HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-052 SDR for Stagecoach Rd Landscape Alterations
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: November 28, 2006
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS:
RECOMMEND~:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
PUBLIC HEARING: Site Development Review for Stagecoach Road
Assessment District Landscape Alterations. The Applicant is requesting
approval of a Site Development Review (SDR) for landscape alterations to
private property (located within the Stagecoach Road Assessment District) at
7678 Coral Way. (APN 941-2769-065) (PA 06-052) (Quasi-judicial action)
Report prepared by Kristi Bascom, Senior Planner /~
1)
Resolution approving a Site Development Review (SDR) for
landscape alterations to private property at 7678 Coral Way that is
located within the Stagecoach Road Assessment District (with
Project Plans attached as Exhibit A).
Public Comment from Garth GeIster, 7736 Coral Way.
Public Comment from John Bertenshaw, 7760 Coral Way.
Site photos.
2)
3)
4)
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Receive the Staff presentation;
Open the public hearing;
Take testimony from the Applicant and the public;
Close public hearing and deliberate; and
Adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) approving a Site Development
Review (SDR) for landscape alterations to private property at 7678
Coral Way that is located within the Stagecoach Road Assessment
District (with Project Plans attached as Exhibit A).
This is an application for a Site Development Review for landscape alterations to the rear yard slope area
on private property at 7678 Coral Way, adjacent to Stagecoach Road. The proposed alterations include
the installation of three rows of grapevines, associated slope stabilization measures, a drip irrigation
system, and groundcover. The landscape alterations are proposed for the eastern-most 14 feet of the City-
maintained landscape assessment district area at the top of the slope and outside the rear fence line of the
property at 7678 Coral Way. The landscape alterations, although outside the rear fence line, are within
the property lines of the subject property, and are visible from Stagecoach Road.
Background
The project site is located at 7678 Coral Way, north of Amador Valley Boulevard and east of Stagecoach
Road. The property is approximately 9,400 square feet in size and has a two story single family home.
Like all properties along Coral Way, the lot frontage and house face Coral Way while the rear yard of the
property slopes downward in the back to Stagecoach Road. Approximately one-third of the lot, although
COPIES TO: Applicant/Property Owner
In-House Distribution
ITEM NO. e. 2..
G:\PA#\2006\06-052 Fowler Grapevine SDRIPC Staff Report. DOC
Page 1 of5
owned in fee title by the property owner, is within the City's Landscape and Lighting Assessment District
1983-2, otherwise referred to as the Stagecoach Road Assessment District.
The District was formed in 1983 when developers Rafanelli and Nahas created the Dublin Hills Estates
subdivision with 151 single-family homes and the Amador Lakes apartment complex. The Stagecoach
Road Assessment District is one of three landscape and lighting assessment districts in the City. The
neighborhood does not have a Homeowners Association, and the Assessment District functions to
maintain all steeply-sloped portions of properties visible from the public right-of-way.
The City of Dublin has a maintenance easement over the slope portions of many private lots within the
subdivision, and the City's Assessment District maintains these areas in a uniform fashion. The
maintenance easement allows the City to plant, irrigate, and maintain the landscaping that is present on
the properties, which is paid for by an annual assessment to the District residents. The current annual
assessment is $266.14 for a single-family home and $45 per apartment unit. The City schedules an annual
public hearing to discuss the cost of the assessment and the landscape maintenance and improvements
being undertaken.
Project Proposal
Thomas and Susan Fowler, property owners at 7678 Coral Way, have requested the City's approval to
make alterations to the slope portion of their lot which is within the Assessment District. The subject
property is shown below, and photos of the area are shown in Attachment 4:
As explained previously, although the portion of the lot under discussion is in the Stagecoach Road
Assessment District, with a maintenance easement in favor of the City, the lot in its entirety is owned in
fee title by the property owners. When the housing subdivision was approved by Alameda County in
1981, the approval documents did not expressly address permitted and/or prohibited alterations in the
easement area. To date, the area has been maintained in a fairly constant state with consistent
landscaping and groundcover, and no alterations to the easement area have previously been requested.
The General Provisions for Alameda County's 1486th Zoning Unit (the Zoning District for this
subdivision) states that "In the common areas, plant materials, arbors, fences, paving materials, and
Page 2 of5
similar landscape features may be added, replaced, or deleted," but it does not specify through what
process any proposed changes may be reviewed.
The Applicants have requested to modify the typical landscaping in the easement area on their lot and to
install three rows of grapevines. They propose to limit the changes in the easement area to the planting
and associated slope stabilization measures only, and the alternations would only take place on the
easternmost 14 feet of the slope area (which is approximately 48 feet in length) as shown on the Project
Plans (Exhibit A to Attachment 1). There are no changes proposed to the remainder of the slope, no
structures proposed, and no change to the location or type of fencing separating the Applicants' enclosed
rear yard from the slope area, which is not fenced. The typical Stagecoach Road landscaping consists of
Oleander bushes, mature trees, groundcover, and a variety of natural growth.
