HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-055 WieserResidence03-25-2003AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: MARCH 25, 2003
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PA 02-055, Wieser Site Development Review
for aSingle-Family Residence on an existing lot (Lot 7) at 11191
Brittany Lane
(Report Prepared by: Andy Byde, Senior Planner)(/
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Site Development Review Resolution;
2. Project plans;
3. Approved Heritage Tree Protection Plan prepared by
HortScience, Inc.;
4. Letter from HortScience, Dated February 11, 2003, regarding
the Tree Protection Plan;
5. Letter from Jeffrey Gamboni, dated November 13, 2002,
regarding pruning of Oak tree on Lot 7;
6. Heritage Tree Ordinance;
7. Previously Approved Plans for home on Lot 7;
8. Letter from Wiesers regarding tree purning.
RECOMMENDATION: 1.
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 7} at
11191 Brittany Lane, created by Tract Map 5073. The single-family residence is proposed to be
3,587 square feet in size with a garage that is 1,057 square feet in size.
BACKGROUND:
Hatf eld Development Approval:
On August 12, 1985, the City Council approved PA 85-035.3 (Resolution 82-85), Hatfield
Development Corporation Investec, 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
7 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO: PA File
Applicant
Mailing list
G:IPA#\2002102-OSS1Brittany Lane Lot 7 PC SDR Staff Report final.DOC
ITEM NO. ,
The proposed project 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.
Brittany LaneBlack Mountain Development (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 7 that was approved by the City Council as part of the Brittany Lane/Black
Mountain Development (PA 00-009) was 3,410 square feet and had a 662 square foot garage (see
Attachment 7 for copies of the previously approved site plan, floor plans and elevations). The
home had the following setbacks from property lines: front 20-feet; side 20-feet; side 10-feet; and
rear 94-feet.
Developer o Brittany Lane/Black Mountain transferred interest to Lot 7:
The Developer of Brittany Lane/Black Mountain transferred interest to Lot 7 to Mr. and Mrs.
Wieser in July of 2002. On September 5, 2002, a Heritage Oak Tree at the subject property was
pruned in violation of the Conditions of Approval for the Black Mountain Site Development
Review. Specifically, Condition 90 and Condition 93 were violated when a 10" limb was removed
from the Oak tree. Condition 90 states that pruning of Heritage Trees shall be completed by a
certified arborist in the presence of the City's arborist. Condition 93 prohibits any work within the
Tree Protection Zone. Although the trimming was completed by a certified arborist (See
Attachment 5 from Jeffery Gamboni regarding the pruning of the tree), the City's arborist was not
present and the work was done within the Tree Protection Zone and therefore the pruning of the
Oak violated the conditions of approval. City Code Enforcement Staff citied the Wiesers for
violating the Conditions of Approval because such is an infraction and punishable by a fine of
$100 plus court costs. Included in Attachment 8 is a statement from the Wiesers regarding the
pruning.
ANALYSIS:
Con ormity of Project with City Council Resolution 82 - 85:
The City Council Resolution 82-85, an SDR approval, set forth conditions of approval, which
established 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) as well as a procedure to deviate from the development
standards. The conditions that specifically apply to this project are listed below with statements
regarding project conformity:
2
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; northwesterly side property line, 21 feet, where 5 feet is the
minimum; southeasterly side property line, 5 feet, where 5 feet is the minimum; and rear property
line property line, 101 feet, where 20 feet is the minimum. The project, as proposed, would have a
lot coverage of 18.2%, 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).
Figure 1.
However, Condition 6 also provided a "deviation and/or refinement of these standards may
be considered as part of the Site Development Review (SDR) process covering these lots."
A large majority of the lots (55 of 64 lots) within the Hatfield Development approval
utilized either flat pad or stepped pad foundations. The other 9 lots (of which one is the
3
subject property) are lots characterized by no building pads and steep slopes. Atypical
two-story residence on a flat or stepped pad foundation can easily conform to the 25-foot
height limit. A residence on a steeply down-sloping lot can conform to the 25-foot limit by
placing the majority of the living space closest to the street (through the use of a story
placed above the garage) and limiting construction on the steepest portion of the lot. The
result of this type of construction is that it increases the height appearance from the street
level and increases the view impacts to homes located across the street (See figure 2).
