasitic Fungi
Interior Decay
Hollow Trunk
Multiple Stem/Included Bar;
Conks
Insects
Dead Branches
Tom Branch Scars
Mechanical Injury
Previous Pruning
Poor Callus
Unhealed Wounds
Stump/Ncw Growth
Exfoliating Bark
Fire Damage
Other
DBH:
IIIr'ROWN EXAMINATION
Defects Evident
Full, Well Balanced
Loss of Vigor
Sparse Foliage
Necrotic Tissue
Margin Leaf Scorch
Wilt
Chlorotic
Abnormal Leafs/buds
Annual 'Twig Growth
Twig/Branch Dieback
Branch Cavities
Dead Wood
Dead Branches
Broken Branches
Tom Branch Scars
Mechanical Injury
Excessive Pruning
Epicormic Growth
Unhealed Wounds
Poor Callus
Exudations
Fire Damage
Diseased Tissue
Insects/Mites
Environmental Stress
Structural Weakness
Major Dieback
Other
It
2-2-10
ITEM NUMBER:
DATE:
Whit's Turn Tree Care Field Evaluation Report
Prepared by Henry Curtis: Certified Arborist = WE -6345
PROJECT: DATE:
LOCATION: �fy5s san�a yl'�y CONTACT:
CLIENT: / TELEPHONE
BOTANICAL SPECIES: �ve�CL'S ,/G�TRFRNTTNM RR• G/
COMMON NAME:�� f 04 /,c NUMBER TRUNKS
HEIGHT: 5 S- ' CANOPY SPREAD: 3 S DBH: % 8 "
I. ROOT EXAMINATION
Root Problems Evident
Damaged Roots
Exposed Roots
Girdled Roots
Covered Soil/Debris
Diseased Roots
Insect Damage
Excess Moisture
Rodent Damage/Activity
Gas/Herbicide Injury
Other
II. TRUNK EXAMINATION
Sound & Solid
Vertical Fissures
Exudations
Buried
Cavity
Size
Parasitic Fungi
Interior Decay
Hollow Trunk
Multiple Stem/Included Bark
Conks
Insects
Leaning
Dead Branches
Tom Branch Scars
Mechanical Injury
Previous Pruning
Poor Callus
Unhealed Wounds
Stump/New Growth
Exfoliating Bark
Fire Damage
Other
M. CROWN EXAMINATION
Defects Evident
Full, Well Balanced
Loss of Vigor
Sparse Foliage
Necrotic Tissue
Margin Leaf Scorch
Wilt
Chlorotic
Abnormal Leafs/buds
Annual 'Twig Growth
Twig/Branch Dieback
Branch Cavities
Dead Wood
Dead Branches
Broken Branches
Tom Branch Scars
Mechanical Injury
Excessive Pruning
Epicormic Growth
Unhealed Wounds
Poor Callus
Exudations
Fire Damage
Diseased Tissue
Insects/Mites
Environmental Stress
Structural Weakness
Major Diehack
Other
0
2-2-10
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 2-2-10
HEIGHT: :� O ) CANOPY SPREAD:
I. ROOT EXAMINATION
Root Problems Evident
Damaged Roots
Exposed Roots
Girdled Roots
Covered Soil/Debris
Diseased Roots
Insect Damage
Excess Moisture
Rodent Damage/Activity
Gas/Herbicide Injury
Other
R. TRUNK EXAMINATION
Sound & Solid
Vertical Fissures
Exudations
Buried
Cavity
Size
Parasitic Fungi
Interior Decay
Hollow Trunk
Multiple Stem/Included Bark
Conks
Insects
Leaning
Dead Branches
Tom Branch Scars
Mechanical Injury
Previous Pruning
Poor Callus
Unhealed Wounds
Stump/New Growth
Exfoliating Bark
Fire Damage
Other
YES NO
1
DBH: 3G '
III. CROWN EXAMNATION
Defects Evident
Full, Well Balanced
Loss of Vigor
Sparse Foliage
Necrotic Tissue
Margin Leaf Scorch
Wilt
Chlorotic
Abnormal Leafs/buds
Annual Twig Growth
Twig/Branch Dieback
Branch Cavities
Dead Wood
Dead Branches
Broken Branches
Tom Branch Scars
Mechanical Injury
Excessive Pruning
Epicormic Growth
Unhealed Wounds
Poor Callus
Exudations
Fire Damage
Diseased Tissue
Insects/Mites
Environmental Stress
Structural Weakness
Major Dieback
Other
Whit's Turn Tree Care Field Evaluation Report
Preoared by Henry Curtis: Certified Arborist =
WE -6345
PROJECT:
DATE:
LOCATION:
CONTACT:
CLIENT:
I'
TELEPHONE
BOTANICAL SPECIES:a
GC, ro> �' °"
TREE NUMBER:
,�ll
COMMON NAME:
Le,;e-
NUMBER TRUNKS
HEIGHT: :� O ) CANOPY SPREAD:
I. ROOT EXAMINATION