The Applicants originally contacted the City during the latter part of 2005 with their request to have the
landscape alterations considered. Because the paper trail dating back to the County's original approvals
of the subdivision was not well-documented, and there was no clear process by which alterations to the
area could be considered, the City was not able to give Mr. Fowler a clear answer at the time of his
request. Once City Staff was able to respond to Mr. Fowler's inquiry that the alternations would be
subject to Site Development Review, the Applicants had already installed the vines, which can be seen on
the property today.
ANALYSIS:
Due to the vague nature of the General Provisions of the original County Zoning District, the Community
Development Director and Public Works Director needed to make a determination as to how the
Applicants' request could be considered. It was determined that any proposed changes to the landscaping
in the easement area could be considered through the Site Development Review (SDR) process. Chapter
8.104 of the Zoning Ordinance (Site Development Review) states that changes to perimeter landscaping
are subject to SDR review, and this process would allow public review and comment on the proposed
changes and would solicit neighborhood input on the acceptability of alterations to the slope areas.
After the process was determined, the Applicants then submitted their SDR application. The City
reviewed the Applicants' request and determined that the proposed landscape and slope alterations were
not in conflict with the City's maintenance easement over the property. The proposed landscape
alterations did not alter the slope drainage, they did not damage existing landscaping, and they did not
prevent the City from maintaining the slope area and landscaping in the same manner that had been done
in the past. The Applicant proposes to maintain the grapevines (including irrigation), and the City will
continue to maintain the remainder of the slope.
In an effort to ensure that the impacts of the proposed project were as minimal as possible, and to ensure
that the ongoing maintenance of the area was addressed, Conditions of Approval were written for the
project. Condition of Approval No.4 requires that the Applicant agrees to maintain the stability of the
slope to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Director. In the event that the stability of the slope does
not meet the satisfaction of the City Public Works Director, due to damage, drainage problems, or
otherwise, the Applicant agrees to pay all the costs associated with repair and/or re-stabilization of the
slope. Additionally, the Applicant shall also be responsible for keeping the vines maintained and the area
attractively landscaped. In the event that the Applicants (or future owners of the property and vines) fail
to maintain the vines and the landscaping to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, the
Applicant agrees to pay all costs associated with the removal of Applicant's improvements and the
restoration of the area to its original condition. The Site Development Review permit runs with the land,
so future owners of the property at 7678 Coral Way will be subject to these requirements as well.
Page 3 of5
The proposed project has been reviewed for conformance with Chapter 8.104 of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance (Site Development Review) and Staff believes that the required findings can be made in the
affirmative, including that the proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the purpose and intent
of the SDR Chapter. The specific findings are outlined on pages 2 and 3 of the proposed approval
Resolution (Attachment 1).
PUBLIC NOTICING AND COMMENT:
The Applicant's request was originally scheduled for hearing by the Community Development Director.
A public hearing notice was published on October 20, 2006 in the newspaper and the notice was mailed to
all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject property. Proper notice for the public
hearing was given in all respects as required by law.
Staff received two written communications from nearby residents in opposition to the proposed project
(Attachments 2 and 3), and therefore the Community Development Director has referred the item to the
Planning Commission for its review and consideration as a public hearing item.
A public hearing notice was prepared for the Planning Commission hearing. The notice was published in
the newspaper on November 18, 2006, and the notice was mailed to all property owners and residents
within 300 feet of the subject property. The notice was also sent to all properties within the Stagecoach
Road Assessment District, which includes 151 single family homes plus the Amador Lakes apartment
complex.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The project has been reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State Guidelines
and the Dublin Environmental Guidelines, and the project has been found to be Categorically Exempt per
CEQA Guidelines Section 15304, Minor Alterations to land, as it pertains to minor alterations in the
existing condition of the land, including landscaping, which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, or
scenic trees.
CONCLUSION:
This application has been reviewed by the applicable City Departments and Agencies, and their comments
have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for the project. The proposed project, as
conditioned, is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and the Zoning District in which the project is
located, and represents an appropriate use for the site.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive the Staff presentation; 2) Open the public
hearing; 3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 4) Close public hearing and deliberate; and
5) Adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) approving a Site Development Review (SDR) for landscape
alterations to private property at 7678 Coral Way that is located within the Stagecoach Road Assessment
District (with Project Plans attached as Exhibit A).
Page 4 of5
GENERAL INFORMATION:
APPLICANT/OWNER:
Thomas and Susan Fowler, 7678 Coral Way, Dublin, CA 94568
LOCATION:
7678 Coral Way (APN 941-2769-065)
SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING USES:
Location Zoninl!: General Plan Land Use Current Use of Property
Sub.iect Property Zoning Unit 1486 Single Family Residential Single Family home
North Zoning Unit 1486 Single Family Residential Single Family home
South Zoning Unit 1486 Single Family Residential Single Family home
West Zoning Unit 1486 Single Family Residential Single Family home
East Zoning Unit 1486 Single Family Residential Single Family home
ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW:
Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15304,
Minor Alterations to land, as it pertains to minor alterations in the
existing condition of the land, including landscaping, which do not
involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees.