25'
25' P/L
Section showing two-story home conforming to 25' height limit
Figure 2
Staff worked with the applicant to site the residence as low on the lot as possible in order to
maintain existing views from the public right-of--way. The proposed residence is designed
to appear from the street as single story home. At the street level the home measures 13-
feet above existing natural grade (as measured perpendicular from grade). However, at the
rear of the house, the height measures 32-feet above existing natural grade. Although the
residence is in excess of the height limit as described in Condition 6, the home will have a
lower profile from the public right-of--way and will have significantly less impact to views
from adjacent residences located across the street, along the north side of Brittany Lane
(See Figure 3 for illustration). Additionally, the view of the rear of the proposed residence
from down slope areas is very limited given the existing topography and the existing dense
stand of Oak trees located on and off-site.
Staff feels that a deviation from the development standards is appropriate given the
minimization of view impacts from the public right-of--way and the existing residences
located on Brittany Lane as well as the limited visibility of the rear of the proposed home
from off-site views. The project is well designed, well sited and, as conditioned, is
consistent with the required findings contained within the Site Development Review
Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 8.104.070).
Additionally, the City Council approved the previous home on the subject property with a
higher overall height than the proposed residence. Overall height can be measured two
ways: (1) overall height relative to the ground level, this is the methodology Condition 6
established; and (2) overall height as measured above mean sea level, this methodology
establishes an exact location on the earth, regardless of the location of the surface below.
In evaluating the project, Staff utilized both methodologies to evaluate the overall height of
the proposed residence. While the previous project was approved with a roof ridge
attaining an elevation of 625-feet above sea level, the proposed residence will have a
maximum roof ridge elevation of 624-feet above sea level. A recommended condition of
project approval will require a licensed Land Surveyor to certify that the finished floor of
4
the room labeled "Foyer" does not exceed 609-feet and the highest point of the roof ridge
does not exceed 624-feet above sea level. This condition will ensure that the proposed
residence will be constructed as shown on the plans.
25'
....... ... ~• - '•~2'
P/L
25'
Section showing one-story home at street level
Figure 3.
Skirt Height. This condition applies a maximum skirt height of 9-feet as measured from
natural grade. A skirt is the area below the lowest living floor which is utilized for support
of a structure. As a result of keeping the proposed residence as low as possible, the
resulting skirt height will be less than one-foot in height.
Grading. Condition 6 sets forth a height limit as relative to the existing natural grade, as
established by the approved grading plan for the original project. There was concern raised
in the past regarding the exact location of grade after the site was graded pursuant to the
approved grading plan. The site was graded between 1981 and 1985. ENGEO Incorporated
is the geotechnical engineering company that prepared the geotechnical engineering reports
for the Hatfield-Investec subdivision including the subject property, as well as the other
Rolling Hills and Brittany Lane Lots (all originally part of the Black Mountain
Development project). The City retained Kleinfelder, Inc. to perform peer reviews of the
geotechnical engineering reports for the Black Mountain Development project. That firm
determined that the grading of the subject lots was done properly and meets current
standard of engineering practice.
A field evaluation of the lots on Brittany Lane was conducted for the Black Mountain
Development project and determined that moderate amounts of fill were placed on the
Brittany Lane lots in 1985. It was determined that an average of 2-feet of fill was placed on
the subject property (Lot 7). The fill is relatively shallow adjacent the sidewalk and
increases with distance from the sidewalk. The fill terminates in a lip and then falls rapidly
down to the original ungraded surface of the ground. There may have been some
undocumented placement of fill since 1985 by persons unknown. A recommended
condition of project approval would require that any undocumented fill be removed during
the grading for this project. This will result in the re-creation of the 1985 ground surface
that was approved by the grading permit at that time. As such Natural Grade would be as
determined in 1985.