Root Problems Evident
Damaged Roots
Exposed Roots
Girdled Roots
Covered Soil/Debris
Diseased Roots
Insect Damage
Excess Moisture
Rodent Damage/Activity
Gas/Herbicide Injury
Other
R. TRUNK EXAMINATION
Sound & Solid
Vertical Fissures
Exudations
Buried
Cavity
Size
Parasitic Fungi
Interior Decay
Hollow Trunk
Multiple Stem/Included Bark
Conks
Insects
Leaning
Dead Branches
Tom Branch Scars
Mechanical Injury
Previous Pruning
Poor Callus
Unhealed Wounds
Stump/New Growth
Exfoliating Bark
Fire Damage
Other
YES NO
1
DBH: 3G '
III. CROWN EXAMNATION
Defects Evident
Full, Well Balanced
Loss of Vigor
Sparse Foliage
Necrotic Tissue
Margin Leaf Scorch
Wilt
Chlorotic
Abnormal Leafs/buds
Annual Twig Growth
Twig/Branch Dieback
Branch Cavities
Dead Wood
Dead Branches
Broken Branches
Tom Branch Scars
Mechanical Injury
Excessive Pruning
Epicormic Growth
Unhealed Wounds
Poor Callus
Exudations
Fire Damage
Diseased Tissue
Insects/Mites
Environmental Stress
Structural Weakness
Major Dieback
Other
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 2-2-10
Whit's Turn Tree Care Field Evaluation Report
Prepared by Henry Curtis: Certified Arborist = WE -6345
PROJECT : DATE:
LOCATION: 8 2—
�� S� n ii7c
CLIENT:
BOTANICAL SPECIES: (�vpreSSUS %' lticfO c`-f/oc-,.
11)00A rY
COMMON NAME: f �1e5�
HEIGHT: 6 0/ CANOPY SPREAD: 3a'
I. ROOT EXAMINATION
Root Problems Evident
Damaged Roots
Exposed Roots
Girdled Roots
Covered Soil/Debris
Diseased Roots
Trisect Damage
Excess Moisture
Rodent Damage/Activity
Gas/Herbicide Injury
Other
II. TRUNK EXAMINATION
Sound & Solid
Vertical Fissures
Exudations
Buried
Cavity
Size
Parasitic Fungi
Interior Decay
Hollow Trunk
Multiple Stem/Included Bark
Conks
Insects
Leaning
Dead Branches
Tom Branch Scars
Mechanical Injury
Previous Pruning
Poor Callus
Unhealed Wounds
Stump/New Growth
Exfoliating Bark
Fire Damage
Other
CONTACT:
TELEPHONE
TREE NUMBER: 6
NUMBER TRUNKS
DBH: z/ 2 „
M. CROWN EXAMINATION
Defects Evident
I VIA=
Full, Well Balanced
Loss of Vigor
Sparse Foliage
Necrotic Tissue
Margin Leaf Scorch
Wilt
Chlorotic
Abnormal Leafs/buds
Annual Tvag Growth
Twig/Branch Dieback
Branch Cavities
Dead Wood
Dead Branches
Broken Branches
Tom Branch Scars
Mechanical Injury
Excessive Pruning
Epicormic Growth
Unhealed Wounds
Poor Callus
Exudations
Fire Damage
Diseased Tissue
Insects/Mites
Environmental Stress
Structtual Weakness
Major Dieback
Other
YES NO
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 2-2-10
Whit's Turn Tree Care Field Evaluation Report
Prepared by Henry Curtis: Certified Arborist = WE -6345
PROJECT: DATE: /0 -ao -O K /
LOCATION:z S CONTACT: � ! C-
CLIENT: TELEPHONE
BOTANICAL SPECIES: av e-ri-,c-5 h TREE NUMBER:
COMMON NAME: Ua. I -C y 0V L NUMBER TRUNKS 3
HEIGHT: S S CANOPY SPREAD: 5�S DBH: y g
I. ROOT EXAMINATION
Root Problems Evident
Damaged Roots
Exposed Roots
Girdled Roots
Covered Soil/Debris
Diseased Roots
Insect Damage
Excess Moisture
Rodent Damage/Activity
Gas/Herbicide Injury
Other
n. TRUNK EXAMINATION
Sound & Solid
Vertical Fissures
Exudations
Buried
Cavity
Size
Parasitic Fungi
Interior Decay
Hollow Trunk
Multiple Stem/Included Bark
Conks
Insects
Leaning
Dead Branches
Tom Branch Scars
Mechanical Injury
Previous Pruning
Poor Callus
Unhealed Wounds
Stump/New Growth
Exfoliating Bark
Fire Damage
Other S
YES NO
Mri7
M. CROWN EXAMINATION
Defects Evident
Full, Well Balanced
Loss of Vigor
Sparse Foliage
Necrotic Tissue
Margin Leaf Scorch