Page50f5
RESOLUTION NO. 06 - XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) FOR LANDSCAPE ALTERATIONS TO
PRIVATE PROPERTY (LOCATED WITHIN THE STAGECOACH ROAD ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT) AT 7678 CORAL WAY (APN 941-2769-065)
P A 06-052
WHEREAS, the Applicants, Thomas and Susan Fowler, have requested Site Development
Review for landscape alterations to private property (located within the City's Landscape and Lighting
Assessment District 1983-2 - otherwise known as the Stagecoach Road Assessment District) at 7678
Coral Way; and
WHEREAS, the proposal includes the installation of three rows of grapevines, groundcover,
associated slope stabilizations measures, and a drip irrigation system; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning District for the project site (Alameda County Zoning Unit 1486) permits
landscaping in the common areas to be altered; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that the method by which
proposed alterations may be properly considered is through Site Development Review; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project, as conditioned, does not change the use of the property as a
single-family residence; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted project plans and a written description dated August 24,
2006 for the requested Site Development Review, which are on file in the Community Development
Department; and
WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the prOVIsIOns of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and this project was found to be categorically exempt
under CEQA Guidelines Section 15304, Minor Alterations, Class 4, of the State CEQA Guidelines as it
pertains to minor alterations in the existing condition of the land, including landscaping, that does not
involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director referred the item to the Planning
Commission for its review and consideration as a public hearing item; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 28,
2006; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of the public hearing was given in all respects as required by law and
additional notices were sent to all property owners within the Stagecoach Road Assessment District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use its independent judgment and considered
all said reports, recommendations, and testimony herein above set forth.
Attachment 1
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the proposed Site Development
Review:
A. Approval of this application is consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 8.104 (Site
Development Review) in that the proposed project, as conditioned, will promote the orderly,
attractive and harmonious site and structural development compatible with individual site
environmental constraints and compatible with surrounding properties and neighborhoods. The
proposed landscape alterations do not interfere with the use of the property as a single family
home and do not interfere with the City's ability to continue to maintain the landscape easement
on the property. The approval is conditioned to ensure that environmental constraints are taken
into consideration and that the area drainage is not impacted by the proposed project.
B. Any approval complies with the policies of the General Plan, with any applicable Specific Plans,
with the development regulations or performance standards established for the zoning district in
which it is located, and with all other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning District
(Alameda County 1486/h Zoning Unit) allows for modifications to common area landscaping.
Additionally, the proposed project, as conditioned, complies with the policies of the General Plan
relating to controlling soil erosion and controlling surface runoff.
C. 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. The proposed project,
as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of people in the vicinity due to the
limited nature of its scope. The proposed project consists of minimal landscape alterations and
slope stabilization measures, which have a very limited potential be detrimental to the greater
community.
D. The approved site development, including site layout, structures, vehicular access, circulation and
parking, setbacks, height, walls, public safety and similar elements, has been designed to provide a
desirable environment for the development. The slope area where the proposed project, as
conditioned, is located was designed to be an area, visible from the public right of way, which
would be landscaped and maintained in a common fashion. The proposed landscape alterations
do not detract from the desirability of the subdivision and it could be argued that they are an
enhancement to the landscaped area.
E. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the approved development. The
proposed project, as conditioned, is suitable for the subject site. Grapevines can grow in a variety
of conditions, and slopes are no exception. Because they need a minimal amount of water, and a
small drip irrigation system has been installed to serve the vines, there is limited risk that water
runoff will be problematic.
F. Impacts to views are addressed. Since the grapevines and associated improvements have been
made in an area that already had mature landscaping, the impacts to views are minimized.
G. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed. The slope and topographic
features will not be substantially changed with the implementation of the proposed project, as
conditioned. The slope stabilization measures and vine planting proposed with the project will
actually serve to further anchor the hillside soil and minimize future erosion.
2
H. Architectural considerations, including the character, scale and quality of the design, the
architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, 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 development with the
development's design concept or theme and the character of adjacent buildings, neighborhoods,
and uses. No structures are proposed or approved as part of this project, so there are no impacts
in this regard.
I. Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant
materials, provisions and similar elements have been considered to ensure visual relief and an
attractive environment for the public. Because the proposed project has already been installed, it
is easier to sef; how the landscaping ensures visual relief and an attractive environment for the
public. As they have matured, the vines have grown to blend well with the existing landscaping.
J. The approval of the Site Development Review is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and with
any applicable Specific Plans. The Zoning District (Alameda County 14861h Zoning Unit) allows
for modifications to common area landscaping. Additionally, the proposed project, as
conditioned, complies with the policies of the General Plan relating to controlling soil erosion and
controlling surface runoff.
