Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_2004-10-05_AgendaPacketCITY OFATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Regular Meeting October 5, 2004 — 7:00 P.M. City of Atascadero Pavilion on the Lake 9315 Pismo Ave. - Atascadero, California CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call: Chairperson Kelley Vice Chairperson Porter Commissioner Fonzi Commissioner Jones Commissioner Peterson Commissioner Beraud Commissioner O'Keefe 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 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) 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 21, 2004. 2. ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL MAP 2004-0091: 2435 SAN FERNANDO ROAD (TPM 2003-0041). COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORTS 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).) NONE COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND REPORTS DIRECTOR'S REPORT 3. NATIVE TREE ORDINANCE REVIEW AND DISCUSSION The Planning Commission will be discussing the Native Tree ordinance Title 9 Chapter 11 and the accompanying guidelines. The item will be limited to review and discussion only. No formal action or amendments to the ordinance will be considered. ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be on October 19, 2004, at the Pavilion on the Lake, 9315 Pismo Avenue, 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 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 the Pavilion on the Lake, 9315 Pismo Ave., 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). ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 10-5-04 CITY OF ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES Regular Meeting September 21, 2004 — 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Kelley called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and Commissioner O'Keefe led the Pledge of Allegiance R()I I ('_AI I Present: Commissioners Beraud, Fonzi, O'Keefe, Peterson and Chairperson Kelley Absent: Commissioner Porter Staff Present: Community Development Director Warren Frace, Deputy Community Development Director Steve McHarris, Deputy Public Works Director Jeff van den Eikhof, Associate Planner Kelly Gleason, Associate Planner Kerry Margason, Assistant Planner Lisa Wilkinson and Recording Secretary Grace Pucci. PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS A. Administration of Oath of Office City Clerk Marcia McClure Torgerson administered the Oath of Office to new member of the Planning Commission, Thomas Jones. Commissioner Jones joined the hearing. B. Election of New Vice Chairperson MOTION: By Commissioner O'Keefe to nominate Commissioner Beraud to the position of Vice Chairperson. Motion failed for lack of a second. MOTION: By Commissioner Fonzi and seconded by Chairperson Kelley to nominate Commissioner Porter to the position of Vice Chairperson Motion passed 6:0 by a roll -call vote. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: By Commissioner Fonzi and seconded by Commissioner Peterson to approve the agenda. Motion passed 6:0 by a roll -call vote. PUBLIC COMMENT Eric Greening referred to the length of tonight's agenda and suggested at some point early in the evening the Commission make a go or no go decision on Item #7. Chairperson Kelley closed the Public Comment period. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 7, 2004. MOTION: By Commissioner O'Keefe and seconded by Commissioner Beraud to approve Item #1. Motion passed 6:0 by a roll -call vote. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORTS 2. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 2004-0058 Applicant: Montanaro Family Trust dba Mira Vista Apartments, 11153 El Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422 Phone: 461-1143 Project Title: Tree Removal Permit 2004-0058 Project 11153 El Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422 Location: APN 045-321-015 Project The applicant is proposing to remove one native Blue Oak tree on property that is zoned Residential Multi Family - Description: 16 (RMF -16) within the Mira Vista Apartment complex. According to the arborist, the 44 -inch oak tree is diseased and injured beyond reclamation. General Plan Designation: High Density Residential (HDR) Zoning District: Residential Multi -Family - 16 (RMF -16) Assistant Planner Lisa Wilkinson provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT — None Commissioner Fonzi stated for the record that the tree report had indicated the tree degraded and was dying because of grading within the drip line and a lawn planted beneath it, and did not die naturally. MOTION: By Commissioner Fonzi and seconded by Commissioner Peterson to adopt Resolution PC 2004-0117 to approve the request to remove one 44 -inch Blue Oak tree subject to the guidelines and mitigation required by the Atascadero Native Tree Ordinance. Motion passed 6:0 by a roll -call vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. GPA 2003-0008: 9105 PRINCIPAL AVE. (WESTPAC) Applicant: Westpac Investments, 805 Aerovista Place, Suite 202, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: 547-5502 Project Title: General Plan Amendment 2003-0008 / Zone Change 2003-0070 / Zone Change 2004-0083/ Zone Change 2004-0084 / Conditional Use Permit 2003-0117 / Tentative Tract Map 2003-0044 Project 9105 Principal Ave. Atascadero, CA 93422 Location: APN: 030-491-013, 015, 018 Project The proposed project consists of an application for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Description: Tentative Tract Map and Conditional Use Permit for a commercial/residential mixed-use development located on a 5.22 -acre parcel within the Commercial Retail (CR) Zoning District. A 0.78 -acre portion of the site along El Camino Real will retain the CR zoning. The remaining 4.44 acres will require a General Plan Amendment to High Density Residential (HDR) and a zone change to Residential Multi - Family (16 units/acre) (RMF -16) with a Planned Development Overlay Zone. The site is accessed along Gusta Road and Principal Avenue. Proposed buildings consist of eight duplex and eight triplex residential buildings, one commercial building and one mixed-use building designed for commercial use on the lower floor and residential use on the upper floor. Forty-five dwelling units total are proposed. Seven native trees are proposed for removal. General Plan Designation: General Commercial (GC) Zoning District: Commercial Retail (CR) Proposed Based on the initial study prepared for the project, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed. The Environmental proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is available for public review from 7/21/04 through 9/7/04 at Determination: 6905 El Camino Real, Suite 6, Community Development Department, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Deputy Community Development Director Steve McHarris provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission. Deputy Public Works Director Jeff van den Eikhof addressed circulation and drainage issues. Community Development Director Warren Frace discussed the affordable housing policy as it relates to this project. PUBLIC COMMENT Carol Florence, Oasis Associates representing the applicant Westpac Investments, gave an overview of the project through a PowerPoint presentation and distributed a copy of the applicant's response to the Conditions of Approval. (Exhibit A) Mary McCallan expressed concern regarding water runoff from the creek, trees to be removed, the number of units proposed and their proximity to her property. Bill Bright spoke about the noise and dust generated from the cement plant and its effect on this project. Eric Greening stated his concerns including: net loss of present inventory of commercial property from this project, and the finding of no impact in relation to public