Wilt
Chlorotic
Abnormal Leafs buds
Annual Twig Growth
Twig/Branch Dieback
Branch Cavities
Dead Wood
Dead Branches
Broken Branches
Tom Branch Scars
Mechanical Injury
Excessive Pruning
Epicormic Growth
Unhealed Wounds
Poor Callus
Exudations
Fire Damage
Diseased Tissue
Insects/Mites
Environmental Stress
Structural Weakness
Major Dieback
Other
(,rtlel--e
YES NO
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 2-2-10
Whit's Turn Tree Care Field Evaluation Report
PreDared by Henry Curtis: Certified Arborist = WE -6345
PROJECT: DATE:
LOCATION: CONTACT:
CLIENT: / TELEPHONE
BOTANICAL SPECIES: `J�c���n51 { IindS» TREE N JMBER: g
COMMON NAME: 61c,& ��r.1 nV� NUMBER TRUNKS 3
HEIGHT: CS CANOPY SPREAD: So / DBH: %� / / /a
I. ROOT EXAMINATION
Root Problems Evident
Damaged Roots
Exposed Roots
Girdled Roots
Covered Soil/Debris
Diseased Roots
Insect Damage
Excess Moisture
Rodent Dam age/Ac[ivity
Gas/Herbicide Injury
Other
II. TRUNK EXAMINATION
Sound & Solid
Vertical Fissures
Exudations
Buried
Cavity
Size
Parasitic Fungi
Interior Decay
Hollow Trunk
Multiple Stem/Included Bark
Conks
Insects
Leaning
Dead Branches
Tom Blanch Scars
Mechanical Injury
Previous Pruning
Poor Callus
Unhealed Wounds
Stump/Ncw Growth
Exfoliating Bark
Fire Damage
Other
YES NO
X
X
X
x
X
k
X
X
x Gtr -J(21)
h
X
X
IIT. CROWN EXAMINATION
Defects Evident
Full, Well Balanced
Loss of Vigor
Sparse Foliage
Necrotic Tissue
Margin Leaf Scorch
Wilt
Chlorotic
Abnormal Leafs/buds
Annual Twig Growth
Twig/Branch Dieback
Branch Cavities
Dead Wood
Dead Branches
Broken Branches
Tom Branch Scars
Mechanical Injury
Excessive Pruning
Epicomric Growth
Unhealed Wounds
Poor Callus
Exudations
Fire Damage
Diseased Tissue
Insects/Mites
Environmental Stress
Structural Weakness
Major Dieback
Other
YES NO
15,n
ITEM NUMBER:
DATE:
Whit's Turn Tree Care Field Evaluation Report
Prepared by Henry Curtis: Certified Arborist = WE -6345
PROTECT: DATE:
LOCATION: CONTACT:
CLIENT:
BOTANICAL SPECIES: �vc�lc 5
COMMON NAME: 1-31,d- �✓�✓n��
HEIGHT: 3S " CANOPY SPREAD: 2- S
I. ROOT EXAMINATION
Root Problems Evident
Damaged Roots
Exposed Roots
Girdled Roots
Covered SoillDebris
Diseased Roots
Insect Damage
Excess Moisture
Rodent Damage/Activity
Gas/Herbicide Injury
Other
II. TRUNK EXANUNATION
Sound & Solid
Vertical Fissures
Exudations
Buried
Cavity
Size
Parasitic Fungi
Interior Decay
Hollow Trunk
Multiple Stem/Included Bark
Conks
Insects
Leaning
Dead Branches
Tom Branch Scars
Mechanical Injury
Previous Pruning
Poor Callus
Unhealed Wounds
Stump/New Growth
Exfoliating Bark
Fire Damage
Other
YES NO
TELEPHONE
TREE NUMBER: 9
NUMBER TRUNKS I
DBH:
III. CROWN EXAMINATION
Defects Evident
Full, Well Balanced
Loss of Vigor
Sparse Foliage
Necrotic Tissue
Margin Leaf Scorch
Wilt
Chlorotic
Abnormal Leafs/buds
Annual Twig Growth
Twig/Branch Dieback
Branch Cavities
Dead Wood
Dead Branches
Broken Branches
Tom Branch Scars
Mechanical Injury
Excessive Pruning
Epicormic Growth
Unhealed Wounds
Poor Callus
Exudations
Fire Damage
Diseased Tissue
Insects/Mites
Environmental Stress
Structural Weakness
Major Dieback
Other
0
2-2-10
YES NO
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 2-2-10
Attachment 3: City Arborist's report
Completed by Michael Bova of Davey Resource Group, January 2010
Memorandum
To: Callie Taylor, City Of Atascadero
From: Michael J. Bova, Davey Resource Group
Date: January 26, 2010
Re: Hazard Tree Inspection for 8255 Santa Ynez
DAVEY , .