K. Approval of this application complies with Chapter 8.58 relating to the Public Art Program
Contribution. Not applicable.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby approve P A 06-
052, Site Development Review (SDR) for landscape alterations to private property (located within the
Stagecoach Road Assessment District) at 7678 Coral Way, subject to the following Conditions of
Approval and as shown in the Project Plans (attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein).
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of
building permits or establishment of use, and shall be subiect to Planning Department review and
approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring
compliance of the conditions of approval: rPLl Planning, rBl Building, rpOl Police, rpwl Public Works,
r ADMl Administration/City Attorney, rFINl Finance, rFl Alameda County Fire Department, rDSRSDl
Dublin San Ramon Services District, rCOl Alameda County Department of Environmental Health.
CONDITION TEXT
RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ'D
Prior to:
SOURCE
GENERAL - SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
1. Approval. This Site Development Review
approval for P A 06-052 allows the
installation of three rows of grapevines
(measuring approximately 54, 40, and 40
feet in length respectively along the width
of the lot), slope stabilization measures, a
drip irrigation system, and groundcover
within the landscape maintenance easement
area of7678 Coral Way. The project shall
generaU conform with the ro'ect lans
PL
On-going
Planning
3
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE
AGENCY Prior to:
received by the Planning Division on
August 24, 2006, on file in the Community
Development Department, and other plans,
text, and diagrams relating to this Site
Development Review, unless modified by
the Conditions of Approval contained
herein. Only the landscaping and site
improvements shown on the plans are those
that will be approved as part of the Site
Development Review application. Any
future proposed changes to the landscaping
and/or site improvements would require
subsequent Site Development Review
through a separate application.
2. Permit Expiration. Approved use shall PL On-going DMC
commence within one (1) year of Site 8.96.020.D
Development Review (SDR) approval, or
the SDR shall lapse and become null and
void. Commencement of use means the
actual use pursuant to the permit approval,
or, demonstrating substantial progress
toward commencing such use. Ifthere is a
dispute as to whether the Permit has
expired, the City may hold a noticed public
hearing to determine the matter.
3. Review and Permitting Authority. The PL On-going Planning
Applicant shall comply with all applicable
regulations and requirements of the City of
Dublin Building Division, Planning
Division, Alameda County Fire
Department, Dublin Police Services, Dublin
San Ramon Services District, and Dublin
Public Works Department.
PROJECT SPECIFIC - SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
4. Slope Maintenance. The Applicant agrees PL On-going Planning
to maintain the stability of the slope, to the
satisfaction of the City Public Works
Director. In the event that the stability of
the slope does not meet the satisfaction of
the City Public Works Director, due to
damage, drainage problems, or otherwise,
the Applicant agrees to pay all the costs
associated with repair and/or re-
stabilization of the slope. Any repair to the
slope will be performed by the City, or, at
the City's election, by a third-party
professional selected by the City to perform
4
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE
AGENCY Prior to:
such services.
5. Landscape Maintenance. The Applicant PL On-going Planning
agrees to maintain the vines and the
landscaping identified in the project plans
received by the Planning Division on
August 24, 2006 to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director. In the
event that the Applicant fails to maintain
the vines and the landscaping to the
satisfaction of the Community
Development Director, the Applicant agrees
to pay all costs associated with the removal
of Applicant's improvements and the
restoration of the area to its original
condition. Any removal of the Applicant's
improvements or restoration of the area to
its original condition may be performed by
the City, or, at the City's election, by a
third-party professional selected by the City
to perform such services. This condition
shall be enforced in accordance with
Chapter 5.64 of the Dublin Municipal Code
(Property Maintenance).
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of November 2006 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
G:\PA#\2006\06-052 Fowler Grapevine SDRIPC Reso.DOC
5
EA5E/vIE,A/r (PAR l?AL) 11'
I
e')( '" 7\-i I'!j ~ Ge !
j( ~ i
I
,
LAJlJ] SCAPE A;(lJ SLtJ,PF /viA/AIl:
tr
I ;:: II I
5;CA LE. =-I/~ :::: /
SLOfJE-APj)I2QX, 40 0
;1Lt' E:LEC T ~LCAl tlT/i lrt/
J)R/;' tJATE~/#G s'/sre/'v/
n
1/
I
I
,
i
i
, i
d./
I
k2?1/Albt/c..-~ ,:dA.!L
l e., ')( f $-f-, V\ OJ . - 'l
I;j~;) I
l
.1J/~--?f
-<
E-4
~
~
I
Ii
/); PAil!