As a result of keeping the house as low as possible on the slope, reducing the mass of the
home to a single-story at the street level and requiring conditions of approval to ensure the
home is constructed consistent with the design plans, Staff finds the proposed project is
consistent with Condition 6.
5
Condition 7. This condition requires all fencing and retaining walls shall be reviewed and
approved by the Community Development Director. The applicant is proposing a series of 3-foot
high walls in the rear yard to attain a level yard; the walls will continue and align with the retaining
walls being proposed by the adjacent property owner (Lot 6). A recommended condition of project
approval would require that the applicant coordinate all construction and placement of the
retaining walls with the adjacent property owner to the east. Additionally, the final design,
materials, and location of all fencing and retaining walls shall be subject to review and approval by
the Community Development Director, therefore Staff finds the proposed project is consistent with
the Condition 7.
Condition 12. The condition states that Site Development Review is required for the custom lots.
Additionally, the condition required that grading shall be minimized to the greatest extent possible
while creating reasonably sized, functional exterior living areas (padded yard areas and/or raised
deck areas). Although the Applicant could construct the home as approved by the Black Mountain
Project, the Applicant is requesting to construct a different home and therefore a subsequent Site
Development Review is being required for this project. Grading will be limited to the placement
of the residences and driveways on the lots. A flat or stepped pad will not utilized, but rather
limited grading will occur and the foundation will be placed on a framework of piers and grade
beams. This will minimize grading impacts to the lots. Functional padded exterior living areas are
proposed in the front and rear yards and in raised deck areas. Staff finds the proposed project is
consistent with the Condition 12.
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 horticultural report dated July 5, 1985, was originally prepared by Douglas Hamilton for the
Hatfield Development Approval. As part of the subsequent project, the Brittany Lane/Black
Mountain Site Development Review, a Tree Protection Plan (Attachment 3) was prepared by
HortScience. The Tree Protection Plan was then peer-reviewed for the City by Jeffrey Gamboni, a
Certified Arborist and Licensed Landscape Architect. Mr. Gamboni reviewed the Tree Protection
Plan and determined that it is consistent with accepted practices and that the proposed construction
as part of the Brittany Lane/Black Mountain Site Development Review would not harm tree health
(see Attachment 5). The City Council reviewed and approved the Tree Protection Plan as part of
the Brittany Lane/Black Mountain project Site Development Review. HortScience submitted a
letter dated February 11, 2003, which stated that they had reviewed the design of the Wieser
residence and determined it is consistent with the Tree Protection Plan prepared and approved for
the Brittany LaneBlack Mountain project (Attachment 4).
The requirements of the Tree Protection Plan are discussed in more detail below. In addition, the
Tree Protection Plan states that no structures shall be located within 5-feet of the drip line of the
trees located on-site. As stated above a limb on Tree #346 was removed by the Wieser's Arborist,
effectively modifying the drip line of the tree. To measure the 5-foot distance from the drip line,
Staff utilized the drip line, prior to the September pruning, by checking a Topographic Survey
prepared on July 27 of 2002, by Bruce Starr, licensed Land Surveyor, against the project plans (see
Attachment 2).
6
A recommended condition of approval would require that all proposed pruning shall be approved
by the City and completed by a Certified Arborist and Tree Worker in the presence of the City's
selected arborist 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.
A recommended condition of approval would also require that 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 the City 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.
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 6, 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 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.
PROJECT DESIGN:
The proposed residence is well designed and sited. Staff met with the applicant and designer on
several occasions and refined the design of the residence. The 3,587 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 from the north side of Brittany Lane. A hip roof has been incorporated into the
design to minimize impacts to views. The height of the home when viewed from the sidewalk on
Brittany Lane would measure 13-feet, therefore, the home would have a street presence of a single-
story home. Landscaping plans reviewed by Staff will have adequate quantities and qualities of
7
trees and shrubs and would provide an attractive landscape presence on Brittany Lane. The project
is well designed, well sited and, as conditioned, is consistent with the required findings contained
within the Site Development Review Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 8.104.070).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
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.
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.