services. Richard Sims stated the proposed duplex and triplex will look into his backyard and asked the applicant to construct an 8 -foot wall across his property for privacy and dust control. Craig Stevens expressed concern regarding traffic issues on Augusta Road, and the volume of residential versus commercial at this site. Harold Peterson stated that the property should be left as commercial and not developed as residential. Chuck Mackey indicated his concerns with the project and requested measures be taken by the applicant to insure his privacy, maintain his views and accommodate the additional traffic on Principal. Don Messer stated he would like to develop property near this development and asked that it be zoned the same as this project. Darrel Andrews stated his opposition to the project because of increased traffic, changes to the character of the neighborhood, and impacts to water resources. Eric Greening asked how impacts to public services would be mitigated on a continuing basis and suggested a study session on the Tausig study and its implementation. Chairperson Kelley closed the Public Comment period. Carol Florence, applicant's structural engineer Brad Breckwald, and city staff addressed issues raised during the Public Comment period. Commissioner O'Keefe expressed concern with traffic issues, two story houses, water usage given the amount of turf in the development, non compliance with the City's mixed use policy for the commercial component, and the lack of an arborist's report and tree protection plan. Commissioner Peterson stated he likes the design and layout of the project but is concerned with the loss of commercially zoned property in this development. Commissioner Beraud indicated the following concerns: project does not meet the requirement for a buffer between urban and suburban, loss of commercial development, water resource use, and loss of tax revenue if commercial space is used for offices. Chairperson Kelley stated it was unfair to ask the applicant to change the project at this time to accommodate more commercial on the site. He is concerned with traffic and would like to see more study of Principal and EI Camino Real and would like something on future title reports indicating the impacts from the pre-existing tire shop and cement factory. Commissioner Fonzi indicated that this project needs to go back to the drawing board to increase the amount of commercial, to locate the houses away from the property line at the back of the property, and to do additional work on the drainage issue. Commissioner Jones stated his concerns with screening issues and setbacks and would like to see the neighbor's concerns addressed before a decision is made this evening. Hamish Marshall, applicant, stated that additional commercial development on this site would not work and he would appeal any decision increasing commercial to the City Council. MOTION: By Commissioner Beraud and seconded by Commissioner O'Keefe to deny the project recommendations 1 through 6 with a recommendation to the City Council that the percentage of commercial land be approaching 50% and that the issues of buffering to the neighborhood be addressed. Motion passed 4:2 by a roll -call vote. (Jones, Kelley opposed) Chairperson Kelley recessed the hearing at 8:45 p.m. Chairperson Kelley called the hearing back to order at 8:59 p.m. 4. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-0005, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONE CODE TEXT 2003-0058, MIXED USE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONE CHANGE 2003-0088, MASTER PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT (CUP 2004-0108), TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2003-0035. Applicant: Richard Shannon, West Front Properties, 5070 San Benito Road, Atascadero, CA 93422 Phone: 466-5736 Project Title: `Vest Front Mixed -Use, General Plan Amendment 2003-0005, Planned Development Zone Code Text 2003-0058, Mixed -Use Planned Development Zone Change 2003-0088, Master Plan of Development (CUP 2004-0108), Tentative Tract Map 2003-0035 Project 8870 West Front Road, 8760, 8840 Portola Road (APN 056-131-015, Location: 17,018, and 019) each within city of Atascadero, (San Luis Obispo County) Project The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, establishment of a Planned Description: Development Overlay Zone, a corresponding Master Plan of Development (CUP), and a Vesting Tentative Tract Map that would allow for a mixed-use commercial, office, and residential development on a 13 -acre site. The project site fronts both West Front Road and Portola Road and includes a 40 single- family residential subdivision, a 90 -unit maximum hotel, and 10,000 square feet of commercial retail and gas station/fast food restaurant buildings. The project includes a future 5 -lot single-family residential subdivision with retention of an existing historic Colony Home with associated outbuildings at the rear of the site for a total of 45 residential units. The site contains numerous native oak trees of which 7 are proposed for removal. General Plan Designation: General Commercial GC Deputy Community Development Director Steve McHarris provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission. A staff addendum was distributed to the Commission (Exhibit B). Deputy Public Works Director Jeff van den Eikhof addressed traffic circulation and drainage issues for this project and Community Development Director Warren Frace spoke about the affordable housing calculations. Chairperson Kelley announced that Item #7 would be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT John Knight, RRM Design Group, project manager, gave a PowerPoint presentation on the project, discussed concerns and answered questions of the Commission. Carmen Trudell, RRM Design Group, spoke about the residential architecture of the project. Tina Salter suggested including sidewalks on both sides of the street, native plants with a small amount of grass and that lighting be directed downward. Mike Ryan, representative of clients who are looking at the hotel site, stated they are in substantial agreement with the applicant's plans. Larry Porter, representing his cousin Barbara Wilson who owns property adjoining this site, made several requests of the applicant on her behalf including fencing and drainage issues. Phil Neeby expressed his support for the project but has concerns with traffic flow on Portola Road. Hank Minardo raised several issues including widening of the overpass and West Front, and the possibility of sharing the parking on the south side of the project for overflow. Jake Patel expressed concern with economic impact of the proposed hotel on his hotel and similar properties. Chairperson Kelley closed the Public Comment period. MOTION: By Commissioner Fonzi and seconded by Chairperson Kelley to adopt Resolution PC 2004-0100 recommending that the City Council certify Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 2004- 0036; and, approve Resolution PC 2004-0101 recommending that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 2003- 0005 based on findings, and with the additions that are on the screen and given as staff addendum items and including No. Zoning District: Commercial Retail (CR) Proposed Based on the initial study prepared for the project, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed. The Environmental proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is available for public review from 9/13/04 through 10/12/04 Determination: at 6905 El Camino Real, Suite 6, Community Development Department, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Deputy Community Development Director Steve McHarris provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission. A staff addendum was distributed to the Commission (Exhibit B). Deputy Public Works Director