The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC_2006-04-18_AgendaPacketCITY OF ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Regular Meeting Tuesday, April 18, 2006 — 7:00 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers 6907 El Camino Real Atascadero, California CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call: Chairperson Beraud Vice Chairperson O'Keefe Commissioner Fonzi Commissioner Jones Commissioner Kelley Commissioner Porter Commissioner Slane PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS APPROVAL OF AGENDA 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. 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 five 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) 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 April 18, 2006 Page 2 of 4 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON APRIL 4, 2006. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORTS 2. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 2006-0090 Owner: George Molfino, 6305 Flores Road, Atascadero, CA 93422 Project Title: TRP 2006-0090 Project 7055 Navarette Ave., Atascadero, CA 93422 Location: APN 031-123-009 Project A request to remove one (1) native Live Oak tree, totaling 24 -inches in diameter. Description: diameter. 3. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 2006-0089 Owner: Josh Brard, 1950 N. Ferrocarril, Atascadero, CA 93422 Project Title: TRP 2006-0089 Project 1950 N. Ferrocarril, Atascadero, CA 93422 Location: APN 049-012-021 Project Approve the illegal removal of four (4) native oak trees, two of which were 36 -inches in Description: diameter. PUBLIC HEARINGS (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 five 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).) 4. ZONE CHANGE 2006-0116 Applicant: City of Atascadero, 6907 El Camino Real, Atascadero CA 93422, Phone: 461-5000 Project Title: Zone Change 2006-0116, Motorcycle and Noise Ordinance Amendments Project Location: Citywide Project Description: Commission consideration and recommendation of amendments to the Motorcycle and Noise Ordinance. City of Atascadero Planning Commission Agenda Regular Meeting April 18, 2006 Page 3 of 4 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND REPORTS DIRECTOR'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be on May 2, 2006 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 April 18, 2006 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 Annex business hours at the Community Development counter 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. 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, (805) 461-5000, or the City Clerk's Office, (805) 461-5000. 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 AGENDA ITEMS 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 podium. If you wish to speak for, against, or comment in any way: • You must approach the podium and be recognized by the Chairperson • Give your name and address (not required) • Make your statement • All comments should be made to the Chairperson and Commission • All comments limited to 5 minutes (unless changed by the Commission) • No one may speak for a second time until everyone wishing to speak has had an opportunity to do so, and no one may speak more than twice on any item. If you wish to use a computer presentation to support your comments, you must notify the Community Development Department at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Access to hook up your laptop to the City's projector will 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 Chairperson 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 Council. TO SPEAK ON SUBJECTS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA Under Agenda item, "PUBLIC HEARINGS", the Chairperson will call for anyone from the audience having business with the Commission to: • Please approach the podium and be recognized • Give your name and address (not required) • State the nature of your business This is the time items not on the Agenda may be brought to the Commission's attention. A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum (unless changed by the Commission). CALL TO ORDER ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 4-18-06 CITY OF A TASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting Tuesday, April 4, 2006 — 7:00 P.M. Chairperson Beraud called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and Commissioner Slane led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Fonzi, Jones, Kelley, Slane, O'Keefe and Chairperson Beraud Absent: Commissioner Porter Staff Present: Community Development Director Warren Frace, Public Works Director Steve Kahn, Deputy Community Development Director Steve McHarris, Associate Planner Kerry Margason, and Recording Secretary Grace Pucci. PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: By Vice Chairperson O'Keefe and seconded by Commissioner Jones to approve the agenda. Motion passed 6:0 by a roll -call vote. PUBLIC COMMENT None PC Draft Minutes 04/04/06 Page 1 of 5 CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON MARCH 21, 2006. Commissioner Kelley requested a change to Item #3, page 2 of the March 21St minutes, to reflect that the Planning Commission proceeded with the hearing and approved the tree removal request despite the applicant failing to submit a full application lacking a grading and tree protection plan. MOTION: By Commissioner Kelley and seconded by Commissioner