Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.2 DevRevLoukianoffSiteCITY CLERK AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 15, 2004 SUBJECT: ATTACHMENTS: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of PA 03-40, Loukianoff Site Development Review Report Prepared by: Andy Byde, Senior Planner ~ 3. 4. 5. Letter Received May 21, 2004, appealing Planning Commission Decision of May 11, 2004; Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 11, 2004, including project description, attachments, and project plans; Planning Commission Minutes for May 11, 2004; Planning Commission Resolution No. 04-43 approving the Site Development Review, with conditions of approval; and Resolution Affirming Planning Commission Approval. RECOMMENDATION: 2. 3. 4. 5. Open Public Hearing Receive Staff Presentation and Applicant Testimony Question Staff and the Public Close Public Hearing and Deliberate Adopt Resolution Affirming Planning Commission Approval of a Site Development Review. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: On May 11, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for a Site Development Review (SDR) application for a new single-family residence on an existing lot (Lot 1 of Tract Map 5073) located at 11299 Rolling Hills Drive. The single-family residence was approved to be 2,954 square feet in size with a garage that is 587 square feet in size. At the May 11, 2004, meeting, a motion to approve the project was approved on a 2-1-2 vote with Commissioners Nasser and Jennings absent. A copy of the Draft Planning Commission Minutes is included as Attachment 4. On May 21, 2004, Council Member McCormick filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's decision (Refer to Attachment 1 for a copy of the appeal letter). Pursuant to the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, when a member of the City Council files an appeal, it is presumed that the reason for the O:\PA#L2003\03-040 LoukinoffResidenceXAppeal\cc appeal staffr~port 6-15-04.do¢ COPIES TO: Applicant Project File ITEM NO. appeal is that the appealed action has a significant and material effects on the quality of life within the City of Dublin (Section 8.136.040(B.2) of Dublin Municipal Code). City Council Action Under the City Zoning Ordinance, the City Council may affirm, affirm in part, or reverse the action of the Planning Commission, based upon findings of fact. Findings shall identify the reasons for the action on the appeal, and verify the compliance or non-compliance of the subject of the appeal with the provisions of the Appeals Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance. The City Council may adopt additional conditions of approval that address the specific subject of the appeal. The City Council may continue this matter, but must take action within 75 days of the date the appeal was filed (75 days from May 21, 2004, is August 3, 2004), pursuant to SectiOn 8.136.060 A of the Dublin Municipal Code. Additionally, because the appeal was filed by a member of the City Council, the Council may consider any issue concerning the application. CONCLUSION: Based upon the Planning Commission Staff Report and Draft Minutes for the May 11, 2004, public heating, Staff recommends that the City Council evaluate the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission Approval of May 11, 2004. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing, deliberate, and adopt the resolution affirming the Planning Commission Approval of May 11, 2004 (Attachment 5). AGENDA STATEMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: MAY 11, 2004 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PA 03-040, Loukianoff Site Development Review for a Single-Family Residence on an existing lot (Lot 1) at 11299 Rolling Hills Drive (Report Prepared by: Andy Byde, Senior Planner)(:~ ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Approving a Site Development Review; Project plans; Letter from Joseph McNeil, Consulting Arborist, dated January 12, 2004; Letter from HortScience, Dated February 2, 2004, peer review of Joseph McNeil's report; Heritage Tree Ordinance; Previously Approved Plans for home on Lot 1; and Letter from Applicant Alexander Loukianoff. RECOMMENDATION: 2. 3. 4. 5. Open public hearing; Receive Staff presentation and public testimony; Question Staff, Applicant and the public; Close public hearing; and Adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) approving the Site Development Review, subject to conditions. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a Site Development Review for a new single-family home on an existing lot (Lot I) at 11299 Rolling Hills Drive, created by Tract Map 5073. The single-family residence is proposed to be 2;954 square feet in size with a garage that is 587 square feet in size. BACKGROUND: Hatfield Development Approval: On August 12, 1985, the City Council approved PA 85-035.3 (Resolution 82-85), Hatfield Development Corporation, Inc. Tract Maps 5072, 5073 and 5074. Lots 1 and 7 - 12 of Block 1 of Tract Map 5073 were not built upon when the rest of the homes were built in 1985. Lot 1 is the location of the subject property. City Council Resolution 82-85 set forth the conditions of approval for the three tract maps. Conditions 4 and 12 of that resolution require that a Site Development Review be processed for the development of these lots. The proposed proj eot is located on an existing legal lot of record which was created in conformity with the following regulations in effect at the time: (1) the Single Family Residential General Plan Designation; (2) the R-1 Zoning District; (3) the Hatfield Planned Development (Ordinance 80-85); (4) the Subdivision Title (Title 9) of Dublin Municipal Code; and (5) the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California. COPIES TO: PA File Applicant Mailing list ATTACHMENT ITEMNO. ~-~ Brittany Lane/Black Mountain Developm. ent (PA 00-.009); On December 12, 2000, the Planning Commission approved the Brittany Lane/Black Mountain Development (PA 00-009) Site Development Review (SDR), approving the design and location for single family homes on 7 lots (Lot Numbers: 1, and 7-12). The Brittany Lane/Black Mountain project was appealed tO City Council on December 21, 2000. The appeal alleged conflicts with the following: (1) ' Heritage Tree Ordinance, (2) the Wildfire Management Plan, (3) the Zoning Ordinance, and (4) the Hatfield Development Approval. On January 16, 2001, the City Council heard the appeal of the SDR and directed the applicant to redesign the project to minimize impacts to the heritage trees on site. On February 20, 2001, the City Council approved the redesigned Brittany Lane/Black Mountain project, upheld the decision of the Planning Commission, and required some additional conditions of project approval. The home on Lot 1 that was approved by the City Council as part of the Brittany Lane/Black Mountain Development (PA 00-009) was 3,400 square feet of living space and had a 640 square foot garage (see Attachment 6 for copies of the previously approved site plan and floor plans). The previously approved residence had the following setbacks from property lines: front 28 feet; side 17 feet; side 57.5 feet; and rear 43 feet. In addition, the approved residence on Lot 1 was shown with a 5-foot setback to the existing Valley Oak, Tree No. 353 (as described by the Black Mountain Heritage Tree Protection Plan). Lot 1 is a "flag" lot that is 21,328 square feet in size. Access to the lot is provided via a fee title strip of land extending to Rolling Hills Drive. The eastern one-third portion of the lot is relatively flat, while the remaining two-thirds of the lot steeply drops off with a 30-50% slope. The southern portion of the lot contains an existing Common Area Storm Drain Easement that extends across the entire southern portion of the property. The Easement was granted to the Silvergate Highlands Owners Association by the original developer. Based upon a field review by the Public Works Staff, the existing Easement does not contain any pipes or other structures to convey storm water. The site plan approved as part of the Brittany Lane/Black Mountain site Development Review showed the distance between drip-line of Tree No. 353, located on the northern portion of the property and the Easement on the southern portion of the property, to be 68 feet. In April 2002, during the review of the grading plan for the seven lots, Staff determined that the approved location of residence on Lot 1 conflicted with Tree No. 353. Specifically, the location of the tree was between 12 feet and 20. feet beyond the location shown on the site plan the City Council approved as part of the Brittany Lane/Black Mountain Site Development Review. In March of 2003, the Developer of Brittany Lane/Black Mountain transferred interest to Lot 1 to Alexander Loukianoff. Tree Location As a result of the information provided by the new Applicant's designer, the distance between the Easement and the drip line of Tree No. 353 is approximately 47 feet. This limited distance significantly constrains the lot. In order to contend with this limited dimension, the Applicant is proposing the residence to encroach into the tree canopy, thereby necessitating trimming of the tree. 2 ANALYSIS: The proposed residence is well designed and sited. The 2,954 square foot home would complement the architectural quality of the surrounding neighborhood. The design elements are shown in colored elevations available at the Planning Commission Meeting and are on file at the Community Development Department. The residence is sited on the lot to minimize grading and impacts to views. A hip roof has been incorporated into the design to minimize impacts to views. The home will be obscured by the home located in front of the subject property. Landscaping plans reviewed by Staff will have adequate quantities and qualifies of trees and shrubs. The project is well designed, well sited and, as conditioned, is consistent with the required fmdings contained within the Site Development Review Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 8.104.070). Tree Trimming The Applicant is proposing the residence encroach into the drip line of Tree No. 353 between 4 and 5 feet for the pop out of the kitchen (on the northern elevation, see Attachment 2) and 7 feet for the lower level deck (pictures of the proposed trimming can been seen on page 2 and 3 of Attachment 3). The Applicant's Arborist, Joseph McNeil, has reviewed the proposed trimming of Tree No. 353. Mr. McNeil determined that the proposed encroachment from the residence is within the capacity of the tree to tolerate. The conclusions reached by Mr. McNeil were then peer-reviewed by Michael Santos of HortScience, the same firm that prepared the original Tree Protection Plan for Brittany Lane/Black Mountain Site Development Review. After reviewing the plans and Mr. McNeil's report, Mr. Santos concurred with consulting arborist's conclusions. The Tree Protection Plan approved as part of the Brittany Lane/Black Mountain SDR called for the residence to be setback 5 feet from any existing Heritage Tree drip line. The consulting arborist, Mr. McNeil, states that the largest impact to Tree No. 353 would result from the pruning necessary to maintain a 5-foot' setback from the residence (see page 3 and 4 of Attachment 3). To lessen the' impact of the encroachment of the residence into the drip line of Tree No. 353, the Applicant is proposing to remove as little foliage as possible of the tree and amend the Tree Protection Plan to reduce the 5-foot setback, to the minimum necessary to accommodate the residence. The consulting arborist recommends reducing this setback in order to limit the limit the amount of foliage removal. To limit the impacts to the tree as a result of pruning and placing the tree closer than 5 feet, the arborist recommends seven specific mitigations: (1) install tree fencing; (2) place mulch around the roots: (3) provide supplemental irrigation during the dry season; (4) limit landscaping around the trees; (5) ensure no drainage is directed towards the tree; (6) ensure proper material disposal during construction; and (7) ensure all pruning is done by a Certified Arborist. Staff has reviewed the site plan, the accompanying letter from the consulting arborist and the peer review of the consulting arborist report. Staff concurs with the proposed limited encroachment of the residence into the canopy of Tree No. 353 and resulting trimming for the following reasons: (1) the proposed trimming would be consistent with the Heritage Tree Ordinance because the trimming would be done in conformance with standards established by the International Society of Arboriculture; (2) the lot is significantly constrained with a limited width, due to the storm drain easement in the south and the location of the drip line of Tree No 353 to the north; (3) the trimming is the minimum necessary to accommodate a residence that is significantly smaller in size than was previously approved by the Brittany Lane/Black Mountain Site Development Review; and (4) the trimming of the tree, with the adherence to the recommended mitigations, is within the capacity of the tree to tolerate. Conformity of Project with City Council Resolution 82 - 85: The City CoUncil Resolution 82-85, an SDR approval, set forth conditions of approval, which established--t-~ requirements to be fulfilled prior to the issuance of building permits. In addition, the conditions of approval established development standards for the custom lots (Lot Numbers: 1, and 7-12, including the subject property). The conditions that specifically apply to this project are listed below with statements regarding project conformity: Condition 3. This condition establishes the development regulations for this development. The regulations are: Front yard setback is 20-feet, Side yard setback is 5-feet minimum and 15-feet aggregate. Rear yard setback is 20-feet Lots are subject to guidelines of the R-1 zoning district in respect to development criteria such as lot coverage, allowable uses, parking requirements, and definition of terms. The project, as proposed will have the following setbacks from property lines: front property line, 20 feet, where 20 feet is the minimum; side property line; side property line 17 feet, where 5 feet is the minimum; side property line, 48 feet, where 5 feet is the minimum; and rear property line property line, 55 feet, where 20 feet is the minimum. The project, as proposed, would have a lot coverage of 10.8%, where 35% is the maximum. The proposed residence complies with all requirements contained with condition 3 and with the requirements of the R-1 zoning district. Condition 4. Site grading aggregating in excess of fifty cubic shall not occur until a Site Development Review (SDR) application is processed according to Section 8.95.0 (now section 8.104) of the Zoning Ordinance (Site Development Review). Site grading from this project will exceed fifty cubic yards and therefore a Site Development Review is required. . ConditiOn 6. "The height of custom or modified homes shall not exceed twenty-five (25) feet as measured perpendicularly from natural grade. Skirt heights screening undeveloped, non-living space for custom or modified homes (measured from natural grade to finished floor elevations) shall not exceed a maximum of nine 9 feet. Deviation and/or refinement of these standards may be considered as part of the Site Development Review process covering these lots." Height Limit. This condition stipulated the height limit and the methodology for measuring height for the customs lots within the development. The height limit was not to exceed 25 feet and the methodology for measuring height was, (a parallel line) measured 25-feet perpendicular from natural grade (see Figure 1 for illustration). Section illastrating perpendicular measurement of height limit Figure 1. 