~. + 1 i
/ . I i / I
. d .J.-~! 7i
!--E
r
I
I
I '
.E ---->-i
I
II .1-
;?X 7 kNeE ...sTAKES
IIX /.;Z't'~dC(/lD S~;2?JIIIG- SMAlE.$"
/41 . ~.---
I
RECEIV~D
AUG 2 4 2006
I
---- .~ . DU8LI~NING
LANDSCAPE AND 5LOPE /l1AINTENA,NCE~ASEME.IIT
T'"' ,~ ' ....",-ti.. · q · Ft, .. . · · · ,
- --~--'--~------~"---~/~~~---._~'C'_'":'_'b..--""-""~-'-,._,....,,~,...._-,. ""_"_"_T.__.._.__._~. ".-, '--'-'~-~.' ,=",=-"",,1'c~~~~~"':"_'--'''_~_
~I CRtlSllrD R()CH /#rrll
t-.~_._---_._-----~--._----_._. ",~~" -- .-... -" -._-.~"==--. ~ -. ~ ~ -- ....-.-_.=~=- -"'-~--=-"---'-'
!, V \!...J ~~ ttJ \!.J ~J \!.J V ~ \:V \.!) \!J \:'J \.!;J \!J
I
i,
" (
t, )
, ./'"
. \)
I.:.J ~i
\::J \.:.) v \!.) i....':J I...V '\..V '
( /~EE
,-
\.../-j \.:..-, i..!J
.u ~ V \.!..J I-:.J (J ~. r..b
" /'\
\,,~~J
--j
,,< ('
<-J
'----"',
/\
"
> I
,
/
. ./
r- .J
,
NERIUfY/
()[EA/t,!j)/:.-:es
,
\
---...
"/''''
r ~
-_.,~--.-,,--
,-._,~
'\
'.
/ /t?,E tE' \
I
i
i
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
b------------- ~.-
[~---------------
...-----
/
GRlJtt AI]) ~6 ~I.CR
'- -
\
("
'-,
./'"
/"
.--.. 54 ( ------ -.-.-----....~..--
-----_.-_._._-------~---_._._-.......~----------------_.~..---~-~-~_._- _._._-,~--~--------..-.~.._... .
DRA/I\/AGE D I Tell
$TA&,[{JOACH ~(/A])
.~
,~I'
-....9...
- ~
4l~~ ~:.~." :
I't) ,
~-L
~
... f
~
l'
F
i
I
!
I
!
~ ~M ~~E~V:
DUB UN PLANNING
SrA GE CcJA ell
KQA.D
:3
DRAJNAr;,,-s~:~--~
I
I
\
~\
t'<)\
~~\
~\
()
"-:J
oQ
-+
1
1
1
. j'
4
,-
#
~!
, ~
~~
.
"'t-t
"I
!
I
I
I
!
,
I
i
0 1
c ~ :%J I
OJ
!: '" m
z N:) 0
." ~ rn
~ -
<
r-.:l m
0
z ~ C
Z
"
,
-,J '//])[
~ .,. ~ ~ , " ~ \1>. tI . 9 . . . .1 /1
~'-'''--'------=--~\ ';o;~~tj /'6,,,
. . ! \
I \
J \
" i
~ 1
I
\
\
i
i
\
\~
\
\~
i ~
\CXl
.~
\~
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
I
\
\
,
,
.lANDSCAPE AII/b 5it!Pc
/'1 A //If TEA/ A.N /'j;- t ,4 5 E /\'! E,A/' r'
, ..
..
.. v
...
fl "':
~
.. -4.
.
.
.
t-<
;Il n!
"'t(j
!
-....!
ifl
it
I
'I
l>-...
~
i
i
i
I
I
! ...... "-
-~~,
-=:10- ! <J
\ i"
") I .
.1- i
J !
M:
'...: .
! ,
: j
~*
';
'l-
""6
SCALe hI,
1./
L-j~
\
I \
~~---'--~'~fL_"'~'~~"'~j'\
SIDEWALk ~
._-_._-,.~-_..~_._..~-~"'"..",._.,...,'_.....,',._...-.~'".~-~".~. .."
(; c::,.t2J
7(,7 g
;1 /) '.,," /\ ,_ / f. fi tJ
l--' L../ /\~ ,'-'-l L ~/v..' ~ T
7736 Coral Way
Dublin, CA 94568
27 October 2006
Ms. Kristi Bascom
Planning Division
Dublin City Offices
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: PA 06-052 Site Development Review
Dear Ms. Bascom,
I am writing in response to the Public Notice regarding the PA 06-052 Site Development
Review. I am a neighbor to Mr. and Mrs. Fowler and have several concerns about the
landscape alterations being made as part of this proposed project. I will outline some of
my specific concerns below, the bottom line is that this project should not be decided by
the office staff but brought before the Planning Commission and a public hearing should
be included as part of the process. All property owners funding the assessment district
associated with this project should be notified as part of this process and allowed to
comment.
As you know, this proposed project involves land that falls within the city's maintenance
assessment district. I have actively worked with the city for the past several years to help
make this assessment district as effective as possible. The landscaping related to the
assessment district has been an ongoing issue in the Dublin Hills Estates neighborhood
for nearly 20 years. We have worked hard to improve the landscaped areas within the
assessment district, provide a uniform appearance to the area, and maximize homeowner
value for the neighborhood as a whole. The areas of the assessment district that are near
Stagecoach Road have received a higher priority in the assessment district since it is a
main artery through the community for both vehicular as well as pedestrian traffic and all
the property owners funding the assessment district benefit.