Fonzi to approve Item #1 as amended. Motion passed 4:0 by a roll -call vote. (Jones and O'Keefe abstained) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORTS 2.2005 FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Commissioner Jones stepped down from consideration of this item stating a conflict of interest as he works for Pacific Gas and Electric, which will be involved with an underground utilities project in the Capital Improvement Program. Public Works Director Steve Kahn gave the staff report and answered questions of the Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT — None MOTION: By Commissioner Kelley and seconded by Commissioner Fonzi to adopt Resolution PC 2006-0026 notifying the City Council that the Planning Commission has found the 2005 Five -Year Capital Improvement Program consistent with the General Plan, based on findings. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll -call vote. (Jones abstained) Commissioner Jones rejoined the meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2006-0177, PATRIA CIRCLE PC Draft Minutes 04/04/06 Page 2 of 5 Owners: Mark Owens, 919 Patria Circle, Atascadero, CA 93422 Karen Reed, 924 Patria Circle, Atascadero, CA 93422 Applicant: Dennis Reed, 2455 Reyna Drive, Hayward, CA 94541 Project Title: Conditional Use Permit 2006-0177 Project 919 Patria Circle, Atascadero, CA 93422, APN 045-357-016 Location: 924 Patria Circle, Atascadero, CA 93422, APN 045-357-013 General Plan Designation: HDR Zoning District: RMF-16/PD-7 Project The project is a request to amend an existing Master Plan of Development to allow enclosure of patio Description: areas and/or minor additions, on a case by case basis with Planning Commission approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit. Proposed Class 1 (e) Categorical Exemption — Addition to existing structure of less than 50% of the existing Environmental floor area, in an area served by public services. Determination: Associate Planner Kerry Margason gave the staff report and answered questions of the Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT Bob Shrimp, Patria Circle resident, expressed his support for the applicants and their request. Mark Owens, owner of 919 Patria Court, explained why there are no visual impacts from these improvements and that there is precedent for these additions. Karen Reed, owner of 924 Patria Circle, stated that when she purchased her home she was told she could add a room because it was part of the original plans. Dennis Reed, applicant, requested that the Commission look favorably on these requests as the additions are much needed. Chairperson Beraud closed the Public Comment period. Vice Chairperson O'Keefe stated she sees real parking problems if these additions continue to be allowed. Chairperson Beraud expressed several concerns with this request including setting a precedent for future requests, pedestrian and bicyclist safety, poor visibility, and vehicles overhanging the driveways. She is uncomfortable approving this change to the Master Plan of Development as those areas were to be an open space amenity for the project. PC Draft Minutes 04/04/06 Page 3 of 5 MOTION: By Commissioner Kelley and seconded by Commissioner Slane to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2006-0029 approving Conditional Use Permit 2006-0177 allowing enclosure of patio areas for 919 and 924 Patria Circle and requiring a Minor Conditional Use Permit for future requests of additions within the Patria Circle Development, and adding the additional condition from staff to read: The characteristics of the use and the immediate surroundings do not necessitate the number of parking spaces the current parking code would require and the reduced parking will be adequate to accommodate on the site all parking needs generated by the use. Motion passed 4:2 by a roll -call vote. (O'Keefe, Beraud opposed) 4. RECONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2003-0040 Owner / Linda Kennedy, Maverick Construction, P.O. Box 4242, Paso Robles, CA 93447 Applicant: Phone: 239-0134 Project Title: 5516 Tunitas Avenue Colony House; Tentative Parcel Map 2003-0040 for a 4 -lot PD -7 Subdivision Project 5516 Tunitas Avenue, Atascadero, CA 93422 (Single -Family Residence) Location: (San Luis Obispo County) APN 029-081-003. Project The proposed project consists of a Reconsideration/Reinstatement of the Tentative Parcel Map (TPM Description: 2003-0040; AT 03-0108) for a Planned Development — 7 project which is currently under construction. The Tentative Parcel Map would allow for three new single-family lots and the retention of one lot with an existing historic single-family home. The project is currently being developed under the requirements of the PD -7 Overlay District within the Residential Multi -Family (RMF -10) Zoning District. The original approval of the Tentative Parcel Map expired, in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, before the applicants could finish the Final Map process. General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential — MDR Zoning District: Residential Multiple Family — RMF -10 Proposed Consistent with Certified Mitigated Negative Declaration 2003-0034, certified by the Atascadero City Environmental Council on October 28, 2003. Determination: Associate Planner Kerry Margason gave the staff report and answered questions of the Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT Tom Taylor, applicant's representative, spoke about the project and urged the Commission to approve the reconsideration. Chairperson Beraud closed the Public Comment period. PC Draft Minutes 04/04/06 Page 4 of 5 MOTION: By Vice Chairperson O'Keefe and seconded by Commissioner Fonzi to adopt Resolution PC 2006-0030 approving reconsideration of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 2003-0040 subject to findings and conditions. Motion passed 6:0 by a roll -call vote. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND REPORTS Commissioner Jones spoke about Brown Act training for the Commission and asked about the upcoming class in Bakersfield and whether any other training opportunities are available. Community Development Director Warren Frace stated he would check into it and find out what City is proposing to do. Commissioner Fonzi asked about the progress on the affordable housing component to the Apple Valley project. Director Frace explained that these are the first units under the new equity sharing program, and staff is working on the final review, approval and signature on the documents. Chairperson Beraud inquired if the intersection of Viejo Camino and Halcon Road is in an intermediate stage. Public Works Director Steve Kahn stated he would have his inspector check on it. Chairperson Beraud also asked about a new fence on San Gabriel and Escondido Road and whether it should have been open rather than a solid fence. Director Frace stated he will have staff check on it. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Community Development Director Frace reported that staff is working with a local organization for a bicycle motocross tack facility on the Water Company property; there will be a neighborhood workshop next Monday, April 10th at 6:00 p.m. in Conference Room 4, City Hall. Director Frace reviewed the agenda for the next Commission meeting. He also reported that staff is working on getting the annual housing report to the Commission, and announced that the City Council passed a temporary moratorium on the condominium conversion issue. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Beraud adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on April 18, 2006. MEETING RECORDED AND MINUTES PREPARED BY: Grace Pucci, Recording Secretary PC Draft Minutes 04/04/06 Page 5 of 5 ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 4-18-06 Atascadero Planning Commission Staff Report - Community Development Department Tree Removal Permit TRP 2006-0090 (7055 Navarette/Molfino) SUBJECT: A request to remove one (1) native live oak tree, totaling 24 -inches in diameter. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends: The Planning Commission adopt Resolution PC -2006-0031 to approve the request to remove one (1) native oak tree subject to conditions of approval. Situation and Facts: 1. Applicant: George Molfino, 6305 Flores Road Atascadero, CA 93422 2. Certified Arborist: Elder and Elder Ltd., 1207 Grassy Hollow Way, Paso Robles, CA 93446 3. Project Address: 7055 Navarette Avenue, Atascadero, CA 93422 APN: 031-123-009 BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing the removal of one (1) native oak tree located in the proposed building area at 7055 Navarette Avenue (BLD -2005-5499) with the development of a secondary dwelling unit. Five native oak trees will be impacted during construction. The parcel is .411 acres and is zoned Limited Single -Family with a minimum lot size of one-half acre (LSF -Y). ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 4-18-06 ANALYSIS: An 800 square foot second residential unit is proposed on the subject property. Trenching for a sewer connection is proposed under the dripline of tree #96 located near the northeastern corner of the proposed residence. The Project Arborist has recommended the removal of Tree #96. The Arborist Report states that this tree is unhealthy and trenching for the sewer will result in further damage to the tree. According to the Arborist, the tree should be removed to avoid future damage to nearby structures. The City of Atascadero's Native Tree Ordinance requires that mitigation for native tree removals be implemented as a condition of approval. Rather than pay mitigation fees for the tree removal, the applicant has requested to plant native trees, regardless of cost. FINDINGS: Pursuant to the Tree Ordinance (Ordinance No. 214), "decisions on native tree removals of 24 -inch dbh-size or larger shall be made by the Planning Commission." In considering any tree removal permit request, at least one of the findings must be made. Staff has identified finding (i) and finding (v) as appropriate for the application request: (i) The tree is dead, diseased or injured beyond reclamation, as certified by a tree condition report from an arborist; and (v). The tree is obstructing proposed improvements that cannot be reasonably designed to avoid the need for tree removal, as certified by a report from the Site Planner and determined by the Community Development Department based on the following factors: • Early consultation with the City, • Consideration of practical design alternatives; • Provision of cost comparisons (from applicant) for practical design alternatives; • If saving tree eliminates all reasonable uses of the property; or • If saving the tree requires the removal of more desirable trees. CONCLUSION: The tree has been determined to be damaged beyond reclamation by a certified arborist. Based on the Arborist Report and above