Jeff van den Eikhof addressed traffic circulation and drainage issues for this project and Community Development Director Warren Frace spoke about the affordable housing calculations. Chairperson Kelley announced that Item #7 would be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT John Knight, RRM Design Group, project manager, gave a PowerPoint presentation on the project, discussed concerns and answered questions of the Commission. Carmen Trudell, RRM Design Group, spoke about the residential architecture of the project. Tina Salter suggested including sidewalks on both sides of the street, native plants with a small amount of grass and that lighting be directed downward. Mike Ryan, representative of clients who are looking at the hotel site, stated they are in substantial agreement with the applicant's plans. Larry Porter, representing his cousin Barbara Wilson who owns property adjoining this site, made several requests of the applicant on her behalf including fencing and drainage issues. Phil Neeby expressed his support for the project but has concerns with traffic flow on Portola Road. Hank Minardo raised several issues including widening of the overpass and West Front, and the possibility of sharing the parking on the south side of the project for overflow. Jake Patel expressed concern with economic impact of the proposed hotel on his hotel and similar properties. Chairperson Kelley closed the Public Comment period. MOTION: By Commissioner Fonzi and seconded by Chairperson Kelley to adopt Resolution PC 2004-0100 recommending that the City Council certify Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 2004- 0036; and, approve Resolution PC 2004-0101 recommending that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 2003- 0005 based on findings, and with the additions that are on the screen and given as staff addendum items and including No. 16 referring to the sign modification; and, adopt Resolution PC 2004-0102 recommending that the City Council introduce an ordinance for first reading by title only to approve Zone Text Change 2003-0058 establishing a PD -23 overlay district based on findings; and, Resolution No. PC 2004-0103 recommending that the City Council introduce an ordinance for first reading by title only, to approve Zone Change 2003-0088 based on findings; and Resolution No. PC 2004-0104 recommending that the City Council approve Master Plan of Development based on findings and subject to Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Monitoring with the following additions: 1. That the developer will work with staff to improve the architectural appearance of the courtyard homes so that there is a little more landscaping and the end of the road doesn't end at the wall. 2. The eight foot wood fence will be provided between the adjacent landowner, Mrs. Wilson, and this would be a heavier wood fence and this would have the exception at the drainage area, but a heavy duty wood fence. 3. The developer work with staff to accommodate a pedestrian crossing that would go from the pocket park to the sidewalk area on West Mall to accommodate children going to and from school. 4. The developer work with staff to iron out the issues with the affordable housing issue on the second unit and that this unit have all of the amenities that a home would have, not just an empty shell, but a stove, a refrigerator and all those things that make a home and the plumbing facilities; do it right. 5. The intersection of Coromar and Portola will have a stop sign installed. 6. To go with staff's recommendation on the wetland study. Motion passed 5:1 by a roll -call vote. (O'Keefe opposed) Commissioner O'Keefe stated for the record that while she thinks some significant changes have been made, the Commission is not meeting the City's mixed use policy requirements for commercial development and if exceptions are continually made it will have no validity. MOTION: By Chairperson Kelley and seconded by Commissioner O'Keefe to continue past 11:00 p.m. and hear the two additional items on the agenda. Motion passed 5:1 by a roll -call vote. (Beraud opposed) Chairperson Kelley recessed the hearing at 11:07 p.m. Chairperson Kelley called the meeting back to order at 11:15 p.m. 5. PD -17, 5310 CARRIZO RD: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONE CHANGE 2004-0078, MASTER PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT (CUP 2004-0126), TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2004-0048 Applicant: Scott Griffin, 5310 Carrizo Road, Atascadero, CA 93422, Phone: 466-9392 Project Title: Zone Change 2004-0078, Conditional Use Permit 2004-0126, Tentative Tract Map 2004-0048 for a 12 -lot single-family residential subdivision. Project 5310 Carrizo Rd, Atascadero, CA 93422 Location: (San Luis Obispo County) APN 049-101-022 Project The proposed project consists of an application for a Planned Development Overlay Zone, Conditional Description: Use Permit, and Tentative Tract Map for a twelve lot residential subdivision on a 3 -acre parcel under the requirements of PD -17 Overlay Zoning District. The average lot size is 9,674 square feet. The new homes will range in size from 1,248 square feet to 1,725 square feet. The project includes one home per lot each with a two -car garage. One existing on-site Colony House will be retained on site. General Plan Designation: Single Family Residential -X Zoning District: Residential Single Family -X Proposed Based on the initial study prepared for the project, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed. The Environmental proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is available for public review from 7/21/04 through 9/7/04 at Determination: 6905 El Camino Real, Suite 6, Community Development Department, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Associate Planner Kelly Gleason provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission. A staff addendum was distributed to the Commission. (Exhibit C) PUBLIC COMMENT Scott Griffin, applicant, stated he was in agreement with the staff's recommendation. James Warren, neighbor to this project, requested a special fence along the back side of his property and along the driveway for safety, and that the home that backs up to him to be a single story for privacy. Chairperson Kelley closed the Public Comment period. Upon questioning by Commissioner O'Keefe the applicant agreed to work with staff to reduce the amount of square footage of lawn in the front yard. MOTION: By Commissioner O'Keefe and seconded by Commissioner Peterson to adopt Resolution PC 2004-0113 recommending that the City Council certify the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 2004-0030; and, adopt Resolution PC 2004-0114 recommending that the City Council introduce an ordinance for first reading to approve Zone Change 2004-0078 based on findings; and, adopt Resolution PC 2004-0115 recommending that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit 2004- 0126 to include the Master Plan of Development based on findings and subject to Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Monitoring with the inclusion of staff addendum items; and, adopt Resolution PC 2004-0116 recommending the City Council approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2003-0048 based on findings and subject to Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Monitoring with the inclusion of staff addendum items. Motion passed 6:0 by a roll -call vote. 6. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2004-0062,7930 SANTA YSABEL AVENUE Applicant: Micah & Lisa Mumford, 2875 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, Phone: 541-5383 Project Title: Tentative Parcel Map 2004-0062 Project 7930 Santa Ysabel Avenue, Atascadero, CA 93422, San Luis Obispo County Location: APN 030-131-033 Project A proposed condominium map creating three airspace units and one common lot for three units on a multi - Description: family lot. The parcel is slightly sloped. Native trees are not proposed for removal. City sewer will serve the property, and water is available from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. General Plan Designation: High Density Residential Zoning District: Residential Multi -family— 16 (RMF -16) Proposed The project qualifies for a Class 3(b) Categorical Exemption, which exempts the conversion and/or Environmental construction of small structures including multi -family projects of less than 4 units that do not otherwise Determination: create a negative impact. Commissioner Fonzi stepped down from consideration of this item stating she lives in close proximity to this development. Associate Planner Kerry Margason provided the staff report and answered questions of the Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT Micah Mumford, applicant, stated he agreed with staff recommendations and answered questions of the Commission. Chairperson Kelley closed the Public Comment period. MOTION: By Commissioner Peterson and seconded by Commissioner Jones to adopt Resolution PC 2004-0106 approving Tentative Parcel Map 2004-0062, a request to establish three airspace units on one common lot, based on findings and subject to conditions. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll -call vote. Commissioner Fonzi rejoined the hearing. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND REPORTS Chairperson Kelley asked that the tree issue be placed at the beginning of the next agenda, and welcomed Commissioner Jones to the Planning Commission. DIRECTOR'S REPORT 7. NATIVE TREE ORDINANCE REVIEW AND DISCUSSION The Planning Commission will be discussing the Native Tree ordinance Title 9 Chapter 11 and the accompanying guidelines. The item will be limited to review and discussion only no formal action or amendments to the ordinance will be considered. This Item was continued to the next meeting of the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Kelley adjourned the meeting at 11:45 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on October 5, 2004. MEETING RECORDED AND MINUTES PREPARED BY: Grace Pucci, Recording Secretary The following exhibits are available for review in the Community Development Department: Exhibit A — Carol Florence, applicant's response to Conditions of Approval Exhibit B — Staff Addendum to Item #4 Exhibit C — Staff Addendum to Item #5 ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 10/5/04 Atascadero Planning Commission Staff Report - Public Works Department Final Map Acceptance Final Map 2004-0091 (Parcel Map AT 03-0104) [TPM 2003-0041] 2435 San Fernando Road (Audette / Summers / Twin Cities Surveying) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends: Planning Commission accept Final Map 2004-0091 (Parcel Map AT 03-0104) DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission approved Tentative Parcel Map 2003-0041 to subdivide two residential lots (10.88 acres) into three residential lots. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66440 the approving legislative body (Planning Commission) cannot deny a final map that is consistent with an approved tentative map. The legislative body is also required to accept, accept subject to improvement or reject, on behalf of the public, any real property offered for dedication for public use in conformity with the terms of the offer of dedication. There are no offers of dedication on this map. Staff has determined that the Final Parcel Map is consistent with approved Tentative Parcel Map. PREPARED BY: Jeff van den Eikhof, Deputy Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Final Tract Map 2004-0091 (Parcel Map AT 03-0104) 10-05-04 FMP 2004-0091 mala Final map 2004-0091 (Pae map AT 03-0104) 2435 San Fernando Road a dkt/s mm_s/Twncm_ Surveying E ■ � w ■# It ■ |� k $ \■� q §|| | �� 2|■E■ ■law §■w! klie ITEM NUMBER: 2 10-05-04 FUP 2004 mm 4�■ � )� 2■■§�| ;■ ITEM NUMBER: 2 10-05-04 FUP 2004 mm Atascadero Planning Commission Staff Report — Community Development Department Review of Native Tree Ordinance Title 9 Chapter 11 DISCUSSION: Background: The Planning Commission has raised issues about the requirements of the Native Tree Ordinance and Guidelines (refer to Attachment 2 and 3) on a number of occasions. The current ordinance was adopted in 1998 and has not been amended. Most recently, the Planning Commission discussed the ordinance during the March 3, 2004 Planning Commission meeting (refer to Attachment 1). At the March meeting, the Commission discussed a number of areas of concern regarding the ordinance. Staff has summarized the primary areas of concern below and noted the number of Commissioners who shared the concern. Area of Concern Number of Commissioners 1. Better arborist monitoring 3 2. Use mitigation fees to buy open space / improve education 3 3. No fee / mitigation for dead / hazardous trees 4 4. Allow staff 10% removal discretion 4 Analysis: The Tree Ordinance and the guidelines are adopted by the City Council. Any changes to the ordinance or guidelines will require Council approval. Staff will need to seek Council direction prior to initiating any changes in the ordinance or guidelines. The Planning Commission may want make a recommendation that the Council request that certain tree ordinance issues be studied. The Planning Commission should be specific about the issues to be studied. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: March 3, 2004 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 2: Native Tree Ordinance Attachment 3: Native Tree Guidelines Attachment 1: March 3, 2004 Planning Commission Minutes ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Beraud, Fonzi, Peterson, Porter, Jones and Chairperson Kelley Absent: Commissioner O'Keefe COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORTS 4. TREE ORDINANCE DISCUSSION Community Development Director Warren Frace stated that this discussion would give the Commission the opportunity to discuss concerns and give staff feedback. PUBLIC COMMENT Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, stated it was his opinion that the tree ordinance is generally working well. He expressed some concerns including: 1) in densely covered difficult building sites where large numbers of trees are being removed for single family residences, he would rather see payment of mitigation fees than replanting, those fees should be used for habitat protection, and 2) the consequences of taking out smaller trees that have a longer lifespan. George Molina expressed his opinion that it was important to look at the Tree Ordinance and the way it effects the economics of building a house. He stated that staff could be trusted to make decisions, and public hearings were not necessary and inefficient. He would like to see a reduction in the time frame to get permits. Jean Sterns, 5700 Olmeda Avenue, disagreed with the last comments. She is against cutting down trees to put in more houses and expressed concern regarding the height of buildings and how high buildings cut off mountain views. Chip Tamagni, 2900 Monterey Road, arborist, indicated that he has done many tree protection plans and he sees the greatest problem as being monitoring during construction. He would like to see more teeth in the ordinance regarding monitoring and the responsibility of owners and developers to insure their contractors follow the ordinance and tree protection plans. Steven Alvarez, 1615 Lupin Lane, arborist, stated he tries to abide by the high standards of the Tree Ordinance. The problems he sees is the post -construction landscaping planned around trees and feels the focus must be on the value of native trees. The irrigation going up against tree trunks and drip lines is drowning the trees and