As stated in the Public Notice, the landscaping improvements in this development project
are visible from Stagecoach Road. Although the improvements seem well done, they are
not consistent with the look and feel of the rest of the assessment district and
neighborhood. Fortunately the existing landscape conceals much of the proposed project.
ATTACHMENT 2
Although this helps currently, there is no assurance that the current landscaping will be
sustained over time. Perhaps the proposed project should include additional landscaping
consistent with the assessment district landscaping to conceal the improvements from
Stagecoach Road traffic..
The precedence that this project sets especially becomes a concern as more neighbors
decide to undertake similar projects. For example, I could invasion people that want to:
. Undertake agricultural projects (fruit trees, garden space, etc.)
. Develop the area for animals (dog runs, rabbit cages, etc)
. Take advantage of the view (decking, patios, spas, etc)
. Increase their working space (outbuildings, shops, or outdoor storage)
. Enlarge their back yard by moving their fence line to incorporate assessment district
land
Each individual project would hopefully be a well done improvement (although nothing
ensures that is the case) and viewed as better than the current landscaping; however, the
overall affect in the neighborhood is an inconsistent look and the appearance of a
piecemeal approach. This is especially true when one considers the limited landscaping
on some other slopes within the assessment district. Such improvements could be much
more obvious than those proposed in this project.
If the city is going to approve such projects in the assessment district areas, they need a
master plan and guidelines in place to ensure the end result will enhance the
neighborhood as a whole and add value to the homeowners in the sub-division.
Further, the city has a responsibility to the assessment district. This assessment district
already receives minimal funding and has difficulty making any forward progress in
enhancing the landscaping within the assessment district. Any proposed projects that
involve the assessment district must be managed such that they have no financial impact
to the assessment district currently or in the future.
Here are some example questions that come to mind when I think about protecting the
financial assets of the assessment district and avoiding any potential liabilities. Perhaps
these have already been addressed.. I list them here for you consideration:
1. Are the responsibilities and liabilities related to the assessment district clearly defined
between the homeowner, city, assessment district and contract staff responsible for
maintaining the assessment district for this project? Who is responsible for
maintaining that improved area? Has the assessment district's irrigation system been
properly evaluated to ensure the modifications made do not impact the remaining
landscaping on the slope?
2. What plans are in place to address the landscape improvements of this project in the
event that the current or future owners of the property provide inadequate
maintenance for the area or abandon the landscaping? Who bears the expense
associated with any actions that are taken by the city to restore the area to match the
surrounding landscaping.
3. The assessment district is responsible for maintaining the slopes and their integrity.
Does the assessment district retain that responsibility despite the fact that the
homeowner will be maintaining the landscaping in the approved area? What is the
current or future homeowner's responsibility if their improvements and associated
maintenance contribute the failure ofthe slope's integrity?
4. Given the ongoing performance problems we have had with third party landscape
contractors working in the assessment district, what liability do.es the city and/or
assessment district have should the landscape contractor damage or destroy the
proposed landscape improvements?
5. Since this project represents an anomaly to the assessment district, how are the agreed
upon responsibilities captured and communicated to current and future homeowners,
city staff, assessment district personnel and third party landscaping maintenance
crews?
Given the potential impact to the assessment district and the impact on the community
look and feel, I believe that the normal notification process for this type of project is
inadequate. Each property owner funding the assessment district should be notified of
this proposed project and have the opportunity to provide comments during the approval
process.
Although I am not directly opposed to this specific improvement project, I believe the
precedence it sets has the potential to have a large impact on the future direction of this
community. By allowing this project, I believe the Planning Commission is starting
down a "slippery slope" that could end in a poor result for the homeowners as a whole
and the local community. Unless the city is willing to establish guidelines for these
projects and actively manage them to ensure they provide the best result for the
community as a whole and protect the assessment district from any financial impact or
future liabilities, I believe that the city must decline the project.
Please let me know how you intend to proceed and what has been done to address the
issues discussed above. If you have any questions or concerns with regard to my
comments or proposed course of action, please feel free to contact me at (925) 997-2246.
I look forward to your response.
Very truly yours,
..Yl ('~/luY( JdG
Garth D. GelstJ
Page 1 of 1
Kristi Bascom
From: John Bertenshaw [jtbertenshaw@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 31,2006 1 :54 PM
To: Kristi Bascom
Subject: PA 06-052 Site Development Review
Kristi:
Just for the record, this is not part of the wine country. Dublin has set specific controls in place for the
Dublin Hills Assessment District, and that is the vehicle used to maintain landscape improvements along
StageCoach Road and the interior slopes.
Th reasons this project should not be approved are as follows:
1. It does not fit into the intent of the original landscape improvements. Wine would fall into
agricultural for crop purposes. No other fruit bearing trees have been planted in these areas that I am
aware of.
2. As discussed, the slope has been altered and benched which may be detrimental to erosion and/or
stability. Merely sending your maintenance people out to look at the "enhancements" as you call it, does
not warrant a professional technical review of the situation.