4 Skirt Height. This condition applies a maximum skirt height of 9 feet as measured from ~atural grade. A skirt is the area below the lowest living floor, which is utilized for support of a structure. Staff reviewed the project plans and determined that the residence is in conformance with the both the height limit and skirt height limit as defined by Condition 6. Condition 16. This Condition requires that project grading performed within 25-feet of the drip line of existing onsite or offsite trees shall be addressed by a horticultural report and the recommendations and findings of that report incorporated into the grading and improvement plans of this project. A recommended condition of approval would require that the applicant/developer guarantee the protection of the Heritage Trees on the subject property through placement of a cash bond or other security deposit in the amount of equal to the valuation of the trees as determined by the City's selected arborist (See page 5 of Attachment 5, Dublin Municipal Code § 5.60.100.). The cash bond or other security shall be retained for a reasonable period ,of time following the occupancy of the residence, not to exceed one year. The cash bond or security is to be released upon satisfaction of the Director of Community Development that the Heritage Trees have not been endangered. The cash bond or security deposit shall be forfeited as a civil penalty for any unauthorized removal or destruction of a Heritage Tree. A recommended condition of approval would require a statement to be prepared and recorded on the title of the subject property, with the Alameda County Recorders Office, which states that Heritage Trees are located on the subject property and a Tree Protection Plan has been prepared and any damage to the trees will result in penalties as required by the City's Heritage Tree Ordinance. As a result of conditions established as part of the Tree Protection Plan and the subsequent mitigations recormnended by the consulting arborist (Mr. McNeil) incorporated into the conditions of approval and the additional conditions of approval ensuring, to the greatest extent possible, the long-term protection of the Heritage Trees, Staff finds the proposed project is consistent with Condition 16 and the Heritage Tree Ordinance. Condition 19. This condition requires the developer to confer with the local postal authorities to determine the type of mail receptacles necessary. A condition of approval of this SDR will address this issue. Staff finds this project consistent with Condition 19. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Th.e environmental impacts of this project were addressed under the Negative Declaration prepared for the PA 85-035 Hatfleld Development Corporation Planned Development Rezone, Annexation and Site Development Review of which the subject lots were a part. The Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. CONCLUSION: The project is in conformity with the Dublin General Plan, City Council Resolution 82-85, the Zoning Ordinance and the Heritage Tree Ordinance. The home is well sited and designed. Impacts to views will be minimized. RECOMMENDATION: Open public hearing, receive Staff presentation and public testimony, question Staff, Applicant and the public, close public hearing and adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) approving the Site Development Review, subject to the conditions listed. GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: Alexander Loukianoff 12 Kirk Court Alamo, CA 94507 LOCATION/ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER: 11299 Rolling Hills Drive 941-2775-030 EXISTING ZONING: R-1 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential 6 Ill Z III mz ; ; I / /! / ! ; I I / / / / '%/ / / / / .g /. ! ! ! / t /' I I I i/ ii /I iI ! I ! ! ! I I I / ! l / l / / / l ! ! ! ! / / / ! / / ! / ! / / / 0 0 January 12, 2004 Alex Loukianoff 12 Kirk Court ' Alamo, CA 94507 Effects of proposed construction on existing trees at 11299 Rolling Hills Drive, Dublin. You requested that I review the drawing you furnished, and provide comments on construction impacts, if any, and any methods of reducing any impacts. The attached site plan is a scan, at 20 scale, of one provided to me by you. Construction of the home, as shown, will require substantial priming, for clearance to the building. This pnming is within the tolerance of the tree, as is expected encroachment into the root zone. The pruning will, however, alter the form of the tree immediately against the house. SITE The lot is a "flag" lot, behind the adjacent home. About 25% of the area of the lot, to · the east, is an extension of the pad graded for that home. At the west edge of the pad the terrain reverts to the historic slope, about 2:1, with flatter or steeper variations. About 25 feet from the top of the slope, and 35 feet from the north property line is one _ of two existing valley oaks on the site. ~,~. . . ~'~ct~,~d-'~'~ This oak, numbered 353, by an aluminum tag, has four trunks, diverging close to the ground, of 19.9, 18.7, 15.3, and 13.2 inch diameters, respectively, it's health is characterized as fair to good; annual shoot elongation, a measure of vigor, is about three inches all around. A highly vigorous valley oak might extend 12 inches per year. However, the canopy is full, well foliated, showing no signs of decline. The second valley oak, 20 feet downslope and slightly north of#353 is generally outside the scope of this report. The soil of the level pad, at an elevation of about 111 feet, is compacted. Presumably the slope extended to a higher elevation and was ~mmcated at pad level. The soil on the slope outside the extension of the tree canopy is exposed, and Certified Admrlst # WC0102 California Siam ~ Liomse ti 482248 (Tree Cam C-61 D-49, Landscaping C-27) Re~ed Comu~ Ad~or~t #~, ASCA Loukianoff Tree/Construction 11299 Rolling Hills Dr Page 2 compact in feel. The soil within the tree canopies is deeply covered by natural mulch, years of fallen debris from the trees, anq is very soft, easily penetrable, a good habitat for roots. Some of this soil has sloughed downslope against the trunks of the trees. Particularly, there is slight fill against the uphill side of tree #353, and there appears to be a slight raise in grade all around the second oak. This soil should be removed, as we discussed, to expose the tops of buttressing roots, to a distance sufficient to discourage soil from immediately falling against the trees again. Tree canopy spread to the south and east was measured, and found to be consistent with that shown on the attached drawing. CONSTRUCTION Most of the proposed home will be constmcted on the slope south and slightly east of tree 353. A conventional stepped foundation will be utilized. Grading is not expected outside the building footprint on the nortt~ side, where it might affect the tree. As noted above the soil on the slope where the house will be located is relatively bare, facing to the WSW, where it receives direct afternoon sun, and appears to not to provide the habitat ideally colonized by oak roots. Some oak roots may occupy this zone, but is appears fundamentally hostile, inconsistent with the environment preferred by the trees. It is much more likely that a high proportion of the oak roots will be found where the soil is looser, and there is more organic matter, under the tree canopies. The closest approach of the building to the tree is a "popout" section, almost 15 feet long, that extends to within about 18 ½ feet of the center of tree 373. This will encroach about four to five feet within the tree canopy. Downslope, a ten foot wide deck will extend about seven feet into the canopy. Conventional foundation will support the popout section, while the deck will be built on piers. IFIgure 2. This photo Is centered along a llne representing the side of the 'popout' section of the house, the orange line. Joseph McNeil January 13, 2004 Loukianoff Tree/Construction Report 11299 Rolling Hills Dr You should expect that soil four feet outside the foundation (toward the tree), will become compacted during construction. There is not practical way to avoid this. Access to move material around the house, and finish the exterior will require repeated walking. Therefore, a temporary zone of encroachment will extend four feet closer END OF THIS UMB iNCH $1NCH ?INCH 6INCH 4INCH to the tree from the side of the foundation, along the entire north side. The deck should have li~le effect on the root zone. On the u.',hill side it is within six inches or a foot of the surface, and will be about four feet elevated on the downhill side. It will be permeable, and when complete should have a minimal effect on tree roots. Figure 3. The orange line to the lower left is again the edge of the popout. The red arrows indicate limbs thai must be removed or cut back to accommodate the popout. (This is not a specification for pruning. It is a typical representation of likely required pruning) The limb at the top that will require cutting back "the end of this limb', may require minor or major prunin.q, but should not have to be removed entirely. The yellow arrow designates approximately the area where limbs of 4, 3 %, and 2 % inch diameter will have to be removed for deck headroom. I understand that the city of Dublin requires clearance of five feet between the building and the tree. Pruning will have more impact on the tree than encroachment over the root system, in my opinion. The pruning necessary to achieve five feet of clearance is quite substantial on the southeast side of the tree, although it represents a minority of the foliage overall. Similarly, because limbs on the south side of the tree reach nearly to the ground, substantial priming will also be required for headroom over the deck. Limbs to six inch diameter and larger must be removed from the tree. (See Figure 3) MANAGEMENT OF iMPACTS There will be a moderate overall impact to the tree from construction as proposed. Injury to the root system, overall, is expected to be slight. Most roots should be expected to inhabit the hospitable zone under the tree canopies. Root location cannot be predicted accurately, and while it is possible that roots from the tree exist on the slope under the proposed building footprint, it should be remembered that this slope is physically hard, faces directly into the summer/fall afternoon sun, and is prone to desiccation. I would not expect location of the house over this area to greatly impact roots from the tree. I consider the encroachment into the more favorable root zone under the canopy to be relatively minor. However, it will be important to limit any activity to within four feet of the house. Joseph McNeil January 13, 2004 Loukianoff TreedConstmction Report 11299 Rolling Hills Dr Page 4 Pruning will visibly change the tree canopy against the house. Pruning also constitutes physical injury, as food producing organs (leaves) are lost and mechanical openings are created, at each of which the tree must expend energy to resist invading decay organisms. The combination of root and branch injury is within the capacity of the tree to tolerate, in my opinion, although less encroachment would be desirable, in this case largely because it would reduce the necessary pruning. Tolerance of the tree to this injury is highly dependent upon adherence to the guidelines below, which will prevent or mitigate unnecessary injury. Damage to trees may occur directly, from mechanical injury to roots, trunks or limbs, or more indirectly, if soil characteristics, such as density, soil atmosphere or moisture content are altered. Manifestations of these injuries may occur immediately, or may be delayed for a number of years, resulting in progressiVe decline. Several strategies may assist in reducing impact to this tree: Fencing. Many tree roots on most sites may be in the top 18 inches of soil, a zone which is easily altered by even minor grading, trenching, or material storage. Such alterations may occur at any time during construction activities, even from foot traffic. Soil may become compacted, soil oxygen may then become easily depleted, drainage patterns upon which trees have become dependent may be altered, so that trees become drought stressed. A protected zone must be established. Install sturdy temporary five foot chain link fence, on driven posts, four feet away from the side of the stepped foundation on the northwest side of the house, and to the edge of the foliar canopy along the existing pad, at the top of slope. This fencing should be in place at the beginning of layout, and should stay in place throughout construction, including exterior finish. It will be necessary to move it near end of construction, to build the deck. Be sure that all contractors and subcontractors understand the purpose and importance of the fence. Mulch. Existing natural surface mulch under the tree appears adequate at this time. Mulch serves a number of beneficial functions, including moderating temperature, retaining moisture, and fostering an environment of interrelated fungi, bacteria, small arthropods and worms, where roots find the moisture, nutrients and oxygen they need