depleting oxygen. He would like to see less of a focus on older trees and greater consideration given to younger trees—we should be looking at reforestation. Jean Sterns related incidents she has seen where roots have been cut while digging a trench, she would like to see trees saved properly. Chairperson Kelley closed the Public Comment period. Commissioner Beraud stated that the Tree Ordinance does a good job overall. She sees a lot of problems with monitoring and would like to see a better system including penalties and incentives for following the Tree Ordinance. Total tree coverage losses are important, especially the removal of younger trees. Regarding use of the mitigation fees, she would like to see the City be proactive in obtaining open space. Landscape plans must be appropriate to the trees left on site Commissioner Porter indicated that he has a problem with the current fee schedule. He has a hard time requiring applicants to pay mitigation trees for removal of trees that pose a hazard to the public, there should be some avenue in the Tree Ordinance that would allow the Planning Commission or the City Council to waive these fees if necessary. He would like to see a 10% variance rule once a project is approved that would allow the Community Development Director or staff to approve subsequent tree removals. Vice Chairperson Jones agreed with need to protect younger trees. He would like to see the City Council encourage the use of mitigation funds for easements for habitat protection. The Ordinance should be more efficient and allow staff to make some of the decisions. He is disturbed by requiring the applicant to pay into the mitigation fund when there is a hazardous situation or no room to plant more trees. The Commission should be able to waive fees when appropriate. Commissioner Fonzi expressed concern with charging applicants to remove dead trees, as these are being removed for the public good. She questioned why there are different standards for replacement and fees in different areas. There does not seem to be any consistency, she would like the fees to be uniform. Table 8-A in the Tree Ordinance is confusing and she would like staff to look into it. She suggested reevaluating the native tree species in the Tree Ordinance, and feels Digger Pines should be considered native trees and that Elm trees should be protected in Atascadero. Staff should have more flexibility in determining tree removal—should have a certain percentage. She would like staff to review the Ordinance and let the Commission know if there are superfluous areas in the ordinance. Commissioner Fonzi has concerns with vineyards going in and the subsequent removal of all the trees on the site. This is not covered under the Ordinance. There is no uniformity to tree protection plans and arborist reports, and guidelines are necessary so arborists know what to expect. There should be more monitoring during the construction process and penalties where abuses occur. Chairperson Kelley would like to see mitigation fees used when tree removal on packed lots takes place. The Ordinance should be made more user friendly, staff can make some decisions on tree removals; 10% change is acceptable. He has a problem with charging for removal of dead trees. Chairperson Kelley would like the Planning Commission to have the ability to adjust some of the fees especially with dead or hazardous trees. If a tree is deemed hazardous staff should be able to deal with that immediately. He stated that a tree on a residential lot is the same as a tree on a commercial lot and should be treated the same with the same fee structure. Monitoring tree protection plans are difficult, and should be left to the arborist. A penalty plan is good; perhaps institute a phased system of penalties. Mitigation fees can be put back into easements and protection of trees as well as an education program for anyone coming in for tree removals. A uniform application/checklist would be good. The Fire Department should have input into the Ordinance especially in mountainous areas. Where tree removals are necessary for fire protection no fees should be involved. The Ordinance seems to address developers only; it should treat everyone equally. Commissioner Beraud stated she was afraid of the 10% staff approval and feels it could lead to sloppy tree protection. Chairperson Kelley indicated that if someone does make an attempt to try to save a tree but it must be taken down, there should be some way to waive the fee. Chip Tamagni addressed the issue of taking down hazardous trees without permits. There is an approved, standardized hazardous tree evaluation form. He stated that those who want to live around oak trees must assume some degree of risk. Some threshold of hazard to cause trees to come down must be considered. Jerry Clay reminded those present that nature has planted the trees. The perception is that if we don't take care of the trees, nothing will happen but trees do regenerate themselves and nature takes care of the trees. Attachment 2: Native Tree Ordinance Chapter 11 Native Tree Regulations 11.01 Purpose and Intent Preservation of natural flora and fauna is a basic community goal of the Atascadero General Plan and native trees are valued community assets. The purpose of this ordinance is to establish regulations for the installation, maintenance, planting, preservation, protection and selected removal of native trees within the City limits. In establishing these regulations, it is the City's intent to encourage the preservation, maintenance and regeneration of a healthy urban forest. This enhances other values that Atascadero holds for its community including clean air and water, soil conservation, aesthetics, property values and an ecological diversity that will ensure that Atascadero will continue to be a healthy and desirable place to live. 11.02 Applicability. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all native trees, as defined by this Chapter, two inches (2") dbh or greater for deciduous native oaks, California Sycamore (Plantanus racemosa Nutt) and madrones (Arbutus Menziesii) and four inches (4") dbh or greater for all other protected native trees, as defined in this Chapter. It shall be illegal to intentionally harm, damage and/or cause the death or decline of a native tree or remove a native tree without a City -issued Tree Removal Permit, where such a permit is required by this Chapter. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all public and private property and protected native trees within the City of Atascadero, and to any person, firm, corporation and public or private utility company doing work within the City limits. 