3. If this project is approved, then the area of these improvements should be deleted from the overall
assessment area that the residents are required to pay for.
I understand that the City will not maintain this area, therefore costs "should be" less.
Additionally, If the project is approved, it will certainly set a precedent and clearly send a message to
others, who in turn will start to "do their own thing" which again, is not the original intent of the
assessment district landscape improvements.
The whole process of asking someone to apply for a Site Development Permit after the alterations have
been installed illegally is ludicrous.
John Bertenshaw
1--==1- fQ 0 e.o {' ~ ~ MIJ
b w\Qllv'\ 6A q V\~(p~
Attachment 3
11/14/2006
::.>t~I' '.f!..r~'iw.'..'; I'~';, " I" .
~,:,-.}!..., '.'f~:'~ ':~ (\\~l~il';'~::( \"'"..' .' " ~ .
;, " ~ .' ~; r~.;" E Ok):"" "i" ,'\F'\ ..' · ...'. . · .
;.:::~;f. '." I.~:~~~\.~~;:}~.~jfl;~" k rnl ';; . ;jll~~~:vf;\":~"?:'
~ c~ .l" \ :~ ~ ~ f~\ 1'. \""'i"""" , .: "'. ""." "."i~' .~,,,..",..
l~~~ ;; ~.,:; ~:~',~ ~~ \~;i{ ;:;~ ,~- · ,_.;'~; ,;.;.. .;::~:,~ ,: ;; .:~;>; ,.,
'\ .. .{~t .., ." '< .1 /. 4 "1' je ;,.. ~.' .~'..., ..' ...'..;' -"'1\>x'" -', t,... , ."
,; ,,;;.(1.'" ;:)' '.',' ,,~k' ~.. w ~'". ~. , , .'..\ ~ .<. . ~. . ....". .., ..'~..~~~~: ",q'l :!:; : !:~- - -';x" -'
.\\\,,~\[w. .\1 :;.... . .\~..~;~-.:(, }I, .\t'j{. ..'1 .J. !'i ,'" .~" . . c ,'. . J." .-iJ'~~:.:," . .'i.' ....r.\I.;p,:lI...il-."'r <=
\\ .'!t ~,'. 1:"'\' ~\ f"''' ., ,- ." ....-.\ /.:' " . -'" :. .. .' . - .,.,,- ~;,~'"
._ ".,_," " \. ." "._ ,_.... rr- ' . ; ,. . . ......" i,. . .... " ..; <t" . ·
;., \'.''''1.''''. ,'-"'1 ,~.; ';.. ;.' " .iF/'+~:' '.' , . '.!.'. . ...:;,.: .: ",' ;: .', : 1.0.':':' ;,~"':'" \ ~ .
.. :\~,r ",,,')>,, ,. :~~.\\, ~ ,} "j~''Ol,:~ .;;:;;-~,.. "'," . .,., .pI'''' .~ 4\ . . " ..~'S,., .' ..'.
,'~ '.~~,~*'\~tJ~t(~~::,,,:~~~ c,'~~i"~~tp,:;{.::~t-\;~r~\~~"j' ~;((;:'''','.i \ ....:It. : 'i." .Y":"'~ ':'4 ...,..-,' ?,,,, :.' ,,,,,,,,
~..' >..,. ...., "l' ,;, \" ,.. ~,,~ "1'.,,." ,. "'f"""". ~ ,", " .....' · ~-" ' . '.-
'- I~,,\,~~t... .,.~I;'~. ;'\ --,:f' ';, .....";.;....,,,. ,.v....~"""'-".,.w. ~.> .' ..'- '" .,...<' - =
.,.. n, "e:;'" .. .'" . . tl ,,:, .,..: :,' .......,. .,. ... 1\..'.1',,-",....," ",.",. ~.... ..,..,. ",,,,,, " · . .-
. '. ,<.. \ "'~ . ''\:~'" t. v'.. '<h:' '. . <:('" r .' ,. ''',~.:'. '11 .. ,::'\'", .,., .'. '. :,,"" "'".. ..' ........ - .~. -.<K M._ -..... ;'. '
'-' .,:,;;,,,,..: '. ""~,, r./ _.,' .~,' ,'. '. .: .:. ........!.\., ...;",,' ,..~ ,",.\.,. ,,"~..~>>., ".> ...""'...... ,.'1".' ....;..