to thrive. When construction is complete the soil between the building and the fence will have become compacted. Apply five inches of chipping debris from a tree service over this area (not immediately against the house) and retain it there. The area inside the fence should be re- evaluated at that time for the need for supplemental mulch. Joseph McNeil January 13, 2004 Loukianoff Tr~edConstruction Report 11299 Rolling Hills Dr Page 5 Irrigation. Native ·oaks are not compatible with heavy irrigation, but do appreciate some supplemental irrigation during the dry season. It certainly would be beneficial for a tree recovering fi.om construction trauma. This irrigation could be three applications, every six weeks, starting about six weeks after the last soaking rain in the late spring. I suggest a soaker hose from the top comer of the proposed popout section of the house, about 20 feet north along the slope, allowed to mn for four-six hours, then repeated six-eight feet down hill. A third application, again four-six hours, could be made about six feet downhill of tree 353, unless water is observed at the surface, from previous uphill irrigation. Landscape. I suggest no landscaping under these trees for a period of three years after construction. If you wish to landscape later this should be with plants of similar cultural requirements to the oaks. The California Oak Foundation has a booklet, for purchase, with valuable landscaping irrigation,l Any plants installed should be irrigated by drip irrigation only. · Drainage. Drainage from the yard, patios, walks, or house should not be directed so that it flows into the root zone, particularly close to the tree trunks. Material disposal. Be sure that contractors understand not to wash out paint buckets, concrete or stucco mixers, or other containers, or dispose of other soluble or liquid debris within or above the root systems of either tree. All pruning should be done by a Certified Arborist2 or Certified Treeworker. I can refer you to compliant companies, if you wish. No pruning should occur other than removal of dead limbs and that necessary for building clearance. Further questions may arise regarding this project. Please contact me if they do. Sincer.e~Y/,, Certified Arborist #WC0102 Registered Consulting Arborist #299, ASCA Contractors Lic. #482248 (Tree service C-61 D-49, Landscaping C-27, inactive) t Compatible Pi~, Under and Around Oaks, California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland, CA 94612, (510)763-0232) 2 The International Society of Arboriculture administers a voluntary certification program. Certified Arborists are listed at http:l/www, isa-arbor, com/arborists/arbsearch.html / Treeworker certification (a less stringent certification) is currently performed by the Western Chapter of the ISA. Lists are available fi.om WCISA, P.O. Box 255155, Sacramento, CA 95865 Joseph McNeil January 13, 2004 / // f i Itt /i (N) RETAINING WALL SCALE, 1" = 20" &, ! OAK.. . #353/ ,///; /? / +o / CONC. DRIVEWAY TURN- AROUND ./ ! ! ! I I February 2, 2004 Mr. Alex Loukianoff 12 Kirk Court Alamo, CA 94507 Peer review Joseph McNeil's Arborist Report Dear Mr. Loukainoff: You requested that I conduct a peer review' of the Arborist Report prepared by Joseph McNeil, Consulting Arborist. The Arborist Reportfocused on the impacts of construction of a new home at 11299 Rolling Hills Drive in Dublin. I based my review on the Arborist Report from Mr. McNeil dated January 12, 2004, which you provided via electronic mail on January 5, 2004. i visited the site with you on August 18, 2003 to assess tree protection required for your proposed project at that time. I also evaluated the valley oak (Quercus Iobata)., tree #353, referred to in Mr. McNeil's report, in addition, HortScience, Inc. prepared a Heritage tree protection plan for Black Mountain Development in February, 2001, which included an assessment of tree #353. This letter summarizes my comments and review. Observations I concur with Mr. McNell's assessment of the tree's condition as fair to good. in the Heritage tree protection report (HortScience, 2001) tree #353 was rated in 'good condition. Its condition has changed little since 2001 (see photo). The site plan in Mr. McNeil's report showed tree #353 approximately 18' from the proposed "pop-out", and about 17' from the proposed deck. The dripline extended about 5' over both the "pop-out" and proposed deck. The canopy on the south side-of tree #353 extended to within 2'-3' above existing grade. Mr. McNeil recommended removal of the soil that has sloughed downslope and built up - around the trunk of tree #353. I agree. Tree #353 in good condition with a full crown as photographed on August 18, 2003. Letter to Alex Loukianoff Peer review, Joseph McNeil HortScience, inc. Page 2 Evaluation of Impacts I concur with Mr. McNeil that there will be limited impact to the tree's root system from the construction of the house and deck as the design is presented. The 4' "temporary zone of encroachment" that will result from foot traffic to construct the north side of the home will have some impact on the roots of the tree, As suggested by Mr. McNeil this condition can be improved bY the placement of mulch in this area after the project is complete. The pruning of several limbs from 2" to 7" to provide construction clearance will likely constitute a greater stress for the tree than impacts to the roots, I agree with Mr. McNeil that the stress related to the construction and pruning is within the tolerances of the tree, assuming the guidelines he provided are followed. Mr. McNeil's guidelines for managing construction impacts are both sound and comprehensive. The sections outlining irrigation, drainage and landscaping requirements for native oaks are especially important. Summary and Recommendations In summary, my assessment of tree condition, impacts, and recommendations concur with Mr. McNeil's. i also recommend the following: Prune the tree after the foundation lines for the house and deck are marked on the ground to provide a visual guide for the limit of clearance pruning. This will limit the need for repeated pruning. 2. Remove existing sloughed soil from around the trunk of tree #353 to a distance of 5'. Monitor annually so the condition does not reoccur. 3. The tree should be inspected annually to monitor health and structural stability. Thank you for the opportunity to prepare this review. Please feel free to contact me with any questions regarding my observations or assessment. Sincerely, Michael Santos Certified Arbodst Chapter 5.60 HERITAGE TREES Sections: 5.60.010 5.60.020 5.60.030 5.60,040 5.60.050 Title. Purpose and intent. AppliCability, Definitions. Tree removal permit required, 5.60.060 Tree removal permit procedure. 5.60.070 Appeals. 5.60,080 Protection of heritage trees during construction. 5.60.090 Protection plan required prior to issuance of permit. 5.60,100 Applicant to guarantee protection--Security deposit, r"_~-~..~ll [ [ Of 4 ~J _ 5.60,110 Public utilities. 5,60.120 Violation--Penalty. 5.60.010 Title. This chapter shall be known as "the Heritage Tree Ordinance." (Ord. 5-02 § 2 (part): Ord. 29-99 § 1 (part)) 5.60.020 Purpose and intent. This chapter is adopted because the city has many heritage trees, the preservation of which is beneficial to the health and welfare of the citizens of this city in order to enhance the scenic beauty, increase property values, encourage quality development, prevent soil erosion, protect against flood hazards and the risk of landslides, counteract pollution in the air, and maintain the climatic balance within the city. For these reasons the city finds it is in the public interest, convenience, necessity and welfare to establish regulations controlling the removal of and the preservation of heritage trees within the city. In establishing these regulations, it is the city's intent to preserve as many heritage trees as possible consistent with the reasonable use and enjoyment of private property. (Ord. 5-02 § 2 (part): Ord. 29-99 § 1 (part)) 5.60.030 Applicability. This chapter applies to all property within the city of Dublin, including private property, residential and nonresidential zones, developed and undeveloped land. (Ord. 5-02 § 2 (part): Ord. 29-99 § 1 (part)) 5.60.040 DefinitionS. The following words and phrases, whenever used in this chapter, shall be as construed as defined in this section: "Certified or consulting arborist" means an arborist who is registered with the International Society of Arboriculture and approved by the Director. "City" means the city of Dublin. "Development" means any improvement of real property which requires the approval of zoning, subdivision, conditional use permits or site development review permits. "Director" means the Community Development Director or his or her designee. "Drip line" means a line drawn on the ground around a tree directly under its outermost branch tips and which identifies that location where rainwater tends to drop from the tree. "Effectively remove" includes, but is not limited to, any extreme pruning that is not consistent with standards arboriculture practices for a healthy heritage tree and that results in the tree's permanent disfigurement, destruction, or removal ordered by the city pursuant to Section 5,60.050(B)(2). "Heritage tree" means any of the following: 1. Any oak, bay, cypress, maple, redwood, buckeye and sycamore tree having a trunk or main stem of twenty-four (24) inches or more in diameter measured at four (4) feet six (6) inches above natural grade; 2. A tree required to be preserved as part of an approved development plan, zoning permit, use permit, site development review or subdivision map; 3. A tree required to be planted as a replacement for an unlawfully removed tree. "Protect" means the protection of an existing tree from damage and stress such that the tree is likely to survive and continue to grow normally in a healthy condition, through measures that avoid or minimize damage to branches, canopy, trunk and roots of the tree. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, installation of tree protective fencing, mulching and watering of roots, supervision of work by an arborist, installation of aeration or drainage systems, root pruning, and use of nondestructive excavation techniques, "Remove" or ',removal" means cutting a tree to the ground, extraction of a tree, or killing of a tree by spraying, girdling, or any other means. (Ord. 5-02 §2 (part): Ord. 29-99 § I (part)) 5.60.050 Tree removal permit required, A. No person may remove, cause to be removed, or effectively remove any heritage tree from any property within the city of Dublin without obtaining a permit from the Director. B. Exceptions. A permit is not required for the following: 1. Removal of a heritage tree that presents an immediate hazard to life or property, with the approval of the Director, City Engineer, Police Chief, Fire Chief or their designee; 2. Removal that is specifically approved as part of a city- approved planned development development plan, conditional use permit, site development review, or subdivision map; 3. Pruning of heritage trees that conforms with the guidelines of the International Society of Arboriculture, Tree Pruning Guidelines, current edition, on file in the Community Development Department. C. Tree removal requested as part of the development of a property subject to zoning, subdivision, conditional use permit, or site development review application approval shall be reviewed and approved by the body having final authority over the entitlement application. (Ord. 5-02 § 2 (part): Ord. 29-99 § 1 (part)) 5.60.060 Tree removal permit procedure. A. Any person wishing to remove one or more heritage trees shall apply to the Director for a permit. The application for a permit shall be made on forms provided by the Community Development Department and Shall include the following: 1. A drawing showing all existing trees and the location, type and size of all tree(s) proposed to be removed; 2. A brief statement of the reason for removal; 3. If the tree or trees are proposed for removal because of their condition, a certified arborist's determination of the state of health of the heritage trees may be required; 4. Written consent of the owner of record of the land on which the tree(s) are proposed to be removed; 5. A tree removal permit fee of twenty-five dollars ($25) to cover the cost of permit administration. An additional deposit may be required by the Director to retain a certified arborist to assist the city in assessing the condition of the trees; 6. Other pertinent information as required by the Director. B. Tree removal requested' in conjunction with an application for any development entitlements shall provide to the Community Development Department a landscaping plan specifying the precise location, size, species and drip-line of all existing trees on or in the vicinity of the property. The landscape plan shall also show existing and proposed grades and the location of proposed and existing structures. C. The Director shall inspect the property and evaluate each application. In deciding whether to issue a permit, the Director shall base the decision on the following criteria: 1. The condition of the tree or trees with respect to health, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services or public works projects; 2. The necessity to remove the tree or trees for reasonable development of the property; 3. The topography of the land and the effect of the removal of the tree on erosion, soil retention and diversion or increased flow of stream waters; 4. The number of trees existing in the neighborhood and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty and the general welfare of the city as a whole. D. The Director shall render a decision regarding the permit within ten (10) working days after the receipt of a complete application. E. If an application to remove a heritage tree is being requested in conjunction with a development entitlement, then the decision on the tree removal permit shall be rendered simultaneously with the decision on the development entitlement and shall be made by the body having final authority over the entitlement application. In deciding whether to approve a tree removal permit under this subsection, the reviewing body shall consider the criteria set forth in subsection C of this section. F. The Director may refer any application to any city department for review and recommendation. G. The Director or the reviewing body having final authority over the