11.03 Adoption of Standards & Guidelines The "Tree Standards and Guidelines" (the "Guidelines") set forth the procedures, guidelines and standards that shall be used to implement this Chapter. They shall be used to provide details about preservation, maintenance, installation, protection, regeneration and selected removal of trees. They shall be adopted and amended by resolution of the City Council and have the force of law. 11.04 Definitions. Arborist: A person certified by the International Society of Arboroculture or other recognized professional organization of Arborists that provide professional advice and licensed professionals to do physical work on trees in the City. Damage: Any intentional action or gross negligence, which causes injury, death or disfigurement of a tree. Actions include, but are not limited to cutting, girdling, poisoning, overwatering, soil compaction, unauthorized relocation or transportation of a tree or trenching, excavating, altering the grade or paving within the dripline of a tree. Dbh: Means "diameter at breast height", specifically four feet six inches (4'6") above natural grade. Dripline: The outermost line of the tree's canopy projected straight down to the ground surface. Hazardous: Presenting an immediate danger to people or existing structures. Removal: The physical destruction, displacement or removal of a tree, or portions of a tree caused by poisoning, cutting, burning, relocation for transplanting, bulldozing or other mechanical, chemical or physical means. Native Tree: A tree species as listed below: Arbutus menziesii Pursh. Madrone Heteromeles arbutifolia Lindl. Toyon, California Holly Juglans hindsii Jeps. California Black Walnut Plantanus racemosa Nutt. California Sycamore Quercus agrifolia Eastw. Coast Live Oak Quercus alvordiana Nee Blue Oak x Desert Oak Quercus dumosa Jeps. Scrub Oak Quercus durata Jeps. Leather Oak Quercus douglasii H&A Blue Oak Quercus lobata Nee Valley Oak Quercus turbinella Desert Oak Umbellularia californica Nutt. California Bay Laurel Native Tree Association: Refers to the Atascadero Native Tree Association or other successor organization recognized by the City Council to cooperate with the City in educational programs and provide advice to the City on matters related to native trees. Site Planner: Licensed professionals, such as Architects, Engineers, who are hired by applicants to prepare site plans including tree protection plans. Tree Protection Plan: A plan that shows how specific trees shall be protected during development and related work, including any required mitigation measures and ensure viability of tree after construction. Tree Pruning: The cutting, detachment or separation of any limb branch or roots from a native tree. 11.05 Tree Removal A. Permit Required Except as set forth in (B) below, a Tree Removal Permit shall be required for the removal of any deciduous native tree two inches (2") dbh or greater and four inches (4") dbh or greater for all other protected native trees, and for pruning of more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the live canopy in native trees. Any private or public entity doing regular maintenance in the City of Atascadero may seek a "blanket pruning permit" that may be renewed on a yearly basis. B. Exemptions The following are exempt from the permit requirements of this Chapter: 1. Emergency situations which cause hazardous or dangerous conditions that have serious potential to cause immediate damage to persons or improvements on real property. Such situations must be reported to the City within 48 hours. 2. Trees planted, grown and maintained as part of a licensed nursery or tree farm business. 3. Tree pruning that effects less than twenty-five percent (25%) of a tree's live canopy within one year's time. The pruning shall be done according to current tree pruning standards as adopted by the International Society of Arboroculture. 4. Trees removed as part of an approved "Tree Management Plan" 5. Single family residences in single family zoning districts where a permanent dwelling exists and building or grading permits are not being sought. C. Application for Tree Removal 1. Early Consultation: All applicants are encouraged to consult with the Community Development Department before site development that may involve any tree removal. Early consultation shall be a factor used in determining whether proposed improvements can be reasonably designed to avoid the need for tree removal. 2. Content. The content of the Tree Removal Application and Permit shall be in a form as established by the Community Development Director. The applicant must provide the factual data to make the required finding(s) as required in this Chapter. 3. Fees. Application fees shall be established by resolution of the City Council. Fees shall not be required for applications for the removal of dead or diseased trees, as defined in Section D-2 (a). 4. Arborist Report. When applicable by this Chapter, the applicant is required to submit a tree condition report prepared by an Arborist selected and retained by the City. The applicant shall reimburse the City for all costs related to the preparation of the report. 5. Posting. All native trees proposed for removal shall be identified by the applicant for field inspection as set forth in the Guidelines. When a Tree Removal Permit is issued, the City shall post a copy of the permit in City Hall and the applicant will post a copy on-site for a public appeal period of five (5) business days. D. Review & Approval 1. Authority: The Planning Commission shall make decisions regarding all tree removal application requests involving trees 24 inches dbh or larger. All other tree removal application decisions will be made by the Community Development Department. 2. Required Findings: At least one of the following findings must be made in order to approve a Tree Removal Application: (a) The tree is dead, diseased or injured beyond reclamation, as certified by a tree condition report from an Arborist. (b) The tree is crowded by other healthier native trees thinning (removal) would promote healthier growth in the trees to remain, as certified by a tree condition report from an Arborist. (c) The tree is interfering with existing utilities and/or structures, as certified by a report from the Site Planner. (d) The tree is inhibiting sunlight needed for existing and/or proposed active or passive solar heating or cooling, as certified by a report from the Site Planner (e) 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 use of the property; or • If saving the tree requires the removal of more desirable trees. 3. Evaluative Criteria for Tree Removal. The following criteria will be considered when evaluating each Tree Removal Application: (a) The potential effect that tree removal could have on topography, knowing that hilltops, ravines, streambeds and other natural watercourses are more environmentally sensitive than flat or gentle sloping lands. (b) The potential effect that tree removal could have on soil retention and erosion from increased flow of surface waters. (c) The potential effect that tree removal could have on the ambient and future noise level. (d) The potential effect that tree removal could have on the ability of existing vegetation to reduce air movement and wind velocity. (e) The potential effect that tree removal could have on significantly reducing available wildlife habitat or result; in the displacement of desirable species. (fl Aesthetics (g) The number, size, species, condition and location of trees to be removed. (h) The special need to protect existing blue and valley oaks because of regeneration problems. (i) The cumulative environmental effects of tree removal. 4. Conditions of Approval Tree Removal Permits shall be conditioned by one or more of the following methods: (a) Depending on the characteristics of the site the applicant may plant replacement trees on site. This method shall include payment in advance for three (3) site inspections during a four (4) year establishment period. (b) Payment of fee to the Tree Replacement Fund (c) Establishment of conservation easements, which will restrict removal of any tree within a designated area of the property. 11.06 Tree Protection Plans. Plan Required Tree Protection Plans shall be required if any listed activity occurs within twenty feet (20') of the dripline of any native tree. Activities include but are not limited to the following: remodeling or new construction, grading, road building, utility trenching, etc. A Tree Protection Plan shall be included as part of the submittal for a road plan, plot plan, precise plan, building permit and/or conditional use permit. Consultation Early Consultation with the Community Development Staff is strongly encouraged prior to the submittal of plans. Review and Approval The Protection Plan shall be in place and verified before an applicant receives any City permits to begin work, with the exception of tree protection measures proposed during construction. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department concurrent with the review of any construction or building permit. Surety Requirements. In large projects involving valuable trees, the City may require a surety prior to issuance of entitlement. Determination for use of the surety will be based on the complexity of the project and number of trees being impacted. The type of surety must be approved in writing by the City Attorney. Tree Protection Plans for Private/Public Utilities. Utility companies doing regular maintenance and construction are not required to submit Tree Protection Plans for each individual project, but shall meet the tree protection requirements set forth in this Ordinance and the Guidelines through conditions placed in a revocable pruning, trenching and encroachment permit that may be issued on a yearly basis. 11.07 Tree Replacement and Regeneration. For each residential building permit issued, the planting of one five -gallon native tree shall be required, based on the rate of one native tree per residential dwelling unit. 11.08 Tree Abatement: Nuisances, Pests and Disease -- (RESERVED) 11.09 Tree Management Plans. A. Tree Management Plans. Tree Management Plans allow for the management of trees as a resource for the benefit of both the landowner and the community. Tree Management Plans will allow for comprehensive woodlot management practices as an alternative to the submission of individual Tree Removal Applications. Tree Management Plans may be permitted on the following types of property: 1. Minimum area of site of 5.0 acres or larger in single, contiguous ownership; and 2. Parcels where the existing zoning is single-family residential or agriculture; and 3. Canopy cover of site is equal to or greater than 50%; and 4. The woodlot will be managed for personal use only. B. Standards for Tree Removal. The standards for tree removal and contents of the Tree Management Plan shall be set forth in the Guidelines. 11.10 Procedures for Public Projects. A. Definition. Public projects are any construction project that may impact native trees initiated by any department of the City of Atascadero. B. Binding City to Tree Ordinance. Public initiated projects will comply with the Tree Ordinance unless explicitly exempted by City Council. The City shall consult with an Arborist during the planning and inspection of all construction projects impacting native trees. C. Exemptions. Applicant from the City shall submit a written statement to City Council describing project and reason that an exemption should be granted. 11.11 Landmark Trees A. Defined. Landmark Tree means any native or non-native tree recognized by City Council resolution for its age, size, location, historical, and/or cultural significance. B. Landmark Tree Protection. Any tree (native or non-native) may receive protection by City Council resolution for its age, size, location, historical, and/or cultural significance. Landmark trees receive the same protection and are subject to all conditions set forth in this Chapter regarding native trees. They may not be removed without City Council approval. 11.12 Street Trees - (RESERVED) 11.13 Repeat Applications. When any application made pursuant to Title 9 or Title 11 has been denied, no new application that is substantially the same shall be filed within one year of the date of the previous denial unless the physical facts upon which the decision-making body based the denial have changed. The Community Development Director shall determine whether physical facts have changed or when an application is substantially the same as the previous application. 11.14 Enforcement. A. Authority It shall be the responsibility of the Community Development Director, or individuals designated by the Director, for the implementation and enforcement of all provisions of this Chapter. For the purposes of this Chapter, the Director may consult with and employ an Arborist, certified by the International Society of Arboricultural or other recognized professional organization of Arborists, on technical matters related to the implementation of this Chapter, including, but not limited to the review and approval of tree removal applications, tree protection plans. It shall be the role of the Community Development Department, in conjunction with the Native Tree Association, to develop educational materials and provide information to all applicants requesting permits from the Department, including, but not limited to, building permits, land use permits and other permits issued by the Department. B. Penalties. Violations of this Chapter are specifically declared misdemeanors, and upon conviction may be punished as set forth in Chapter 3 of Title 1 of the Atascadero Municipal Code. C. Restitution. In addition to any penalties provided by (b) above, any person who damages a tree in violation of the terms of this Chapter is responsible for proper restitution and/or conditions as described in Section 5 of this Chapter. The City may bring a civil action for restitution to enforce this section. D. Stop Work. In cases of nonconformance with this Chapter, the inspecting official shall immediately issue a Stop Work Order until all requirements have been met. Should unauthorized work or nonconformance lead to tree removal or damage (as defined), the inspecting official shall also issue a Stop Work Order. E. Conditions and Signed Agreements. Should unauthorized work or nonconformance lead to tree removal or damage (as defined), the Community Development Director may also require additional conditions as penalty and as described in this Chapter. Attachment 3: Native Tree Guidelines G.11.15 NATIVE TREE GUIDELINES & STANDARDS 1. General These Tree Guidelines and Standards have been compiled to assist the property owner in implementing the policies contained in the Native Tree Regulations, Chapter 11 of Title 9 of the Atascadero Municipal Code. These Guidelines and Standards are in addition to the regulations found in the Code. Informational brochures are available through the Atascadero Native Tree Association and the Community Development Department to assist property owners. Informational brochures distributed by the Community Development Department are part of these guidelines and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. Tree Protection Standards These standards have been established to protect native trees from damage before, during and after all types of development. As a general rule, the existing ground surface beneath the dripline of any native tree shall not be cut, filled, compacted or disturbed in any way. Exceptions must be based on a qualified consultation (from a professional arborist or natural resource professional), at the cost to the applicant, resulting in a Tree Protection Plan that gives reasonable assurances that the tree will survive any proposed activities. When proposed development does encroach into the dripline of any tree, special techniques that preserve as many roots as possible and allow the roots of the tree to breathe oxygen and obtain water shall be required. These methods include, but are not limited to: A. Fencing: Must be a minimum of 4' high, chain link, snow or safety fence, staked at the dripline or line of encroachment for each tree or group of trees, as shown in Standard Drawing TP -1. Fence must be up before any construction or earth moving begins. For areas where this is not possible, aeration of the soil (after development is complete) shall be required. B. Soil Aeration Methods: Soils under the driplines 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 2-4" auger) and the application of moderate amounts of nitrogen fertilizer. Applicant's arborist shall advise. C. Chip Mulch: All areas within the driplines of the trees that cannot be fenced shall receive a 4-6" deep layer of chip mulch to retain moisture, soil structure and reduce the affects of compaction. D. Trenching within the Dripline: All trenching done under the driplines of trees shall be hand -dug, augured or bored, and major roots shall be avoided whenever possible and if not, all roots larger than I" diameter shall be "cut clean" and not ragged. See Standard Drawing TP -6. E. Grading within the Dripline: Grading should not encroach within the dripline. If grading is necessary, construction of a retaining wall or tree well or other protection measure recommended by the Arborist may that ensures the survivability of the tree may be permitted (see Standard Drawings TP -2, 3 and 4). Chip mulch, 4-6" in depth shall also be required in these areas. 