analysis, findings can be made to approve the requested removal. ITEM NUMBER DATE: 4-18-06 PREPARED BY: Paul Tabone, Planning Technician ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Aerial Map Attachment 2: Tree #96 Analysis Attachment 3: Tree Protection Plan Attachment 4: Draft Resolution PC 2006-0031 ITEM NUMBER DATE: 4-18-06 Attachment 1: Aerial Map ITEM NUMBER: DATE: 4-18-06 Attachment 2: Tree #96 analysis Tree #96 24" dia. Quercus agrifolia - Coast Live Oak A really nice looking tree, from a distance, but once again looks are not everything for if this tree is viewed from the North side there is a different perspective. Please see the second sheet of photographs of this particular tree. Due to an old wound, this tree has Ganoderma applanatum, or White Butt Rot or Artist's Conk and this leads to the decline or breakage of the tree and this tree should be carefully watched for decline. If the tree decides to fall the new house or the existing house on the next property might be in some danger. There are numerous areas towards the base of this tree that indicate that there are many problems inside the trees structure. The location of the sewer line, indicated on the plans, could cause a problem for this tree due to the proximity of the line in the CR7, and the drip line. The proposed direction of the Sewer line will run under or new to the trunk of this tree and the location should not be modified as the tree has major structural and biological problems and it is only a matter of time before it falls. The direction of fall will be towards the new door house and therefore the tree should be removed at this time. Tree #97 23" dia. Quercus agrifolia - Coast Live Oak There is a large amount of bleeding down the trunk of this tree as can be seen in the photographs that have been taken before and after the windstorm. The trunk has one major trunk branching out into two at the same point forming two dominant leaders. The junction point of the two major branches is critical and forms a weak point in this tree and cracking can already be viewed. Judicial pruning should be an ongoing requirement for the owner so that over weighted branches are kept to a minimum to decrease the possibility of breakage and splitting. The CRZ and the drip line are impacted by the waterline that is proposed according to the plans and therefore the line should be rerouted to stay out of the majority of the impact area. Attachment 3: Tree Protection Plan ITEM NUMBER DATE: 4-18-06 Damaged 24" Live Oak LEGEND NATIVE TREES IMPACT • .�YI71DEll fR(i O �41'AL1iD IRtl: XWf F•YJFDP CT Wal I''re•.>tn 1'enwy tY[Y..y'nuMl l.m FlYK6k. ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 4-18-06 Attachment 4: Draft Resolution PC 2006-0090 DRAFT RESOLUTION PC 2006-0031 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 2006-0090 TO ALLOW THE REMOVAL OF ONE DAMAGED NATIVE OAK TREE LOCATED AT 7055 NAVARETTE AVENUE WHEREAS, an application for a Tree Removal Permit has been received from George Molfino, 6305 Flores Road, Atascadero, CA 93422, to allow the removal of one native oak tree located at 7055 Navarette Avenue; and, WHEREAS; the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Tree Removal application on April 18, 2006, and considered testimony and reports from staff, the applicants, and the public; and, NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the city of Atascadero takes the following actions: SECTION 1. FindintZs for Approval of Tree Removal Permit. The Planning Commission finds as follows: ■ The tree is 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 2006-0090 subject to the following: Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 4-18-06 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 Ellen Beraud Planning Commission Chairperson Attest: Warren M. Frace Planning Commission Secretary ITEM NUMBER: DATE: 4-18-06 Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval Tree Removal - TRP 2006-0090 Conditions of Approval Timing Responsibility TRP 2006-0090 /Monitoring PR: dorm Removal PS: Planning Services BL: Business License BS: Building Services BP: Building Permit FD: Fire Deparhent TO: Temporary Occupancy PD: Police Department F0: Final Occupancy CE: City Engineer WW: Wastewater CA: City Attorney Planning Services 1. The applicant shall mitigate the removal of the 24"-dbh PR PS Live Oak Tree in accordance with the requirements of the Atascadero Native Tree Ordinance. 2. Four 5 -gallon live oak trees shall be planted at the BP PS project site to replace the 24" live oak being removed. ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 4-18-06 Atascadero Planning Commission Staff Report - Community Development Department Tree Removal Permit TRP 2006-0089 (1950 North Ferrocarril /Brard) SUBJECT: A request to remove four existing native trees: one (1) native Valley Oak tree and three (3) native Live Oak trees. All trees were removed without a Tree Removal Permit by a previous property owner. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends: The Planning Commission adopt Resolution PC 2006-0034 to approve the request to approve the previous removal of four native oak trees subject to the guidelines and mitigation required by the Atascadero Municipal Code and Native Tree Ordinance. Situation and Facts: 1. Applicant/Owner: Josh Brard, 1505 North Ferrocarril, Atascadero, CA 93422 2. Certified Arborist: A&T Arborists, P.O. Box 1311 Templeton, CA 93465 3. Project Address: 1950 North Ferrocarril, Atascadero, CA 93422 APN: 049-012-021 BACKGROUND: Non -permitted tree removals took place at 1950 North Ferrocarril Road prior to the property purchase by the current owner. According to the property owner, native tree removals were not disclosed when the property was sold to them. Upon final inspection, city staff discovered that four native Live Oak trees had been removed from the subject property without a Tree Removal Permit from the original owner. City staff cannot final the residence without the approval of the removals. A Tree Removal Permit is required to bring the tree removals into conformance with the ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 4-18-06 Atascadero Native Tree Ordinance. ANALYSIS: Only one tree was supposed to be 100% impacted. The property owners purchased the property with the native trees already removed. FINDINGS: Pursuant to the Tree Ordinance (Ordinance No. 214), "decisions on native tree removals of 24 -inch dbh-size or larger shall be made by the Planning Commission." In considering any Tree Removal Permit request, at least one of the findings must be made. Staff has identified finding (v) as appropriate for the application request: (v). Removed trees were obstructing proposed improvements that could not be reasonably designed to avoid the need for tree removal, as certified by a report from the Site Planner and determined by the Community Development Department based on the following factors: • Early consultation with the City; • Consideration of practical design alternatives; • Provision of cost comparisons (from applicant) for practical design alternatives; • If saving tree eliminates all reasonable uses of the property; or • If saving the tree requires the removal of more desirable trees. CONCLUSION: Tree mitigation fees will be charged to the property owner, as well as 100% penalty fees. PREPARED BY: Paul Tabone, Planning Technician ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Aerial Photo Attachment 2: Arborist Report Attachment 3: Applicant Letter Attachment 4: Site Photos Attachment 5: Draft Resolution PC 2006-0023 Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval Exhibit B: Tree Plan ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 4-18-06 Attachment 1: Aerial Photo ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 4-18-06 Attachment 2: Arborist Report 6-19-04 Mr. Kelly Gearhart Lot 9 Tract 2454 Atascadero, California This tree protection plan applies to the above-named lot in the De Anza Development in Atascadero, California. The lot has both coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) and white oaks (Quercus lobala). We feel there is a strong need to change the plans to reduce impacts to the native trees. First, tree #I is planned to be removed for the garage. This tree is a healthy white oak that should be saved. Possible suggestions would be to move the garage to the other side of the house where the primary leach field is planned to be located. "Then place the leach field at the back of the lot behind tree #1. This will also eliminate the need to trench the septic line between trees 94 and #5 as this would surely impact those trees. Another option would be to design a pit leach system that would take up less space. We also feel the house should be either re -designed, skewed or flip flopped so the 2% grading up to the stem of tree #2 can be eliminated. The only tree that could possibly be removed is tree #8, a small two -stem live oak. Eliminating this tree may open up other possibilities for design. Please have the architect review these possibilities and we will assist in any way possible. It is the responsibility of the owner to provide a copy of this tree protection plan to any and all contractors and subs that work within the drip line of any native tree. Tree Rating System A rating system of 1-10 was used for visually establishing the overall condition of each tree on the spreadsheet. The rating system is defined as follows: q pPR Rating Condition UFC 0�/`CO 0 Deceased O`e�Op 04 S� FRO 1 Evidence of massive past failures, extreme disease and is g decline. 2 May be saved with attention to class 4 pruning, insect/pest eradication and future monitoring. ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 4-18-06 Attachment 2: Arborist Report 3 Some past failures, some pests or structural defects that may be mitigated by class IV pruning. 4 May have had minor past failures, excessive deadwood or minor structural defects that can be mitigated with pruning. 5 Relatively healthy tree with little visual structural and or pest defects. 6 Healthy tree that probably can be left in its natural state. 7-9 Have had proper arboricultural pruning and attention or have no apparent structural defects. 10 Specimen tree with perfect shape, structure and foliage in a protected setting (i.e. park, arboretum). The following mitigation measures/methods must be fully understood and followed by anyone working within the drip line of any native tree. Any necessary clarification will be provided by us (the arborists) upon request. 