development may grant or deny the application or grant the application with conditions, including the condition that one (1') or more replacement trees be planted of a designated species, size and location. (Ord. 5-02 § 2 (part): Ord. 29-99 § 1 (part)) 5.60.070 Appeals. A. Any decision of the Director, pursuant to this chapter, may be appealed to the City Council. Appeals shall be in writing, shall be signed by the applicant, shall state the reasons the appeal is made, and be filed with the City Clerk within fourteen (14) days of written notification of the decision by the Director. Any appeal shall be accompanied by an appeal fee in the amount established by resolution of the City Council. B. The City Clerk shall place all such appeals on the agenda of the next regular Council meeting and shall give the appellant at least five (5) calendar days' notice of the time and place of said hearing. Appeals shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 1.04.050 of this code. The decision of the City Council shall be final. (Ord. 5-02 § 2 (part): Ord. 29-99 § 1 (part)) 5.60.080 Protection of heritage trees during Construction, All applicants for demolition, grading, or building permits on property containing one or more heritage trees shall prepare a tree protection plan pursuant to Section 5.60.090. (Ord. 5-02 § 2 (part): Ord. 29-99 § 1 (part)) 5.60.090 Protection plan required prior to issuance of permit. A. A plan to protect heritage trees as described in Section 5.60.080 of this chapter shall be submitted to the Director prior to the issuance of demolition, grading or building permits. The plan shall ensure that the tree, including its root system, is adequately protected from potential harm during demolition, grading and construction that could cause damage to the heritage tree. Such harm may include excavation and trenching, construction and chemical materials storage, stormwater runoff and erosion, and soil compaction. The plan shall be prepared and signed by a certified arborist and approved by the Director. The Director may refer the plan to a city-selected arborist for review and recommendation. The cost of this review shall be borne by the developedapplicant requesting said permit. B. The Director may require that a certified arborist be present on the project site during grading or other construction activity that may impact the health of the tree(s) to be preserved. C. Damage to any tree during construction shall be immediately reported to the Director so that proper treatment may be administered. The Director may refer to a city-selected arbodst to determine the appropriate method of repair for any damage. The cost of any treatment or repair shall be borne by the developer/applicant responsible for the development of the project. Failure to notify the Director may result in the issuance of a stop work order. D, The Director may waive the requirement for a tree protection plan if he or she determines that the grading or construction activity is minor in nature and that the proposed activity will not significantly modify the ground area within or immediately surrounding the drip- line of the tree(s). (Ord. 5-02 § 2 (part): Ord. 29-99 § 1 (part)) 5.60.100 Applicant to guarantee protection--Security deposit. A. The applicant shall guarantee the protection of the existing tree(s) on the site not approved for removal through placement of a cash bond or other security deposit in the amount based upon the valuation of the trees acceptable to the Director. The Director may refer to a city-selected arborist to estimate the value of the tree(s) in accordance with industry standards. B, The cash bond or other security shall be retained for a reasonable period of time following the acceptance of the public improvements for the development, not to exceed one (1) year. The cash bond or security is to be released upon the satisfaction of the Director that the tree(s) to be preserved have not been endangered. The cash bond or security deposit shall be forfeited as a civil penalty for any unauthorized removal or destruction of a heritage tree. (Ord. 5-02 § 2 (part): Ord. 29-99 § 1 (part)) 5,60.110 Public utilities. Any public utility installing or maintaining any overhead wires or underground pipes or conduits in the vicinity of a heritage tree shall obtain permission from the Director before performing any work which may cause injury to the heritage tree. The Director shall provide all water, sewer, electrical and gas utilities operating within the city with a copy of this chapter. (Ord. 5-02 § 2 (part): Ord. 29-99 § 1 (part)) 5.60.120 Violation--Penalty. A. Any person who unlawfully removes, destroys or damages a heritage tree shall pay a civil penalty equal to twice the amount of the appraised value of the tree. A city-selected arborist shall estimate the replacement value of the lost tree(s) in accordance with industry standards. The penalty shall include the city's costs incurred in performing the appraisal. B. Any person violating any portion of this chapter that results in the loss of a heritage tree, shall be required to replace said tree with a new tree and/or additional plantings, of the same species. The Director shall determine the size and location of replacement tree(s). The Director may refer to the recommendation of a city- selected arborist. (Ord. 5-02 § 2 (part): Ord. 29-99 § 1 (part)) 0 0 0 0 2'7'-2" October 8, 2003 Planning Commission City Of Dublin Dear Members: My intention with the purchase of the lot at 11299 Rolling Hills Drive, Dublin, CA is to build a Single Family Residence that would compliment and add character to the neighborhood and reside in Dublin, CA eventually raising my family. The design of the home is a Monterey style home. It is two stories and approximately 2,900 square feet. It.will have 3 bedrooms, 2 ½ baths with a den, dining room, family room, living room and kitchen along with a 2-car garage. Being that this is a mostly sloping downhill flag lot, I have taken consideration for my neighbors. From street level, the design of the home appears one story. Instead of building up and taking site lines away from my neighbors I am building down, remaining cognizant of the height limitations implemented by the city. Having a Heritage Oak on the property, I designed the home to minimize the impact on the tree. The drainage easement on the south side of the lot confines the location of the.house. I looked long and hard in finding the right area to build and potentially raise a family and decided on Dublin, Califomia for the purchase of this lot due to its very good school system, its long history, quality of life and the proximity (via BART) to my office in San Francisco. I look forward to being and active member within the community once my residence is constructed. Very truly yours, A~der N. Louki~off~ 11299 Rolling Hills Drive Dublin, CA 94568-3524 925-216-7656 correspondence / mailing address: 12 Kirk Court Alamo, CA 94507 RECEIVED OUBLIN PLANNING Cm. Fasulkey suggested a condition that the courtyard entrance be open to foot traffic. called for a motion. On motion by Cm. Machtmes with an amendment to the conditions to require an entrance at Amador Valley and Village Parkway to be open for business and an entrance at the south end of Village Parkway to be accessible for pedestrian access, seconded by Cm. Fasulkey, by a 2,1-2 vote with Cm. King voting no and Cm. Nassar and Jennings absent the Planning Commission approved RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 40 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AMENDMENTS TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PA 98-049, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND MASTER SIGN PROGRAM FOR ROBERT ENEA OFFICE AND RETAIL CENTERS LOCATED AT 7197 VILLAGE PARKWAY, PA 03-069 RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 41 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 8407 FOR ROBERT ENEA OFFICE AND RETAIL CENTERS LOCATED AT 7197 VILLAGE PARKWAY, PA 03-069 8.4 PA 03-040 Loukianoff Single Family House- Site Development Review for a new single family home on an existing lot at 11299 Rolling Hills Drive, also known as Lot 1 of Tract 5073. Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Andy Byde, Senior Planner presented the staff report and advised the Planning Commission this is a Site Development Review for a new single-family home on an existing lot at 11299 Rolling Hills Drive, created by Tract Map 5073. The single-family residence is proposed to.be 2,954 square feet in size with a garage that is 587 square feet in size. On August 12, 1985, the City Council approved PA 85-035.3 (Resolution 82-85), Hatfield Development Corporation, Inc. Tract Maps 5072, 5073 and 5074. Lots 1 and 7 - 12 of Block 1 of Tract Map 5073 were not built upon when the rest of the homes were built in 1985. Lot 1 is the location of the subject property. City Council Resolution 82-85 set forth the conditions of approval for the three tract maps. Conditions 4 and 12 of that resolution require that a Site Development Review be processed for the development of these lots. The home on Lot I that was approved by the City Council as part of the Brittany Lane/Black Mountain Development was 3,400 square feet of living space and had a 640 square foot garage (see Attachment 6 for copies of the previously approved site plan and floor plans. The previously approved residence had the following setbacks from property lines: front 28 feet; side 17 feet; side 57.5 feet; and rear 43 feet. In addition, the approved residence on Lot 1 was ct~[anning Commission 97 5May 11, 2004 ATTACHMENT shown with a 5-foot setback to the existing Valley Oak, Tree No. 353 as described by the B~ack Mountain Heritage Tree Protection Plan. Lot 1 is a "flag" lot that is 21,328 square feet in size. Access to the lot is provided via a fee title strip of land extending to Rolling Hills Drive. The eastern one-third portion of the lot is relatively flat, while the remaining two-thirds of the lot steeply drops off with a 30-50% slope. The southern portion of the lot contains an existing Common Area Storm Drain Easement that extends across the entire southern portion of the property. The Easement was granted to the Silvergate Highlands Owners Association by the original developer. Based upon a field review by the Public Works Staff, the existing Easement does not contain any pipes or other structures to convey storm water. The site plan approved as part of the Brittany Lane/Black Mountain Site Development Review showed the distance between drip-line of Tree No. 353, located on the northern portion of the property and the Easement on the southern portion of the property, to be 68 feet. In April 2002, during the review of the grading plan for the seven lots, Staff determined that the approved location of residence on Lot 1 conflicted with Tree No. 353. Specifically, the location of the tree was between 12 feet and 20 feet beyond the location shown on the site plan the City CounCil approved as part of the Brittany Lane/Black Mountain Site Development Review. In March of 2003, the Developer of Brittany Lane/Black Mountain transferred interest to Lot 1 to Alexander Loukianoff. As a result of the information provided by the new Applicant's designer, the distance between the Easement and the drip line of Tree No. 353 is approximately 47 feet. This limited distance significantly constrains the lot. In order to contend with this limited dimension, the Applicant is proposing the residence to encroach into the tree canopy, thereby necessitating trimming of the tree. The 2,954 square foot home would complement the architectural quality of the surrounding neighborhood. The residence is sited on the lot to minimize grading and impacts to views. The Applicant is proposing the residence encroach into the drip line o£ Tree No. 353 between 4 and 5 feet for the pop out of the kitchen and 7 feet for the lower level deck. The Applicant's Arborist, Joseph McNeil, has reviewed the proposed trimming of Tree No. 353. Mr. McNeil determined that the proposed encroachment is within the capacity of the tree to tolerate. The conclusions reached by Mr. McNeil were then peer-reviewed by Michael Santos of HortScience, the same firm that prepared the original Tree Protection Plan for Brittany Lane/Black Mountain Site Development Review. After reviewing the plans and Mr. McNeil's report, Mr. Santos concurred with consulting arborist's conclusions. Staff has reviewed the site plan, the accompanying letter from the consulting arborist and the peer review of the consulting arborist report. Staff concurs with the proposed limited encroachment of the residence into the canopy of Tree No. 353 and the proposed trimming would be consistent with the Heritage Tree Ordinance. The project is in conformity with the Dublin General Plan, City Council Resolution 82-85, the. Zoning Ordinance and the Heritage Tree Ordinance. The home is well sited and designed. Impacts to views will be minimized. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt rtYanning Comrai. r,~ion 98 5~lay 11, 2004 ~R~l]u[ar ~Meetirud Resolution approving the Site Development Review, subject to the conditions listed and with a small change to Condition 18 for the last sentence to read .for work on Saturdays and Sundays. Overtime inspection rate will apply for all after hour Saturday and Sunday work. He concluded his presentation. Cm. Fasulkey asked Staff if the original house was 3,600 sq.ft, as it was approved. Mr. Byde stated it was 3,400 sq.ft, with an additional 200 sq.ft, larger garage. Cm. Fasulkey asked the current living space. Mr. Byde responded it is 2,950 with 550 for garage. Cm. King asked the size of the homes fronting Rolling Hills. Mr. Byde stated approximately 2,700 to 3,300 sq.ft. Cm. King asked the purpose of no construction five feet from the drip line requirement. Mr. Byde stated it is typicall3/where the most sensitive root development is located. Cm. King asked if the soil for this site is different than the soil for the Black Mountain lots. Mr. Byde stated the other lots are very steep not allowing the soil to become compacted around the root system. When walking along those lots, your feet typically sink into the soil, which is where a healthy root system will thrive. Lot 1 is different because it is a flat graded pad on that portion which extends just beyond that drip line. The arborist determined that the compacted soil is not best suited for root development. This area is the location of the proposed residence. Cm. King asked how the soil got compacted. Mr. Byde stated probably from being driven on it. There was probably soil distributed there. during the original subdivision improvements. Cm. King asked if that would of harmed the tree. Mr. Byde stated it was not the best for the tree. However, impacting a small area of the roots is not going to damage the tree. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any questions for Staff; hearing none he asked if the Applicant was available. Alexander Loukianoff, Owner stated his intention for purchasing that lot was to build a single family residence that would compliment the area. He has taken into consideration his neighbors and at street level it looks like a single story home. They worked with staff to address the issue and worked with an arborist to minimize the impacts to that tree. Cm. Fasulkey asked where does he currently live. qffanning Comtrri~sion 99 Nay 11, 2004 cR~gufar '3,1eet, ing Mr. Loukianoff responded Alamo. Cm. King asked if the homeowners association has approved the plan. Mr. Loukanoff said there has been no conflict with the homeowners association. Cm. Fasulkey asked ii there were any members of the public that wished to address the Planning Commission. Mr. Bewley stated he lives on Brittany Lane and must point out some issues related to the lot. He stated verbatim - when the first developer bought this property, the issue on the trees with the location and the drawing of the trees, the actual survey for tree in relationship to the homes they had an error that they contested on either lots. I'm going to tell it straight as matter of public record in particular lot eight which is one of the other lots and I presume lot one because it is consistent, we can show an absolute fraud of the developer at that time. We have pictures of lines where they had actually done a complete drawing and a complete survey marked with stakes into the trees where they knew where the drip line was. They had done a field land survey, in it was an error. We got into a big battle - I'll withdraw fraud and call it very unprofessional. Maybe they made a mistake, but let me tell you it was done by a land survey to the inch. All of a sudden the drawings showed different - reason apparently they used an aerial photograph, the shadow on the trees cast a different way there was an inconsistency. This was a highly contested issue on lots 8 and 9. Lot 1 was part of the process because it had the tree. At the time the original developer was insistent in to the trees and we got into a real fight of the interpretation of resolution 81-85 which of course had the provision that you had to go 25 feet from the drip line. The Applicant proposed into the tree quite far on lot 8 and 9. They were going to cut so 'far into the tree that we determined they were not acting in good faith. They had a very long and lengthy appeal. We got another arborist report, which completely contradicted their report and stated it would kill the tree. Cm. Fasulkey stated to try and stay focused on the project. Mr. Bewley said there is a lot of history and that you need to know the history. As a result of a compromise, a house went closer to the street and 13 feet from the curb. The Council admitted it was a mistake. Why did it go to 13 feet is because of the trees including this tree on lot 1. In a resolution of Feb. 20, 2001, they had provision that stated No structure shall encroach within 5feet of the drip line of a heritage tree. They shall have a tree protection zone be established at the drip line and' no grading, excavation, construction or storage of materials shall occur within this zone. The Council held so firmly to that - they allowed a house. 13 feet from the curb and that was a bad decision but it showed how important they held the drip line of the trees at that time. Currently lot 8 - relevant to lot I is going to be before the Commission, they cannot be within 5 feet of the drip line of the tree. There are new standards and new tests, and it is not five feet from the drip line of the tree. The new test is that there is a tree protection zone, redefined for this lot. It is defined as - an area completely surrounded around those trees to the satisfaction of the City's arborist. New test- new standard. Plannin~ Compression q~gular geleetin~ 100 9day 1L 2004 He stated that the Planning Commission would have an issue with lot 8. The same'g~anc~a~ should be applied to lot 1 of five feet from the drip line. Cm. King asked if at one point the margin was 25 feet from the drip line. Mr. Bewley stated that the original approval required an arborist report for projects within 25 feet. Cm. FaSulkey asked if he is contesting this arborist report. Mr. Bewley stated he is not trying to contest this arborist report but bring forth inconsistencies that occurred with the Black Mountain project. Nick Loukianoff stated he agrees with some of the things Mr. Bewley said. The information he received from the seller was fraudulent. They were very upset by that. They are willing to conform to the City's standards. They were aware that the tree was a major concern and hired another arborist for a second opinion. They were in agreement with the City. Cm. Fasulkey closed the public hearing. Cm. King stated he is sympathetic with the Applicants being misled by the seller. What concerns him is conflicting arborist opinions. Cm. Fasulkey asked Mr. Byde if there are conflicting arborist opinions for this tree. Mr. Byde said no there are no conflicting reports. Cm. King said he does not believe there should be an exception to the Heritage Tree Ordinance. He cannot approve at this time. Cm. Machtmes said he is not uncomfortable with relying on the experts. Cm. Fasulkey said there are no life threatening factors to the tree. He is inclined to vote for this project. He is not impacting any of his neighbors with view corridors and they have a right to build. He stated he does not have the heart to stop them building for five feet of space. Cm. King appreciates the idea that the City has an arborist and he has expressed an opinion about the tree and the Planning Commission should go along with it. He said there is something that does ~ot make sense on this. The 25-foot margin for the original properties and the reduction of 5-feet margin for the other properties was established because if you build over the roots it will kill the tree. Here is a situation where the land is already compressed and the tree is not dying. Cm. Fasulkey stated that is not what the study is stating. The way the soil conditions were, the tree grew in such a shape that there are no existing roots in the location of the proposed residence. He asked for Staff to clarify. 10I Pday 11, 2004 Mr. Byde said because of the ground and the compacted nature of the soil, oak tree roots x~ould not and have not thrived in this location. The shape of the tree shows that it is not growing in that direction. The five-foot setback was a general recommendation from the arborist to the Brittany Lane project and is not found in the Heritage Tree Ordinance. In this situation specific to this tree and residence, a setback less than five feet was determined to be appropriate by the arborist. Cm. Fasulkey asked for a motion. On motion by Machtmes, seconded by Cm. Fasulkey, by a vote of 2-1-2, with Cm. King opposed and Cm. Nassar and Jennings absent the Planning Commission approved RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 43 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING PA 03-040 LOUKIANOFF SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE ON AN EXISTING LOT (LOT 1) AT 11299 ROLLING HILLS DRIVE Ms. Ram explained the City's appeal process. 8.5 PA 04-017 citY-Initiated Accessory Structure Amendment to Dublin Ranch Planned Development Zoning Districts (Phase 1, Area, A and Area F North) to allow one 120 square foot accessory structure to be exempt from lot coverage requirements. Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Kristi Bascom, Associate Planner presented the staff report and explained that the City-initiated amendment is based on Zoning/Code Enforcement problems. The current PD regulations restrict those homes who are at their maximum lot coverage from putting anything else on the site, proposal would allow homeowners one 120 square foot accessory structure to be exempt from lot coverage requirements. In Dublin Ranch, many of the homes are already built at the maximum lot coverage allowed by the Planned Development Zoning Districts. Since the maximum lot coverage has already been reached, these homeowners are unable to construct an33 additional square footage on their property, including any accessory structures. The purpose of this amendment is to allow a small amount of additional construction on constrained lots, and exempt one 120 square foot accessory structure from the lot coverage requirements for the Planned Development Zoning Districts. This will allow homeowners to build a small shed, gazebo, patio cover, or other similar structure as long as all other requirements of the Dublin Municipal Code (including minimum setbacks and maximum height) are met. As a result of the size of homes being built in the Dublin Ranch neighborhoods, in most cases, the house itself uses the maximum development potential of the lot and there is no room "left over" for additional structures to be built within the lot coverage restrictions. This leaves homeowners who wish to build an arbor, trellis, shed, gazebo, or other shade structure without the square footage to do so. The City's Code Enforcement Officer is finding that a majority of ~tYa~ning Commi~,~ion 102 '~ay I1, 2004 ~fllu[ar SMeetin~q RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 43 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING PA 03-040 LOUKIANOFF SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE ON AN EXISTING LOT (LOT 1) AT 11299 ROLLING HILLS DRIVE WHEREAS, Alexander Loukianoff has requested approval of a Site Development Review for a single family home on an existing lot at 11299 Rolling Hills Drive; and WHEREAS, a completed application for Site Development Review is available and on file in the Dublin Planning Department; and WHEREAS, The environmental impacts of this project were addressed under the Negative Declaration prepared for the PA 85-035 Hatfield Development Corporation Planned Development Rezone, Annexation and Site Development Review of which the subject lots were a part. The Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. WHEREAS, a Site Development Review is required for this project by Conditions 4 and 12 of City Council Resolution 82-85 approving PA 85-035.3, Hatfield Development Corporation Investec, Inc.; and WHEREAS, the project is consistent in all respects with the Heritage Tree Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the project is consistent in all respects with Dublin General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the project is consistent in all respects with the conditions of approval of City Council Resolution 82-85; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on May 11, 2004; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a Staff report was submitted to the Planning Commission recommending approval of the Site Development Review subject to conditions prepared by Staff; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgement and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT hereby make the following findings Review: RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does and determinations'regarding said proposed Site Development The approval of this application (PA 03-040) is consistent with the intent/purpose of Section 8.104 (Site Development Review) of the Zoning Ordinance. ATTACHMENT The approval of this application, as conditioned, complies with the policies of the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, the Heritage Tree Ordinance and City Council Resolution 82- 85. The approval will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare because all applicable regulations will have been met. Impacts to views have been addressed by sensitive design and siting of the proposed single-family residence. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed in the project through the use of pier and grade beams and by minimal grading. The approval of this application, as conditioned, is in conformance with regional transportation plans. The approval of this application, as conditioned, is in the best interests of the public health, safety and general welfare as the development is consistent with all laws and ordinances and implements the requirements of the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, the Heritage Tree Ordinance and City CoUncil Resolution 82-85. The proposed physical site development, including the intensity of development, site layout, grading, vehicular access, circulation and parking, setbacks, height, walls, public safety and similar elements, as conditioned, have been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development. Architectural considerations, including the character, scale and quality of the design, the architectural relationship with the site and, building materials and colors, screening of exterior appurtenances, exterior lighting and similar elements have been incorporated into the project and as conditions of approval in order to insure compatibility of this project with the existing character of surrounding development. Landscape considerations, including the locations, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant materials, provisions and similar~ elements have been considered to insure visual relief and an attractive environment for the public. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find that: A. The Loukianoff Site Development Review is consistent with the intent of applicable subdivision regulations and related ordinances. The design and improvements of the Loukianoff Site Development Review is consistent with the Dublin .General Plan polices as they relate to the subject property in that it is a single- family residential development consistent with the Single-Family Residential Designation of the Dublin General Plan. The Loukianoff Site Development Review is consistent with the Heritage Tree Ordinance, City Council Resolution 82-85 and with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. The home will be placed on a framework of deep-Seated piers and grade beams. This will minimize grading impacts. Functional padded exterior living areas are proposed in the front yard, rear yard, and in raised deck areas. Therefore the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of a single-family residential unit. The environmental impacts of this project were addressed under the Negative Declaration prepared for the PA 85-035 Hatfield Development Corporation Planned Development Rezone, Annexation and Site Development Review of which the subject lots were a part. The Negative Declaration was prepared in' accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE City of Dublin Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves the Site Development Review Application for PA 03-040 to construct a single family residence on Lot 1 of Block 1 Tract 5073 and further identified as Assessors Parcel Number 9412775-030, and as generally depicted by materials labeled Attachment 2, stamped "approved" and on file in the City of Dublin Planning Department. This approval shall conform to the project plans submitted by Nickolas A. Loukianoff, P.E., the Heritage Tree Protection Plan, unless modified herein for this. project dated received December 4, 2000, and the report by Joesph McNeil, consulting arborist dated January 12, 2004, on file in the Department of Community Development, unless modified by the Conditions of Approval contained below. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Unless otherwise stated, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to final occupancy of any building, and shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval. The following codes represent those det>artments/agencies rest>onsible for monitorine compliance with the Conditions of Approval: [PLI Planning, lB1 Buiiding,~PO~] Police, [PW] Public Works, [ADM] Administration/City Attomev. [FIN] Finance. [PCS] Parks and Community Services. IF1 Alameda County Fire DelX. [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District. [CO1 Alameda Count~ Flood Control and water Conservation District Zone 7. GENERAL CONDITIONS Term. Pursuant to Section 8.96.020(D) (as amended) of the Zoning Ordinance, construction shall commence within one (1) year of Site Development Review approval, or the Site Development Review approval shall lapse and become null and void. Commencement of construction means the actual construction pursuant to the Site Development Review approval, or, demonstrating substantial progress toward commencing such construction. The original approving decision-maker may, upon the Applicant's written request for an extension of approval prior to expiration, and upon the determination that any Conditions of Approval remain adequate to assure that applicable findings of approval will continue to be met, grant a time extension of approval for a period not to exceed 6 months. All time extension requests shall be noticed and a public hearing or public meeting shall be held as required by the particular Permit. Responsible Agency: PL Required By: On-going 2. Fees. Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance, including, but not limited to, Building fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District Fees, 3 Public Facilities Fees, Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees, City Fire Impact fees; Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees; and any other fees as applicable. Responsible Agency: Various When Required: Various times, but no later than Issuance of Building Permits Revocation. The SDR will be revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8.96.020.I of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions of this .approval shall be subject to citation. Responsible Agency: PL Required By: On-going Required Permits. Applicant/Developer shall comply with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance and obtain all necessary permits required by other agencies (Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7, California Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, State Water Quality Control Board, Etc.) and shall submit copies of the permits to the Department of Public Works. Responsible Agency: Various When Required: Various times, but no later than Issuance of Building Permits Building Codes and Ordinances. All project construction shall conform to all building codes and ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. Responsible Agency: Bldg. When Required: Through Completion Compliance. Applicant/Developer shall comply with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance, City CoUncil Resolution 82-85, the Tree Protection Plan for this project, the 7 recommendations listed in the page 4 and 5 of the January 12, 2004, report by Joseph McNeil, tonsuring arborist, and the additional (3) tree protection recommendations listed by the February 2, 2004 report, by Michael Santos. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Issuance of Building Permits and On-going Solid Waste/Recycling. Applicant/Developer management and recycling requirements. Responsible Agency: Bldg. When Required: On-going shall comply with the City's solid waste Water Quality/Best Management Practices. Pursuant to the Alameda Countywide National Pollution Discharges Elimination Permit (NPDES) No. CAS0029831 with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the Applicant/Developer shall design and operate the site in a manner consistent with the Start at the Source publication, and according to Best Management Practices to minimize storm water pollution. Responsible Agency: PW, PL Required By: Issuance of Grading Permit Hold Harmless/Indemnification. Applicant/Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board, Planning 4 Commission, City Council, Director of Community Development, Planning Manager, or anY other department, committee, or agency of the City the Site Development Review to the extent such actions are brought within the time period required by Government Code Section 66499.37 or other applicable law; provided, however, that the Applicant/Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the City's promptly notifying the Applicant/Developer of any said claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full cooperation in the defense of such actions or proceedings. Responsible Agency: PW, PL Required By: On-going DRAINAGE/GRADING 10. GradingtSitework Permit. The applicant shall obtain a Grading / Sitework Permit from the Public Works Department for site grading and improvements. Said permit will be based on the final set of improvement plans to be approved once all of the plan check comments have been resolved. Please refer to the handout titled Grading/Site Improvement Permit Application Instructions and attached application (three 8-1/2" x 11" pages) for more information. The Applicant/Developer must fill in and return the applicant information contained on pages 2 and 3. The current cost of the permit is $10.00 due at the time of permit issuance, although the Applicant/Developer will be responsible for any adopted increases to the fee amount. Responsible Agency: PW Required By: Grading Permit 11. Encroachment Permit: The applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the Public Works Department for any work within the public street rights of way. Responsible agency: Public Works When required: prior to any construction within the street rights of way 12. 13. 14. Retaining Walls: Retaining walls with exposed heights exceeding 3' or with surcharged loads installed on the property shall be constructed pursuant to a Building Permit obtained from the Building Division. Retaining walls shall be designed to support all known surcharges. (At any future point that a new surcharge is added to an existing retaining wall, the wall shall be re- reviewed for the additional loads. Responsible Agency: Bldg. Required By: Prior to start of construction of any retaining walls. Dublin San Ramon Service District (DSRSD) Permit: The applicant shall obtain a construction permit from the DSRSD for all water and sanitary sewer improvements. Responsible agency: DSRSD When required: prior to construction of sanitary sewer and water improvements. Grading, Drainage and Improvement Plan: The applicant shall prepare a Site Grading, Drainage and Improvement Plan for review and approval of the Public Works Director. All improvement and grading plans submitted to the Public Works Department for review/approval shall be prepared in accordance with these Conditions of Approval, and with the City of Dublin Municipal Code including Chapter 7.16 (Grading Ordinance). The Plan shall include as a minimum the following information; a. Existing topography including ground contours at one-foot intervals extending a minimum 10 feet beyond them property limits, and the location of the existing tree thinks and drip lines, g. h. i. j. k. 1. Responsible agency: When required: The location of existing improvements including fences and street frontage improvements, Location and elevation of existing and any proposed changes to the water, sanitary sewer, gas, electric and CATV services to the lot, The location of all proposed improvements including the house footprint, decks, patios, retaining walls, pathways and driveways, Proposed grading including Limits of cut and fill area. Finish floor elevations. Sufficient finish surface elevations on all pavements to show slope and drainage, Top, toe and slope of all banks, Top, bottom and height of all retaining wails, Quantities of cut and fill, Proposed drainage improvement including: i. Location and type of all inlets ii. Elevations of grate and pipe inverts at all storm drain structures iii. Storm drain pipes size, slope and material. iv. Location and detail for the outlet dissipater v. Direction of surface flow, vi. Construction notes, sections and details as required, vii. Location and elevation for the benchmark to be used for construction, viii. Signature blocks for the Public Works Director, Geotectmical Engineer and the DSRSD. Public Works prior to Grading / Sitework Permit 15. Erosion Control during Construction. Applicant/Developer shall include an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan with the Grading and Improvement plans for review and approval by the City Engineer/Public Works Director. Said plan shall be designed, implemented,, and continually maintained pursuant to the City's NPDES permit between October 1st and April 15th or beyond these dates if dictated by rainy weather, or as otherwise directed by the City Engineer/Public Works Director. Responsible agency: Public Works When required: prior to Grading / Sitework Permit 16. DSRSD Signature: The Grading, Drainage and Improvement Plan shall be signed by DSRSD approving the sanitary sewer and water facilities. DSRSD will require all fees and agreements to be completed prior to signing. Responsible agency: Public Works When required: prior to Grading / Sitework Permit or Building Permit UTILITIES 17. Utilities: The applicant shall provide all utility services to the site underground, including but not limited to electricity, telephone, cable television, water, sewer and other required utility services in accordance with the requirements and specifications of each utility company. Responsible agency: Public Works When required: Prior to Building Permit 6 CONSTRUCTION 18. Construction Hours. Standard construction and grading hours shall be limited to weekdays (Monday through Friday) and non-City holidays between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. The Applicant/Developer may request reasonable modifications to such determined days and hours, taking into account the seasons, impacts on neighboring properties, and other appropriate factors, by submitting a request form to the City Engineer/Public Works Director. For work on Saturdays and Sundays, said request shall be submitted no later than $ :00 p.m. the prior Wednesday. Overtime inspection rates will apply for all after-hours, Saturday, Sunday, and/or holiday work. Responsible agency: When required: Public Works during construction 19. Dust Control: The contractor is responsible for preventing dust problems from the site by watering graded areas or other palliative measures as conditions warrant or as directed by the Public Works Director. ResponSible agency: Public Works When required: during construction 20. Noise Control: Construction shall be conducted in a manner to minimize the impacts on the existing community which shall include as a minimum the following; a. All construction equipment shall be fitted with noise muffling devices, b. Construction equipment shall not be left idling while not in use, c. Radios and loudspeakers shall not be used outside of the building. Responsible agency: Public Works When required:, during construction 21. Trash and Debris Control: Measures shall be taken to comain all construction related trash, debris, and materials on site until disposal off-site. The contractor shall keep the adjoining public streets and properties free and clean of project dirt, trash and construction materials. Responsible agency: Public Works When required: during construction 22. 