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. (See TP -5). F. Paving Within the Dripline: Pervious surfacing is preferred within the dripline, as shown on Standard Drawing TP -7. G. In certain instances (such as public right-of-ways, sidewalks and driveways) exemptions may be granted to this requirement. 3. Tree Replacement Conditions of Approval A. Replacement of Trees On -Site 1. Trees that are removed shall be replaced with five- (5) gallon, locally grown native stock, same tree species. The number of replacement trees required depends on the size, species and location of each tree removal. If native stock is unavailable, fifteen (15) gallon replacements shall be required. 2. For every 6" dbh of tree removed, one, two or four replacement plantings (depending on tree species and location) will be required. Deciduous Native Trees: Plant two trees for every 6" dbh of tree removed Other Native Trees: Plant one tree for every 6" dbh of tree removed Multi -Family Commercial/Roads: W Deciduous Native Trees: Plant four trees for every 6" dbh of tree removed _ Other Native Trees: Plant two trees for every 6" dbh of tree removed 3. Multi family and Commercial/Roads applicants may plant larger size specimens to reduce the quantity of replacements required using the following ratio: 24" box = 2 - 5 gallon locally grown or 15 gallon other trees Multi Family $200 per 6" dbh 36" box = 4 - 5 gallon locally grown or 15 gallon other trees Other Native Trees 48" box = 6 - 5 gallon locally grown or 15 gallon other trees Commercial/Roads $100 per 6" dbh 60" box = 8 - 5 gallon locally grown or 15 gallon other trees Payment into Tree Replacement Fund 1. The Base Fee shall be $50.00 per 6" dbh being removed. 2. The following chart summarizes the payment required through payment into the Tree Replacement Fund for certain projects and types of trees: $ Tree Fund Deciduous Native Trees Single Family $100 per 6" dbh Multi Family $200 per 6" dbh Commercial/Roads $200 per 6" dbh Other Native Trees Single Family $ 50 per 6" dbh Multi -Family $100 per 6" dbh Commercial/Roads $100 per 6" dbh C. Conservation Easement A conservation easement is a legal agreement made by the property owner to restrict the type and amount of development that may take place on the property. Easements may be approved to provide for the permanent protection of native trees on the property while retaining private ownership. 4. Guidelines for Tree Protection and Removal during Road Construction Design & Construction Guidelines Whenever roadways are constructed (including Colony road alignments), consideration shall be given to preserving and protecting the trees. Such considerations include, but are not limited to thefollowing: (1) The roadway alignment should vary within the right-of-way to accommodate trees; i.e. the centerline of the pavement may be different than the centerline of the right-of-way. (2) Roadway alignments which vary from the original Colony centerline shall provide safe curves and smooth transitions as approved by the City Engineer; necessary utilities shall be accommodated. (3) The roadway alignment should be adjusted to vary outside of the right-of-way to accommodate trees significant in quality and number whenever adjacent property can be easily obtained for encroachment, or where large tracts of land are under common ownership. (4) Movement of the roadway outside of the right-of-way shall be limited to easements and lot line adjustments, but in general shall not constitute a subdivision of land or taking of property. (5) Movement of the roadway outside of the right-of-way shall take into account other trees outside the right-of-way as well as excessive profile grades. (6) All else being equal, the cost of roadway construction may be reasonably impacted by the cost of saving trees; if the construction cost for the revised alignment does not exceed 125% of the normal roadway cost estimate, the trees shall be saved. Additional Information Required for Road Construction In addition to information required by the Community Development Department and City Engineer, the following shall be required during the construction of new roads and shall be included on the appropriate site and construction plans. (1) Field survey and map all native trees that have driplines within 20' of the edges of disturbance. (Complete tree inventory on these trees is required). In addition to numbering, wrap trees to be removed with red or pink flagging tape and trees to be protected with yellow or green flagging tape. (2) The applicant's arborist shall identify quality trees along the edges of the road that should be saved through extra tree protection measures. Each or these trees shall be identified as such on the site plan. The applicant shall propose methods of tree protection for City review. (3) Applicants should anticipate the need for field visit(s) by an independent Arborist retained by the City to field inspect any major road projects involving tree removals. 5. STANDARDS FOR TREE MANAGEMENT PLANS. Tree Management Plans must be prepared by a California Registered Professional Forester. The following minimum standards must be met to qualify for a Tree Management Plan: A. During a 20 year period, the crown cover of the property shall not be reduced more than 25%. B. If any stand (or cluster) of trees on the site has less than 25% crown cover, only removals for disease, infestation or hazardous conditions shall be permitted. C. No more than 5% of the crown cover shall be reduced in any one year, and in no case shall the tree removal be concentrated in one area, or strip. D. A second cutting shall not be permitted until successful regeneration has been established. Tree Management Plans shall be approved for a five-year period. 6. Guidelines for Identification of Trees Identification of trees and posting of all property when trees are to be removed and identification of trees to be protected is required. All sites that have trees to be protected or removed shall be posed for field inspection and during any applicable appeal period. Identification of property subject to tree removal shall be done by posting a notice, as provided by the Community Development Department, during the time specified on the Tree Removal Permit. All trees to be removed shall be flagged with pink or red tape in the field; all trees or groups of trees to be protected shall be flagged with yellow or green tape. Tree protection flagging shall be necessary only if identification is not evident from the submitted plans. 7. Mitigation and Penalty Conditions If trees that are protected do not survive development activities or if the Tree Ordinance is violated, the City has the authority to require mitigation for damage, requiring higher replacement ratios or fees than provided for in these guidelines. Other methods of mitigation for native tree removal may include dedication of conservation easements and contract growing of native trees. For violations of this Chapter, the City can request compensation based on the ISA method for evaluating the monetary value of trees, as found in "Guide for Plant Appraisal" (ISA- 8th Edition -1992)