RESOURCE GROUP
.4 n— 01famed 7— Fq. C—p-
As requested, Davey Resource Group (DRG) inspected the selected trees at the above location on January
22, 2010. The location was a level, developed lot with two separate single-family residences. The site
has multiple trees in front of both houses and one tree in the backyard (see site tree diagram). The
inspected trees were two (2) Coast Live Oaks (Quercus agrifolia), two (2) Valley Oaks (Quercus lobata)
and one (1) Black Walnut (Juglans nigra). Not all trees on the lot were inspected by DRG.
Observations:
Upon inspection, it was determined that all the trees on the lot were growing on level ground and little to
no supplemental irrigation was provided for most of the trees. The soil appeared to drain adequately and
no runoff or erosion from rainfall was evident. Other than noted below, the inspected trees appeared to
have any significant pruning within the last five years. The inspected trees ranged in size from 24" to
over 48" in diameter at breast height (DBH) and were all at least 45 feet tall.
Tree #2, 24" DBH Valley Oak:
With two trunks developing (co -dominance) at about 6 feet above grade, this
tree has significant end weight on the larger limbs in the upper canopy. The
co -dominant crotch appears to have little to no imbedded bark tissue (included
bark) or external evidence of decay. The overall growth habit appears to be
vertically elongated, possibly due to the crowded conditions. The tree appears
to be in fair condition.
Tree #3, 46" DBH Coast Live Oak:
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 2-2-10
This multi -trunk (3 stems) oak shows poor structure at its base with obvious included bark on two of the
main stems. Heavy end weight was evident in the upper canopy as dense limbs and branches suspend out
over the street. Some of the longer limbs have been pruned to provide side clearance for the utility lines
adjacent to the trees. The pruning has created many smaller stubs that have caused excessive sucker
growth (water sprouts) along the limbs back towards the main trunk. The overall condition of the tree is
fair.
"free #5, 38" DBH Coast Live Oak:
One of the 2 stems on this co -dominant Oak shows a heavy lean out over the street and towards the utility
lines. The limbs near the utility lines have been pruned for clearance and numerous water sprouts have
developed along these branches. There is significant included bark at the base of the tree and the overall
form is poor. The tree appears to be in fair condition.
Tree #7,48" DBH Valley Oak:
Situated along the fence line in the backyard, this large Valley Oak presents itself with significant decay
within an old, unhealed cavity at the base of one of the 3 main leaders. This leader leans out over one of
the residences and has heavy end weight in the upper canopy. The tree also has numerous old cuts and
unhealed wounds along the main stems indicating areas of decay. The area around the base of the tree is
being used as storage for household items and debris. The structure and condition of this tree is fair to
poor.
Tree #8, 48" DBH Black Nkalnut:
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 2-2-10
This 3 stem Walnut tree is growing within a few feet of one of the residences on
the lot. There does not appear to be included bark at the point of attachment of
the 3 main stems, however, some decay is evident in the main crotch and along
the leaders. Major surface roots are present with many growing towards the
house. Overall, the condition of this tree is fair.
Conclusions
Predicting tree failure is not possible, but identifying certain characteristics that make a tree more prone to
failure is a common method for evaluating a tree condition. Below is the summary of the five (5) trees
inspected by DRG:
Tree #2 is in reasonable condition and does not pose an imminent hazard. This tree should be properly
pruned to reduce end weight, create space from adjacent trees and improve form.