1. Fencing: The proposed fencing shall be shown in orange ink on the grading plan. It must be a minimum of 4' high chain link, snow or safety fence staked at the edge of the drip line or line of encroachment for each tree or group of trees. The fence shall be up before any construction or earth moving begins. The owner shall be responsible for maintaining an erect fence throughout the construction period. The arborist(s), upon notification, will inspect the fence placement once it is erected. After this time, fencing shall not be moved without arborist inspection/approval. If the orange plastic fencing is used, a minimum of four zip ties shall be used on each stake to secure the fence. All efforts shall be made to maximize the distance from each saved tree. The fencing shown on the grading plans do not correspond to the current plans as we feel changes are in order to better protect the native trees. 2. Soil Aeration Methods: Soils within the drip line that have been compacted by heavy equipment and/or construction activities must be returned to their original state before all work is completed. Methods include water jetting, adding organic matter, and boring small holes with an auger (18" deep, 2-3' apart with a 24" auger) and the application of moderate amounts of nitrogen fertilizer. The arborist(s) shall advise. 3. Chip Mulch: All areas within the drip line of the trees that cannot be fenced shall receive a 4-6" layer of chip mulch to retain moisture, soil structure and reduce the effects of soil compaction. 4. Trenching Within Drip Line: All trenching within the drip line of native trees shall be hand dug, augured or bored (for utilities). All major roots shall be avoided whenever possible. All exposed roots larger than P in diameter shall be clean cut with sharp pruning tools and not left ragged. Mandatory meeting between the arborists and grading contractor(s) must take place prior to work start. ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 4-18-06 Attachment 2: Arborist Report 5. Grading Within The Drip Line: Grading should not encroach within the drip line unless authorized. Grading should not disrupt the normal drainage pattern around the trees. Fills should not create a ponding condition and excavations should not leave the tree on a rapidly draining mound. 6. Exposed Roots: Any exposed roots shall be re-covered the same day they were exposed. If they cannot, they must be covered with burlap or another suitable material and wetted down 2x per day until re -buried. 7. Paving Within The Drip Line: Pervious surfacing is preferred within the drip line of any native tree. The areas where pavers are required are outlined on the grading plans. Pavers must be interlocking with a minimum of 10% void space backfilled with pea gravel. Fabric shall be permeable. 8. Equipment Operation: Vehicles and all heavy equipment shall not be driven under the trees, as this will contribute to soil compaction. Also there is to be no parking of equipment or personal vehicles in these areas. All areas behind fencing are off limits unless pre -approved by the arborist. 9. Existing Surfaces: The existing ground surface within the drip line of all oak trees shall not be cut, filled, compacted or pared, unless shown on the grading plans and approved by the arborist. 10. Construction Materials And Waste: No liquid or solid construction waste shall be dumped on the ground within the drip line of any native tree. 11. Arborist Monitoring: An arborist shall be present for selected activities (trees identified on spreadsheet and items bulleted below). The monitoring does not necessarily have to be continuous but observational at times during these activities. It is the responsibility of the owner(s) or their designee to inform us prior to these events so we can make arrangements to be present. • pre -construction fence placement • Utility trenching within any drip line (airspade or hand digging is mandatory) 12. Pre -Construction Meeting: An on-site pre -construction meeting with the Arborist(s), Owner(s), Planning Staff, and the earth moving team may be required for this project. Prior to final occupancy, a letter from the arborist(s) shall be required verifying the health/condition of all impacted trees and providing any recommendations for any additional mitigation. The letter shall verify that the arborist(s) were on site for all grading and/or trenching activity that encroached into the drip line of the selected native trees, and that all work done in these areas was completed to the standards set forth above. ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 4-18-06 Attachment 2: Arborist Report 13. Pruning: Class I pruning includes deadwood removal along with selective thinning to lesson wind resistance. Class 4 pruning includes -Crown reduction pruning shall consist of reduction of tops, sides or individual limbs. A trained arborist shall perform all pruning. No pruning shall take more than 25% of the live crown of any native tree. Any trees that may need pruning for road home clearance shall be pruned prior to any grading activities to avoid any branch tearing. 14. Landscape: All landscape under the drip -line shall be drought tolerant or native varieties. Lawns shall be avoided. All irrigation trenching shall be routed around drip lines, otherwise above ground drip -irrigation shall be used. It is the owner's responsibility to notify the landscape contractor regarding this mitigation. 