8
GENERAL INFORMATION:
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY OWNER:
Jeffrey and Michelle Wieser
18937 Madison Avenue
Castro Valley, CA 94546
LOCATION/ ASSESSORS
PARCEL NUMBER:
EXISTING ZONING
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
11191 Brittany Lane
941-2775-36
R-1
Single Family Residential
9
RESOLUTION N0.03 - xx
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING PA 02-055 WIESSER SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR ASINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE ON AN EXISTING LOT (LOT 7) AT 11191 BRITTANY LANE
WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Weisser have requested approval of a Site Development Review for a single
family home on an existing lots at 11191 Brittany Lane; 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 project is consistent in all respects with the Heritage Tree Ordinance; and
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on March 25, 2003;
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 RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
make the following findings and determinations regarding said proposed Site Development Review:
A. The approval of this application (PA 02-055) is consistent with the intent/purpose of Section
8.104 (Site Development Review) of the Zoning Ordinance.
~~'TACHMEI~T ~
B. 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.
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 because all applicable
regulations will have been met.
D. Impacts to views have been addressed by sensitive design and siting of the proposed single-
family residence.
E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed in the project through the use
of pier and grade beams and by minimal grading.
F. The approval of this application, as conditioned, is in conformance with regional transportation
plans.
G. 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.
H. 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.
I. 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.
J. 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 Weisser Site Development Review is consistent with the intent of applicable subdivision
regulations and related ordinances.
B. The design and improvements of the Weisser Site Development Review is consistent with the
Dublin General Plan polices as they relate to the subject property in that it is asingle-family
residential development consistent with the Single-Family Residential Designation of the Dublin
General Plan.
C. The Weisser Site Development Review is consistent with the Heritage Tree Ordinance, City Council
Resolution 82-85 and with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
2
D. The homeswill 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.
E. 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 02-055 to construct a single
family residence on Lot 7 of Block 1 Tract 5073 and further identified as Assessors Parcel Number 941-2775-
36, and as generally depicted by materials labeled Attachment 1, stamped "approved" and on file in the City of
Dublin Planning Department. This approval shall conform to the project plans submitted by Randy Jones dated
received March 10, 2003, the Heritage Tree Protection Plan for this project dated received December 4, 2000
and the Topographic Survey by Bruce Starr dated received January 31, 2003, by 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
departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance with the Conditions of Approval: [PL] Planning,
fBl Building, 1P0] Police, [PW] Public Works, [ADM] Administration/City Attorne~[FIN] Finance, [PCSj
Parks and Community Services, [F~ Alameda County Fire Dept., [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District,
1C0] Alameda County 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, 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.
3
Responsible Agency: Various
When Required: Various times, but no later than Issuance of Building Permits
3. 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
4. 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
5.
6.
8
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, and the Tree Protection Plan for this project.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: .Issuance of Building Permits and On-going
Solid Waste/Recycling. Applicant/Developer shall comply with the City's solid waste management and
recycling requirements.
Responsible Agency: ADM,
When Required: On-going
Water Quality Requirements. All development shall meet the water quality requirements of the City
of Dublin's NPDES permit and the Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program.
Responsible Agency: PW, PL
Required By: Issuance of Grading Permit
Required By: Issuance of Grading Permit
9. 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 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.
Required By: Through completion of Improvements and Occupancy of the last
Building
4
DRAINAGE/GRADING
10. Grading, drainage and improvement plan. The applicant shall obtain and Grading / Sitework Permit
from the Public Works Department for site grading and improvements.
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. Building Permit for Retaining Walls: The applicant shall obtain a separate Building Permit from the
Building Department for all retaining walls over three feet in height (which may be the total height of
the stepped walls depending on the horizontal spacing).
Responsible agency: Building Department /Public Works
When required: prior to construction of the retaining wall.
13. 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: Public Works
When required: prior to construction of sanitary sewer and water improvements.
14. Permission to grade on adjacent lot: The applicant shall coordinate all construction and placement of
the retaining walls with the adjacent property owner to the east and obtain written permission from the
property owner for any grading or work to be performed on the adjacent property.
Responsible agency: Public Works
When required: prior to grading or construction on the adjacent property.