23. Construction Fence: The applicant shall install a temporary fence/barrier across the rear yard approximately 10 feet beyond the limits of grading. The fence/barrier shall be placed in such a manner to restrict construction activities, material storage, trash, and debris from going down slope of the construction area. Responsible agency: Public Works When required: during construction Damaged Improvements: The' .applicant shall repair .to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director all damaged street curb, gutter, sidewalk and pavement on the lot frontage. Responsible agency: Public Works When required: prior to occupancy 24. Preliminary Title Report. The applicant shall submit a recent Preliminary Title Report for the property for City reference during the plan-check. Responsible Agency: PW When Required: Ongoing 7 25. Existing Common Area Storm Drain Easement (CASDE). The applicant shall install a 12"- diameter reinforced concrete storm drain pipe along the centerline of the existing CASDE the encumbers the site from the edge of the proposed concrete driveway to the edge of the proposed retaining wall to accommodate any existing or future Silvergate Homeowner's Association storm discharges. Since the existing CASDE contains an angle point within a proposed fill area, the applicant shall either install a junction structure (manhole) at the angle point, or shall relocate the wall towards the top of the hill slightly to avoid the angle point. The final design of the concrete storm drain pipe shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works. Responsible Agency: PW When Required: Ongoing 26. The Lot Dimensions. All property lines shall be dimensioned on the plans with both bearings and distances from the recorded final map. Responsible Agency: PW When Required: Ongoing 27. Grading. Contour lines on the plans shall match the original ground surface elevations from the Tract 5073 grading plan. No graded slopes shall be steeper than 2:1. Cut and fill quantities shall be shown on the Grading Plan. Responsible Agency: PW When Required: Ongoing 28. Drainage, Concentrated storm flows from the proposed 4"0 PVC pipe that will drain the driveway and from rain water leaders that will drain the roof and site improvements shall not discharge at or near the top-of-slope. Instead, concentrated flows shall be collected in a pipe network that discharges through an energy dissipater as near as possible to the down slope property line. Appropriate details shall be added to the plans to address this issue. Responsible Agency: PW When Required: Ongoing 29. Geotechnieal Report. The applicant shall have a site-specific geotecknical report prepared that addresses grading, drainage, slope stability, landslide potential, and foundation recommendations. All recommendations of the report shall be incorporated into the design of the house and site improvements. All grading, retaining walls and foundation work shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report prepared for the site. The responsible geotechnical engineer shall sign a statement on the Grading, Drainage and Improvement Plan that all proposed grading, drainage and retaining walls conforms to the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report. ResponSible Agency: BLDG When Required: Ongoing 30. Automatic Fire Sprinkler System. Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems shall be required in all buildings that are adjacent to Open Space or Undeveloped Land. The installation of the Automatic Fire Sprinkler System shall be in accordance with approved City standards. Responsible Agency: BLDG When Required: Prior to issuance of building permit and Ongoing PARKS 31. Public Facilities Fee. Applicant/Developer Shall pay a Public Facilities Fee in the amounts and at the times set forth in City of Dublin Resolution No. 195-99, or in the amounts and at the times set forth in any resolution revising the amount of the Public Facilities Fee. Responsible Agency: PCS Required By: As indicated in Condition of Approval ARCHITECTURE 32. Exterior lighting. Exterior lighting shall be of a design and placement so as not to cause glare onto adjoining properties. Lighting used after daylight hours shall be minimized to provide for security needs only.. Responsible Agency: PL Required By: Ongoing 33. Fencing and Retaining Walls. The design, location and materials of all fencing and retaining walls shall be subject to review and approval by the Community DevelOpment Director. Responsible Agency: PL. When Required: Prior to approval of Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plans. 34. Increase in height of residences prohibited. The increase in height of the residence proposed with this project beyond that approved by the City with this application is prohibited. Responsible Agency: PL Required By: Ongoing LANDSCAPING 35. Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan. Applicant/Developer shall submit a Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan, conforming to the requirements of Section 8.72.030 of the Zoning Ordinance (unless otherwise required by this Resolution) and the various tree protection requirements, 'stamped and approved by the Director of Public Works and the Director of Community Development. The plan should generally conform to the landscaping plan shown on the Site Development Review. Responsible Agency: PL Required By: Prior to building permit 36. Wildfire Management Plan. The Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan shall be in accordance with the City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan. Responsible Agency: F Required By: Prior to building permit 37. Landscape Installation. irrigation, shall be installed. Responsible Agency: Required By: Prior to final occupancy approval, PL, B Prior to occupancy all required landscaping and 38. Drought-tolerant and/or native species. The landscape design and construction shall emphasize drought-tolerant and/or native species wherever possible. 9 Responsible Agency: Required By: PL Prior to occupancy POLICE SECURITY 39. Residential Security Requirements. The development shall comply with the City of Dublin Residential Security Requirements. SecuritY hardware must be provided for all doors, windows, roof, vents,' and skylights and any other areas per Dublin Police Services recommendations and requirements. At the beginning of the construction an address sign of adequate size and color shall be posted on site. Additionally, during construction security measures shall be taken to secure equipment and materials, including barricades, locking boxes, and contact information. Responsible Agency: B, PO Required By: Prior to Occupancy of first residence FiRE PROTECTION 40. Applicable regulations and requirements. The Applicant/Property Owner shall comply with all applicable regulations and requirements of the Alameda County Fire Department (ACFD), including payment of all appropriate fees. Responsible Agency: F Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits 41. Because the exterior walls are over 150 feet from the public road, the driveway shall be a minimum 14 ft wide emergency vehicle access road designed to hold the weight of fire apparatus (63,000 pounds with a 40,000 lb axle weight). Responsible Agency: F Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits 42. Fire Flow. Provide a letter from Dublin San Ramon Services District stating what the available fire flow is at the site. A copy of the letter shall be submitted to our office. Show the location of the two closest fire hydrants on a site plan. Responsible Agency: F Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits 43. Fire safety during construction. The following is applicable during the construction phase: a. The combustibles on the site shall be removed prior to start of construction. b. Article 87 of the Fire code shall be followed concerning fire safety during the construction, demolition or repair, and the folloWing requirements shall be provided to the project manager and job contractor who shall notify all employees and sub-contractors of the requirements. c. Access roads shall be installed prior to building/site construction occurring. d. Water supply shall be installed and in-service prior to building/site construction occurring. e. Access roads, tumarounds, pullouts, and fire operation areas and fire water supplies shall b~ maintained clear and free of obstructions, including parking. These areas are required fire lane: and shall be passable fire equipment at all times. f. A means to contact emergency services and a minimum of one 4A 20BC fire extinguisher shall bt provided at the job site. g. Hot work activities such as welding, cutting, torches, and flame producing operations shall be i~ accordance with the Fire code. .10 h. All construction equipment/machinery/devices with internal combustion engines shall be equippet with approved spark arrestors while operating in this project area. Responsible Agency: F Required By: Prior to delivery of any combustible material 44. Smoke Detectors. Residential smoke detectors shall be installed as required by California Building Code section 310.9.1. Smoke detectors shall receive their primary power from building wiring with battery backup, shall be interconnected so that, when activated, sound an alarm audible in all sleeping areas, and shall be located in every sleeping area, area leading to sleeping areas, and on every story. A general note shall be added indicating compliance with interconnection requirements. Written certification is submitted to the Fire Department that all smoke detectors are located no closer than three feet from any supply register of the HVAC system and outside the airflow of all HVAC registers prior to occupancy. Show smoke detectors in the hallways giving access to sleeping rooms and in rooms open to the hallway that have a ceiling height 24 inches or above the hallway. Responsible Agency: F Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits 45. Uniform Building and Fire Codes. The project shall comply with Uniform Building and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Dublin. Responsible Agency: F Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits 46. Sprinkler System. Provide 'a note on the drawing showing that the building is provided with a sprinkler system as follows: a. The sprinkler system shall be designed and installed in compliance with N.F.P.A. 13D. b. Contact the Fire Department at least 48 hours in advance for required underground inspections and hydrostatic test of all system components. c. The sprinkler system shall be monitored by a central station monitoring as defined in N.F.P.A. Standard No. 72. (Required by the Heritage Tree Ordinance). d. Submit detailed shop drawings of all sprinkler modifications to the Fire Department for approval and permit prior to installation. Responsible Agency: F Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits 47. The home shall comply the Heritage Trees Ordinance as follows: a. Clearly show which tress are heritage trees on the site plan. Show the drip lines of the trees on the plan. b. The exterior wall shall be one hour rated on the side facing the open space and the two adjacent sides. c. The windows shall be dual pane tempered on the side facing the open space and the two adjacent sides. d. The structural members in the under floor areas shall be one hour rated. e. The automatic sprinkler system shall be monitored by a UL certified central station company. f. The home shall be provided with an automatic sprinkler system. g. The roof covering shall be class A. h. The underside of the eaves shall be one hour rated. i. The exterior wall shall be one hour rated on the side facing the open space. j. The exterior doors shall be non-combustible or solid core 1% inch thick. k. Attic vents or other vent openings shall not exceed 144 sq. in. and covered with non- 11 Responsible Agency: Required By: combustible corrosion resistant mesh with openings not to exceed ¼ inch. Comply with the vegetation guidelines. This requires that an area ofnon-cornbustible materials flowers plants concrete gravel or soil be maintained around the house. F Prior to issuance of Building Permits and Ongoing 48. Water supply. Water supply shall be adequate to support required fire flow. Responsible Agency: F Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits DSRSD 49. Prior to issuance of any building permit, complete improvement plans shall be submitted to DSRSD that conform to the requirements of the Dublin San Ramon Services District Code, the DSRSD "Standard Procedures, Specifications and Drawings for Design and Installation of Water and Wastewater Facilities", all applicable DSRSD Master Plans and all DSRSD policies. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, all utility connection fees, plan check fees, inspection fees, permit fees and fees associated with a wastewater discharge permit shall be paid to DSRSD in accordance with the rates and schedules established in the DSRSD Code. Responsible Agency: DSRSD. Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits 50. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity flow to DSRSD's existing sanitary sewer system. Pumping of sewerage is discouraged and may only be allowed under extreme circumstances following a case by case review with DSRSD staff. Any pumping station will.require specific review and approval by DSRSD of preliminary design reports, design criteria, and final plans and specifications. The DSRSD reserves the right to require payment of present worth 20 year · maintenance costs as well as other conditions within a separate agreement with. the applicant for any project that requires a pumping station. Responsible Agency: DSRSD. Required By: Ongoing 51. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, all improvement plans for DSRSD facilities shall be signed by the District Engineer. Each drawing of improvement plans shall contain a signature block for the District Engineer indicating approval of the sanitary sewer or water facilities shown. Prior to approval by the District Engineer, the Applicant shall pay all required DSRSD fees, and provide an engineer's estimate of construction costs for the sewer and water systems, a performance bond, a one-year maintenance bond, and a comprehensive general liability insurance policy in the amounts and forms that are acceptable to DSRSD. The Applicant shall allow at least 15 working days for final improvement drawing review by DSRSD before signature by the District Engineer. Responsible Agency: DSRSD. Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits 52. No sewer line or water line construction shall be permitted unless the proper utility construction permit has been issued by DSRSD. A construction permit will only be issued after.all of the items in the condition immediately before this one have been satisfied. Responsible Agency: DSRSD. Required By: Ongoing 12 53. The Applicant/Property Owner shall hold DSRSD, its Board employees, and agents of DSRSD harmless and indemnify and litigation, claims, or fines resulting from completion of the project. Responsible Agency: DSRSD. Required By: Ongoing of Directors, commissions, defend the same from any 54. The Applicant/Property Owner shall obtain a limited construction permit from the DSRSD prior to commencement of any work. Responsible Agency: DSRSD. Required By: Prior to commencement of any work 55. Construction by Applicant/Developer. All onsite potable and recycled water and wastewater pipelines and facilities shall be constructed by the Applicant/Developer in accordance with all DSRSD master plans, standards, specifications and requirements. Responsible Agency: DSRSD. Required By: Completion of Improvements 56. DSRSD Water Facilities. Water facilities must be connected to the DSRSD or other approved water system, and must be installed at the expense of Applicant/Developer in accordance with District Standards and Specifications. All material and workmanship for water mains and appurtenances thereto must conform with all of the requirements of the officially adopted Water Code of the District and shall be subject to field inspection by the District. Responsible Agency: DSRSD. Required By: Completion of Improvements 57. The applicant shall coordinate with the District and Alameda County Fire Department on required fire flows. Responsible Agency: DSRSD. Required By: Approval of Improvement Plans MISCELLANEOUS 58. Building Permits. To apply for building permits, the Applicant shall submit eight (8) sets of full construction plans for plan check. Each set of plans shall have attached an annotated copy of these Conditions of Approval. The notations shall clearly indicate how all Conditions of Approval will be complied with. Construction plans will not be accepted without the annotated conditions attached to each set of plans. The Applicant will be responsible for compliance with all Conditions of Approval specified and obtaining the approvals of all participating non-City agencies prior to the issuance of building or grading permits. Responsible Agency: B, PL, PW. Required By: Prior to issuance of building permits 59. Construction plans. Construction plans shall be fully dimensioned (including building elevations) accurately drawn (depicting all existing and proposed conditions on site), and prepared and signed by an appropriately design professional. The site plan, landscape plan and details shall be consistent with each other. Responsible Agency: B, PL, PW. Required By: Prior to issuance of building permits 60. Postal authorities. The developer shall confer with the local postal authorities to determine the 13 type of mail receptacles necessary and provide a letter stating their satisfaction with the type of mail service to be provided. Specific locations for such units shall be to the satisfaction of the Postal Service. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit. HERITAGE TREES: 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. No underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer lines shall be placed in the Tree Protection Zone. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing Tree Preservation Notes, prepared by the consulting arborist, shall be included on all construction plans. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit Irrigation systems must be designed so that no trenching will occur within the Tree Protection Zone. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit. No landscape improvements such as lighting, pavement, drainage or planting may occur which may negatively affect the health or structural stability of the trees. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing Foundations, footings and pavement on expansive soils near the Heritage Trees should be designed to withstand differential displacement due to expansion and Shrinking of the soil. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit. All pruning, including after completion of construction and occupancy, shall be completed by a Certified Arborist and Tree Worker in the presence of City designated personnel and be in conformance with the guidelines of the International Society of Arboriculture, Tree Pruning Guidelines, current edition, on file in the Community Development Department. In addition, pruning shall be in conformity with the provisions of the Pruning Specifications of the Tree Protection Plan for this project. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: On-going. The Tree Protection Zone shall completely surround those trees to the satisfaction of the City's arborist. A fence shall completely surround and define the Tree Protection zone to the satisfaction of the City's arborist prior to demolition, grubbing or grading. Fences shall be 6 feet tall chain link or equivalent as approved by the consulting arborist. Fences are to remain until all grading and construction is completed. All pruning approved by the City' Consulting Arborist shall be in accordance with the Tree Pruning Guidelines (International Society of Arboriculture) and adhere to the most recent editions of the American National Standard for Tree Care Operations (Z133.1) 14 and Pruning (A300). Responsible Agency: When Required: PL Prior to issuance of Grading Permit and Through Construction. 68. Prior to work the contractor must meet with the either the Applicant's or the City's consulting arborist at the site to review all work procedures, access routes, storage areas and tree protection measures. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit. 69. No excess soil, chemicals, debris, equipment or other materials shall be'dumped or stored within the Tree Protection Zone. Spoil from trench, footing, utility or other excavation shall not be placed within Tree Protection Zone. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit. 70. If damage should occur to any tree during construction it shall be immediately reported to the Director of Community Development so that proper treatment may be administered. The Director will refer to a City selected Arborist to determine the appropriate method of repair of any damage. The cost of any treatment or repair shall be borne by the developer/applicant responsible for the development of the project. Failure to do so may result in the issuance of a stop work order. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 71. While in the tree, the arborist shall perform an aerial inspection to identify defects that require ' treatment. Any additional work needed shall be reported to the Project Arborist. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 72. Brush shall be chipped and chips shall be spread underneath trees to a maximum depth of 6 inches, leaving the trunk clear of mulch. Wood shall be hauled off the site. Trees shall not be climbed with spurs. Thinning cuts are to be employed rather than heading cuts. Trees shall not be topped or headed back Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 73. Vehicles and heavy equipment shall not be parked beneath the trees. If access by equipment is required to accomplish the specified pruning, the soil surface shall be protected with 6 inches to 8 inches of wood chips before placing equipment or vehicles. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 74. Equipment shall be serviced and fueled outside the tree canopy to avoid accidental spills in the root area. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 75. A certified arborist shall be present on the project site during grading or other construction activity that may impact the health of the Heritage Trees in this project. Responsible Agency: PL 15 When Required: Ongoing 76. The applicant's arborist shall prepare a Guide to Maintenance for Native Oaks that describes the care needed to maintain tree health and structural stability including pruning, fertilization, mulching and pest management as may be required. In addition, the Guide shall address monitoring both tree health and structural stability of trees. As trees age, the likelihood of failure of branches or entire trees increases. Therefore, annual inspection for hazard potential should be addressed in the Guide. A copy of this Guide shall be provided to the homeowner. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to occupancy 77. The applicant/developer shall guarantee the protection of the Heritage Trees on the project site through placement of a cash bond or other security deposit in the amount of equal to the valuation of the trees as determined by the Director of Community Development. The cash bond or other security shall be retained for a reasonable period of time following the occupancy of the last residence occupied, not to exceed one year. The cash bond or security is t° be released upon satisfaction of the Director of Community Development that the Heritage Trees have not been endangered. The cash bond or security deposit shall be forfeited toward payment of the civil penalty, pursuant to Section 5.60.120 for any removal or destruction of a Heritage Tree. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit and Ongoing for up to one- year beyond occupancy 78. Any public utility installing or maintaining any overhead wires or underground pipes or conduits in the vicinity of a Heritage Tree in this project shall obtain permission from the Director of Community Development before performing any work, which may cause injury to the Heritage Tree. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 79. No heritage Tree on the project site shall be removed unless its condition presents an immediate hazard to life or property. Such Heritage Tree shall be removed only with the approval of the Director of Community Development, City Engineer, Police Chief, Fire Chief or their designee. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 80. All Oak trees on the project site addressed by the Tree Protection Plan are designated as Heritage Trees by this Site Development Review and shall be protected by the provisions of the Heritage Tree Ordinance pursuant to Section 5.60.40.2. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing ' 81. All work shall comply with City of Dublin Heritage Tree Ordinance, including no grading or other improvements within the drip-line of a protected tree, except as shown on the approved plans. A Tree Protection Zone shall be established in consultation with a Certified Arborist where work will be prohibited, except as shown on the approved plans. , and where exclusion fencing will be erected during construction. Responsible Agency: PW When Required: Ongoing 16 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 11th day of May, 2004. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST ?lann~~.. Cm. Fasulkey, and Machtmes Cm. King Cm. Nassar, and Jennings $~/-s~ion ~c~u. 17 RESOLUTION NO. - 04 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DENYING THE APPEAL AND AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION GRANTING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON AN EXISTING LOT (LOT 1) AT 11299 ROLLING HILLS DRIVE WHEREAS, Alexander Loukianoff has requested approval of a Site Development Review for a single family home on an existing lot at 11299 Rolling Hills Drive; and WHEREAS, a completed application for Site Development Review is available and on file in the Dublin Planning Department; and WHEREAS, The environmental impacts of this project were addressed under the Negative Declaration prepared for the PA 85-035 Hatfield Development Corporation Planned Development Rezone, Annexation and Site Development Review of which the subject lots were a part. The Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. WHEREAS, a Site Development Review is required for this project by Conditions 4 and 12 of City Council Resolution 82-85 approving PA 85-035.3, Hatfield Development Corporation Investec, Inc.; and WHEREAS, the project is consistent in all respects with the Heritage Tree Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the project is consistent in all respects with Dublin General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the project is consistent in all respects with the conditions of approval of City Council Resolution 82-85; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on May 11, 2004; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, City of Dublin Council Member McCormick has filed a timely appeal of the decision of thc Planning Commission to thc City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing in consideration of the appeal on June 15, 2004; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City Council make a ATTACHMENT determination based on the provisions of the Appeal Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth and used their independent judgment to make a decision; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding said proposed Site Development Review: The approval of this application (PA 03-040) is consistent with the intent/purpose of Section 8.104 (Site Development Review) of the Zoning Ordinance. The approval of this application, as conditioned, complies with the policies of the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, the Heritage Tree Ordinance and City Council Resolution 82-85. The approval will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare because all applicable regulations will have been met. Impacts to views have been addressed by sensitive design and siting of the proposed single-family residence. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed in the project through the use of pier and grade beams and by minimal grading. The approval of this application, as conditioned, is in conformance with regional transportation plans. The approval of this application, as conditioned, is in the best interests of the public health, safety and general welfare as the development is consistent with all laws and ordinances and implements the requirements of the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, the Heritage Tree Ordinance and City Council Resolution 82-85. The proposed physical site development, including the intensity of development, site layout, grading, vehicular access, circulation and parking, setbacks, height, walls, public safety and similar elements, as conditioned, have been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development. Architectural considerations, including the character, scale and quality of the design, the architectural relationship with the site and, building materials and colors, screening of exterior appurtenances, exterior lighting and similar elements have been incorporated into the project and as conditions of approval in order to insure compatibility of this project with the existing character of surrounding development. Landscape considerations, including the locations, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant materials, provisions and similar elements have been considered to insure visual relief and an attractive environment for the public. 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council hereby denies the appeal and affirms the May 11, 2004, decision of the Planning Commission approving the Site Development Review of PA 03-040, Louldanoff Residence, subject to the Conditions of Approval contained within Planning Commission Resolution 04-043 attached to the Agenda Statement dated June 15, 2004, as Attachment 4. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 15th day of June 2004. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk GSPA#~003\03-040 Loukinoff Residence~a, ppeal~sdr appeal reso.do¢