Trees #3 and #5 are limited by the surrounding trees, have developed poor structures, and may be more
prone to failure than adjacent trees. Also contributing to their poor condition is the dense sucker growth
that aides in wind sail. This results in more stress on the weak crotches. The heavy lean over the street
also increases the risk to traffic and pedestrians. This combination of factors makes these trees likely
candidates for removal.
Tree #7 should be considered for removal as soon as it is possible. Heavy end weight, decay in the main
crotch and a large leader leaning over a residence all increase the likelihood of a failure. In addition, the
storage of materials at the base of this tree can increase soil compaction and promote root decline. This
tree should be considered a hazardous tree and be scheduled for removal.
Tree #8 has been allowed to mature too close to the residence. Structurally, the tree does not present
itself as hazardous at this time, but does have several undesirable characteristics including an invasive
root system and a co -dominant 3 -stem crotch. Future site developments may be in direct conflict with
this tree.
Please contact me with any questions or concerns.
Michael J. Bova
Project Coordinator
Davey Resource Group
ISA Certified Arborist, WE3372A
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 2-2-10
Attachment 4: Draft PC Resolution A
DRAFT PC RESOLUTION A
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TREE
REMOVAL PERMIT 2010-0138 TO ALLOW THE REMOVAL OF FIVE
(5) HAZARDOUS NATIVE TREES
LOCATED AT 8255 AND 8265 SANTA YNEZ (APN 031-231-0389 039)
(WINSLOW)
WHEREAS, an application for a Tree Removal Permit has been received from Eric
Winslow, PO Box 6014, Atascadero, CA 93423 (Property Owner and Applicant) to allow the
removal of five (5) native oak trees at 8255 and 8265 Santa Ynez; and,
WHEREAS; the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Tree Removal
application on February 2, 2010, and considered testimony and reports from staff, the
applicants, and the public; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero,
California takes the following actions:
SECTION 1. Findings for Approval of Tree Removal Permit. The Planning
Commission finds as follows:
■ The trees are dead, diseased or injured beyond reclamation, as certified by a
tree condition report from an Arborist
SECTION 2. Approval. The Planning Commission hereby approves Tree Removal
Permit 2010-0138 (PLN 2010-1354) subject to the following:
Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 2-2-10
On motion by Commissioner , and seconded by Commissioner
, the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: ( )
NOES: ( )
ABSTAIN: ( )
ABSENT: ( )
ADOPTED:
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CA
Sandy Jack
Planning Commission Chairperson
Attest:
Warren M. Frace
Planning Commission Secretary
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 2-2-10
Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval
Tree Removal - PLN 2010-1354 / TRP 2010-0138
Conditions of Approval
Timing
Responsibility
46 -inches Tree 3 LO
PLN 2010-1354/TRP 2010-0138
38 -inches Tree 5 LO
/Monitoring
0 box trees (24")
Total
PR. Pnorto Removal
PS: Planning Services
80 five gal trees •
BL: Business License
BS: Building Services
BP: Building Permit
FD: Fire Department
$ 5,400.00
TO: Temporary Occupancy
PD: Police Department
F0: Final Occupancy
CE: City Engineer
WW: Wastewater
CA: City Attorney
Planning Services
1. This removal permit includes approval for the
PR
removal of five (5) native trees at 8255 and 8265
Santa Ynez, including:
• Tree 7 - 48" Valley Oak
• Tree 3 - 46" multi -trunk Live Oak
• Tree 5 - 38" Live Oak
• Tree 2 - 24" Valley Oak
• Tree 8 - 48" multi -trunk Black Walnut.
2. The applicant shall mitigate the removal of the five (5)
PR
PS
native trees by paying into the tree mitigation fund or
replanting onsite in accordance with the requirements
of the Atascadero Native Tree Ordinance. See table
below. Fees or replanting shall be done prior to
removal of each tree.