15. Utility Placement: All utilities shall be placed down the roads and driveways and when possible outside of the drip lines. The arborist shall supervise trenching within the drip line. All trenches in these areas shall be exposed by air spade or hand dug with utilities routed under/over the roots. All trees potentially impacted by this project are numbered and identified on both the grading plan and the spreadsheet. Trees are numbered on the grading plans and in the field with an aluminum tag. Tree protection fencing is shown on the grading plan. In the field trees to be saved have yellow tape and trees to be removed have red tape. The included spreadsheet includes trees listed by number, species and multiple stems if applicable, diameter and breast height (4.5'), condition (scale from poor to excellent), status (avoided, impacted, removed, exempt), percent of drip line impacted, mitigation required (fencing, root pruning, monitoring), construction impact (trenching, grading), recommended pruning and individual tree notes. If all the above mitigation measures are followed, we feel there will be no long-term significant impacts to the native trees. Please let us know if we can be of any future assistance to you for this project Steven G. Alvarez Certified Arborist #WC 0511 Chip Tamagni Certified Arborist #WE 6436-A Attachment 2: Arborist Report Al 0 e5 ZA C m ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 4-18-06 N O -.1 W > 00 > V .i C7 -i L > A > W > N J CD Co Co V C7f A W N �t 1 m M 0 5 5:� O O- n m T N O O O O w N w M m O7 c xX Z n 0� Z 0) CTn Cly w A A Co 0 m O � n c y Cl)� 0 0 Cn o o Cn cwn C." (.no v 0 Z -i m 2 Z] T1 Z1 0 ZJ nN H H v 3 O �l -n _7 -n -n T -n TI 00D 1 D O r Z M M � Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z A O O O O O O O O O A Z m 1 O v �c Cn z n n n n SS S S 01 D) D) d (Q (fl (O (Q tD cD CD fD d d iii d Z m m rn w rn 4 CD c� CD CD CD m m m16 0 10 1 Attachment 3: Applicant Letter Joshua and Courtney Brard P.O. Box 758 Atascadero, Ca. 93423 805-466-5136 April 4, 2oo6 City of Atascadero RE: 195o N. Ferro Carril Rd. Atascadero, Ca. 93422 To Whom it may concern, ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 4-18-06 APR 4 2006 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TRP 2ooto-o089 E) w) ;2-00 q - 3689- Previous 682 Previous to the close of escrow on the above referenced home, four oak trees were removed without our knowledge. Therefore we have not been able to final our house. We hope to resolve this matter promptly. Thank you. Sincerely Yours, Joshua and Courtney Brard Attachment 4: Site Photos r g r, • — r�`i _ �rnyYY �s:Vy� � lfy� Y4's Y �4•' ria;� � IP ', s►�'1�� ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 4-18-06 Attachment 5: Draft Resolution PC 2006-0034 DRAFT RESOLUTION PC 2006-0034 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF ATASCADERO APPROVING A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE REMOVAL OF FOUR NATIVE TREES LOCATED AT 1950 NORTH FERROFARRIL APN 049-012-021 ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 4-18-06 (TRP 2006-0089) WHEREAS, an application for a Tree Removal Permit has been received from Josh Brard, 1505 North Ferrocarril, Atascadero, CA 9322 (applicant and owner) to allow the removal of four native oak trees located on North Ferrocarril Road, APN 049-012-021, and, WHEREAS; the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Tree Removal application on April 18, 2006 and considered testimony and reports from staff, the applicants, and the public; and, NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission takes the following actions: SECTION 1. Findings for Approval of Tree Removal Permit. The Planning Commission finds as follows: Removed trees were obstructing proposed improvements that could not be reasonably designed to avoid the need for tree removal, as certified by a report from the Site Planner and determined by the Community Development Department based on the following factors: • Early consultation with the City; • Consideration of practical design alternatives; • Provision of cost comparisons (from applicant) for practical design alternatives; • If saving tree eliminates all reasonable uses of the property; or • If saving the tree requires the removal of more desirable trees; and, SECTION 2. Approval. The Planning Commission hereby approves Tree Removal Permit 2005-0089 subject to the following Conditions and Exhibits: Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval & Tree Fee Table Exhibit B: Tree Plan 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: ( ) ABSENT: ( ) ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 4-18-06 ` lul"M ._O•' D CITY OF ATASCADERO, CA Ellen Beraud Planning Commission Chairperson Attest: Warren M. Frace Planning Commission Secretary T:\- TRP - Tree Removal Permits\TRP 06\TRP 2006-0084\TRP 2006-0084.PC-SR.pt.doc ITEM NUMBER: 3 DATE: 4-18-06 Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval & Tree Fee Table Tree Removal - TRP 2006-0089 Conditions of Approval Timing Responsibility Mitigation TRP 2006-0089 11 -inches /Monitoring Measure 4 PR: dorm Removal PS: Planning Services 6 BL: Business License BS: Building Services 8 BP: Building Permit FD: Fire Deparhent 10 TO: Temporary Occupancy PD: Police Department 12 F0: Final Occupancy CE: City Engineer 14 WW: Wastewater Deposit Total 68 -inches CA: City Attorney Planning Services 1. The applicant shall pay mitigation fees plus a 100% PR PS penalty fee, bringing fee totals to $ 2,333.34. Evergreen Native Trees (inches) Mitigation Requirement I Tree Fund Payment: $ 566.67 Deciduous Native Trees (inches) dbh 1 36 -inches 2 3 4 5 6 Total 36 -inches notes Tree Fund Payment: $ 600.00 Totals 104 -inches 1,166.67 dbh notes 1 36 -inches 2 11 -inches 3 21 -inches 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Deposit Total 68 -inches Mitigation Requirement I Tree Fund Payment: $ 566.67 Deciduous Native Trees (inches) dbh 1 36 -inches 2 3 4 5 6 Total 36 -inches notes Tree Fund Payment: $ 600.00 Totals 104 -inches 1,166.67 ITEM NUMBER DATE: 4-18-06 Exhibit B: Tree Plan Tree Removal - TRP 2006-0089 Atascadero Planning Commission Staff Report - Police Department ITEM NUMBER: 4 DATE: 4-18-06 ZCH 2006-0116 Motorcycle and Noise Ordinance Amendments (City of Atascadero) •►iii 0 IIIII-A 9 161,0111-3 Staff recommends Planning Commission: 1. Adopt Resolution PC 2006-0032 recommending the City Council approve Zone Change 2006-0116 Part A to prohibit motorcycle use in residential zones if exhaust systems are inadequate or modified. 