,I. .'t-~~I ti!';, ~ \fi-/: J.' i ."t.;:~ (~..:; 1-; ,.t/;,;~~' ,[ .';l. ;;!;;;:~.' '; 'f:if."~W'i~1 if: r::,';;", ;'";, :' ,; ','Jq.;
~ <i~;J ."i3~.;'; ~~: .:;' 2' .. ~ ';,l;f~~)\!';~i'j,i ";:t:'i{;,(i~t~~W:!!f;'~:!.Y ,. 'l(J"~\:i" l~ .J>
", ';! y~ )'." ". '\ .~. I.' <":5.;;'<,' ';-,;;,-.:. .;.:'" $\" ,;-. d: . ". 'l:~ ,y 'rJ"'" ,.~*",~ . · '},;i .,....:..' " -.' ,.,i., ,
. ~i: i .' ;/!:i'!;;;.li:~f~:~~"j~:}~':^:P:' '~':;~, ;:' ;.-~.;::};~'~t~t~\' ~~t~:q;;;l~: ':~:~::' · ,~~ ..:' ~;~::{:::'~
. '. . .. I /~.;\ \,,~~~"<;; --:"%r' ,< ," '.,- ~'....'.. "', <!f;;~~:'ifo! "........ ..~ '. " .'. .....: <, . . . ,t.'- ." . . ".'.'''' , .
~~;1g~2:;: '~f~,~~t~:~r:~t;~<:1,"t ,,-~.. :~.;;. ~ '. ': ~;i;;.;t::': . .,.:~~t
'.; !,tY;r'~ .(::.'J~\~': ;}~ .i; ~\' I ~,.:' ,;'//t,.:;.N<f,. !Jic;;'!;:r':;: ~ &~~.~"",,?,~~~~j: '.,:;...:.';:' '. ',~:. ;.~";~~:
. ....r.......,..".N ...,..... :",.",.;. .,; "." '~. "'*'. "''',c.' '1;"~'~' ..... 4"'''''''''':-' .:,,~.:_..";.;r-
".''';'_'' ','" ".~.... " .,...,., .,. ".",..,,,,,.,,. "'~~. ". ....i '':;'~'_'''' '~~~~"!(~':~': !.:~;~K1
. "._ ., ' _~ ',"" n'" , ,'d" ".. ".'<' ,. '" ,,;., .,.... ,. .... ,....- .~- ",. .'
.,., ., ..' . .... ,'w .." . .... .',' ,...,.,. '~#' $-<" . .', ...~..., ,..."".... M~" "
.....:-. .::. . . :. , ",.,. . ~"': . ..." . . .~ ('.,I,i;l".';....' _ ~.k :~"'..~%" . ,.H d<c1€::..c.,;::1~ .,..,..,:;;\ ·
.' " . } ",.or. ,.,. " ,r.:,';/"J; .J"~ . . .....;:'1l-~~ ""'.rM.. --.,,;: .t.~ ~,'i c.' ~ - ~.'...., '~~i ~.- "~ ......~. ,..",A..;.,J<~
'. '" . .,'. : N<i. ,'.. . ~;~" . Ar..,.. ...., ,r' '. ..:",: ...,... :($."'C'f,:r,.: Z .. ,,,,:~':"';:. . ~~;. '. . ':t.. .~ "'!:.<\A..
-" '~"'.'"&""~ .., ,..," ..~<'!\ic..J!'....,< . .< .w", . .,.,.".."."".~.~~ o;:,,,,~.' ~~~ '.- .::.~...", '~'.i
".." _ r r,;,,"" ....,,'" '7. ". 'l(,W~' ,,:'" ". ...",.;~ .. '<1.......ii..... ..""",,""" ~;:ii:~'''~ ~ ,... .-.'" - .. ~~"
::;'@i$:';;'iifi.;~j,;.>!, ";:t%:;.'r1;.~':.:" '1.i."'.!ff"'f~'i'{~~'!:!tt~,*i~~~~~'Jifj.~..t~'5"''ii;'';';~
~.... ~""..~. .~. '. ...... .,,,.._.,r,. .."> ".~.." .",. ~,.~"~,.. '."~"i... '" ,......,....~., ~"".*~ . .=- . - ...,.
.F...,;..,. "c",~j.~,"'~"""~.J.-,~;. : -; :l{.;.....\.'-~::.1( ~....,..,."":-'i"~,...." ,....". ",.;.~."--''''' -".. ,r"" .....~:. '.~. v.""... ...-"..' " ·
.... .., .,."..' _ ..,' "."'" .."" ". " " . ~,n- " .". "... ,..'" . . ..",,-" . - . . -. . ..."'-' .
. ~. ~.I ,.,." '."' ._.' '. C .... , .. '.. ""..'''''l.''' ..~.,..,,,, ~"''''. ,.....'".. · .:1'"..; - ",""'''~ "...".' ."..
~ ,,,/.1;.: ..= .~.: -:: ''';. ~ . .. :..... -':"'" ".. ,.~,.;; 'f-", 'f~ .;C..-\;;~;.~~.;- . ..
.":l": ~. ."C",......~..~4"". -..,...- ." .' -.' " . . ~~".<
~ . .' . -, ~'<""'- '.
__.. ~,_._.. ..'''''11-
View from Stagecoach Road
of subject property with vine
plantings
"::'
,
_I
.
\1 I
Typical view of Stagecoach
Road landscape with vines
visible in the top right corner
. -:;:
_ . r
~.:~.:.~.....t.MO-_-~ ~~~~~~_ ~
-- -:.........:. -... -
-::.
Attachment 4