Evergreen Native Trees (inches)
Mitigation Requirement
req'd tree replacements:
Proposed Replanting
28 five gal trees
0 five gal trees
0 box trees (24")
Deciduous Native Trees (inches)
dbh notes
1 24 -inches Tree 2 VO
2 48 -inches Tree 7 VO
3 48 -inches Tree 8 Black Walnut
Total 120 -inches
req'd tree replacements:
Proposed Replanting
Remaining Mitigation 28 five gal trees Remaining Mitigation
Tree Fund Payment: $ 1,400.00 Tree Fund Payment: $
Totals
204 -inches
80 five gal trees
dbh notes
1
46 -inches Tree 3 LO
2
38 -inches Tree 5 LO
3
0 box trees (24")
Total
84 -inches
Mitigation Requirement
req'd tree replacements:
Proposed Replanting
28 five gal trees
0 five gal trees
0 box trees (24")
Deciduous Native Trees (inches)
dbh notes
1 24 -inches Tree 2 VO
2 48 -inches Tree 7 VO
3 48 -inches Tree 8 Black Walnut
Total 120 -inches
req'd tree replacements:
Proposed Replanting
Remaining Mitigation 28 five gal trees Remaining Mitigation
Tree Fund Payment: $ 1,400.00 Tree Fund Payment: $
Totals
204 -inches
80 five gal trees
108 five gal trees
0 five gal trees
0 five gal trees
0 box trees 24"
0 box trees (24")
••■ ■♦♦♦
80 five gal trees •
108 five gal trees
♦�
4,000.Ot
$ 5,400.00
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 2-2-10
Attachment 5: Draft PC Resolution B
DRAFT PC RESOLUTION B
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TREE
REMOVAL PERMIT 2010-0138 TO ALLOW THE REMOVAL OF
THREE (3) HAZARDOUS NATIVE TREES
LOCATED AT 8255 AND 8265 SANTA YNEZ (APN 031-231-0389 039)
(WINSLOW)
WHEREAS, an application for a Tree Removal Permit has been received from Eric
Winslow, PO Box 6014, Atascadero, CA 93423 (Property Owner and Applicant) to allow the
removal of native oak trees at 8255 and 8265 Santa Ynez; and,
WHEREAS; the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Tree Removal
application on February 2, 2010, and considered testimony and reports from staff, the
applicants, and the public; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero,
California takes the following actions:
SECTION 1. Findings for Approval of Tree Removal Permit. The Planning
Commission finds as follows:
■ The trees are dead, diseased or injured beyond reclamation, as certified by a
tree condition report from an Arborist
SECTION 2. Approval. The Planning Commission hereby approves Tree Removal
Permit 2010-0138 (PLN 2010-1354) subject to the following:
Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 2-2-10
On motion by Commissioner , and seconded by Commissioner
, the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: ( )
NOES: ( )
ABSTAIN: ( )
ABSENT: ( )
ADOPTED:
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CA
Sandy Jack
Planning Commission Chairperson
Attest:
Warren M. Frace
Planning Commission Secretary
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 2-2-10
Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval
Tree Removal - PLN 2010-1354 / TRP 2010-0138
Conditions of Approval
Timing
Responsibility
0 five gal trees
PLN 2010-1354 / TRP 2010-0138
/Monitoring
0 box trees (24")
PR. Pnorto Removal
PS: Planning Services
32 five gal trees •
BL: Business License
BS: Building Services
BP: Building Permit
FD: Fire Department
$ 3,000.00
TO: Temporary Occupancy
PD: Police Department
F0: Final Occupancy
CE: City Engineer
WW: Wastewater
CA: City Attorney
Planning Services
3. This removal permit includes approval for the
PR
removal of three (3) native trees at 8255 and 8265
Santa Ynez, including:
• Tree 7 - 48" Valley Oak
• Tree 3 - 46" multi -trunk Live Oak
• Tree 5 - 38" Live Oak
4. The applicant shall mitigate the removal of the three (3)
PR
PS
native trees by paying into the tree mitigation fund or
replanting onsite in accordance with the requirements
of the Atascadero Native Tree Ordinance. See table
below. Fees or replanting shall be done prior to
removal of each tree.
Evergreen Native Trees (inches)
dbh notes
1 46 -inches Tree 3 LO
2 38 -inches Tree 5 LO
3
Total 84 -inches
Mitigation Requirement
req'd tree replacements: 28 five gal trees
Proposed Replanting 0 five gal trees
0 box trees (24")
Deciduous Native Trees (inches)
1
2
3
Total
dbh notes
48 -inches Tree 7 VO
48 -inches
req'd tree replacements:
Proposed Replanting
Remaining Mitigation 28 five gal trees Remaining Mitigation
Tree Fund Payment: $ 1,400.00 Tree Fund Payment: $
Totals
132 -inches
32 five gal trees
60 five gal trees
0 five gal trees
0 five gal trees
1 box trees 24"
0 box trees (24")
••■ ■••
•
32 five gal trees •
60 five gal trees
•�
1,600.0Q
$ 3,000.00