2. Adopt Resolution PC 2006-0033 recommending the City Council approve Zone Change 2006-0116 Part B to exempt motorcycle use on private property from the standards of the Noise Ordinance under specified conditions; and change the period pertaining to cost recovery from 12 to 72 hours. DISCUSSION: Background: Staff brought a report to Council on 3/14/06 that presented an evaluation of the Noise and Motorcycle Ordinances that were adopted in May 2004. Refer to Attachment A. The statistics provided in the records Police management systems strongly suggest that motorcycle riding and noise complaints are isolated incidents. The complaints are scattered throughout the City with no discernable pattern. Prior to implementation of the Motorcycle Ordinance the Police Department averaged 118 complaint calls per year. The department only received 54 complaint calls in 2005, representing a 45% decrease in calls. Four of the 54 calls related to motorcycles in the riverbed, two were around the railroad tracks and two were on the Anza trail. Some of the calls received involved loud motorcycles on the streets and not on private property. Occasionally a problem will require repeat calls; however, that is not usually the case. There is one property along Santa Barbara Road that receives calls occasionally, however, those calls are from a reporting party who is calling in compliance with the Motorcycle Ordinance and are not of the nature of a complaint. One property on Atascadero Avenue has complained of noise related to riding on an adjacent property four times in 2005. Three of those were in a two day period and do not represent a long term pattern. General noise complaints received prior to amendment of the Noise Ordinance averaged 468 calls per year related to music, bands, parties or other miscellaneous complaints. The year following implementation reflected an increase of less than 1 % to 492 calls. Council deliberated on the effectiveness of both ordinances and directed Staff to return with ordinances that include the following amendments. Because the amendments are related to Zoning Ordinances they are required to be brought first before the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments 1. Noise Ordinance Exemption: Amend Municipal Code Section 9-14.03 to exempt motorcycles and similar 2 or more wheel vehicles from the provisions of the Noise Ordinance so long as the vehicles are operated in compliance with the Motorcycle Ordinance. This exemption will clarify the conflict between the two ordinances and allow for violations of the Motorcycle Ordinance to be more quickly addressed through voluntary compliance and the administrative citation process. 2. Noise Ordinance Cost Recovery: Amend Municipal Code Section 9-14.14 (b)(2), 9-14.14 (b)(3), and 9-14.14 (c)(1) to change the cost recovery period from 12 to 72 hours. This amendment will strengthen the cost recovery component of the Noise Ordinance to allow for more frequent use of cost recovery as a compliance tool. This change will affect multiple response cost recovery to all noise complaints. 3. Motorcycle Use in Residential Zones: Amend Municipal Code Section 9-6.106 (c) to add a condition prohibiting motorcycles or similar 2 or more wheel vehicles to operate on any private property with exhaust systems not in constant operation and properly maintained to prevent any excessive or unusual noise, and any muffler or exhaust system equipped with a cutout, bypass or similar device. This amendment will place a restriction on vehicles operated according to the Motorcycle Ordinance that requires well maintained and unmodified exhaust systems be used whenever the vehicles are ridden. Violations of this requirement can be resolved immediately through voluntary compliance or the administrative citation process. Staff has reviewed the suggested amendments and believes each will facilitate compliance and cost recovery measures taken regarding motorcycles and other noise complaints. The attached ordinances illustrate the amendments. ALTERNATIVES: 1. The Planning Commission may recommend modifications to the proposed Zone Text Change to the City Council. 2. The Planning Commission may recommend the City Council deny the proposed Zoning Code Amendments. 3. The Planning Commission may continue the hearing and refer the project back to staff for further analysis. Direction should be given to staff on required additional information. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Staff report to City Council dated 3/14/06 Attachment 2: Draft Resolution PC 2006-0032 Attachment 3: Draft Resolution PC 2006-0033 Attachment 1: City Council Staff report - 3/14/06 See Following Attachment 2: Draft Resolution PC 2006-0032 See following Attachment 3: Draft Resolution PC 2006-0033 See Following