15. Undocumented fill. Any undocumented fill on the project site shall be removed during the grading for
this project to reduce the level of the ground consistent with the 1985 ground surface that was approved
by the grading permit at that time.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permits.
16. 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. The Plan shall include as a
minimum the following information;
• 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 trunks and drip lines (note
the drip lines to be accurately shown per the locations on the Topographic Survey prepared by
Bruce W Starr),
• 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
o Limits of cut and fill area including the "Daylite" line where the proposed grading
conforms to the existing ground.
o Finish floor elevations.
o Sufficient finish surface elevations on all pavements to show slope and drainage,
o Top, toe and slope of all banks,
o Top, bottom and height of all retaining walls,
o Quantities of cut and fill,
5
• Proposed drainage improvement including;
o Location and type of all inlets
o Elevations of grate and pipe inverts at all storm drain structures
o Storm drain pipes size, slope and material.
o Location and detail for the outlet dissipater
o Direction of surface flow,
• Construction notes, sections and details as required,
• Proposed grading and improvements on Lot 6 within 10 feet of the common property line,
• Location and elevation for the benchmark to be used for construction,
• Signature blocks for the Public Works Director, Geotechnical Engineer and the DSRSD.
Responsible agency: Public Works
When required: prior to Grading /Sitework Permit
17. Erosion Control Plan: The applicant shall prepare an Erosion Control Plan for review and approval of
the Public Works Director.
Responsible agency: Public Works
When required: prior to Grading /Sitework Permit
18. Geotechnical Report: 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: Public Works
When required: prior to Grading /Sitework Permit
19. 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
20. Grading and Drainage Design: The grading and drainage shall be designed for the following;
• No surface drainage shall cross the side property lines,
• All retaining walls on the property line shall be concrete or masonry,
• Grading in all areas shall be designed so that there is an emergency surface release of drainage
should the underground drainage system fail,
• All drainage from the developed area of the lot shall be collected and conveyed to a drainage
dissipater in the rear of the lot or to a thru-the-curb drain on the street frontage,
• The bottom tiered retaining wall shall end prior to the property line with lot 6.
Note that the above may require additional drainage inlets on the south side of the house than shown on
the preliminary site, drainage & utility plan.
Responsible agency: Public Works
When required: prior to Grading /Sitework Permit
6
21. Driveways: The driveways approaches shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Detail
SD-306. The driveway slope between the back of walk and the garage finish floor shall be less that 12%.
If the slope exceeds 12% the driveway profile shall be constructed in accordance to City Standard Detail
CD-305. Any portion of the driveway over 20% shall have special surface treatment to increase
traction.
Responsible agency: Public Works
When required: prior to Grading / Sitework Permit
22. Erosion Control Landscape: The landscape and irrigation plans shall be design to prevent long term
erosion of the site.
Responsible agency: Public Works
When required:
UTILITIES
23. Utilities: The applicant shall secure all utility services to the site, including but not limited to electricity,
telephone, cable television, water, sewer and other required utility services in accordance with the
requirements and specifications of the utility company.
Responsible agency: Public Works
When required:
CONSTRUCTION
24. Hours of Operation: All construction activities shall be limited to take place between the hours 7:30
AM and 6:00 PM Monday through Friday, except as otherwise approved by the Public Works Director.
Responsible agency: Public Works
When required: during construction
25. Erosion control: The contractor is responsible for all measure necessary to prevent erosion of the site.
As a minimum the erosion and sedimentation control measures show on the Erosion Control Plan shall
be in placed from October 1st to April 1st
Responsible agency: Public Works
When required: during construction
26. 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
27. Parking: Construction and workers vehicles shall not park on the north side of Brittany Lane. Double
parking is not allowed.
Responsible agency: Public Works
When required: during construction
28. 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;
• All construction equipment shall be fitted with noise muffling devices,
• Construction equipment shall not be left idling while not in use,
• Radios and loudspeakers shall not be used outside of the building.
Responsible agency: Public Works
When required: during construction
29. Trash and Debris Control: Measures shall be taken to contain 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.
7
Responsible agency: Public Works
When required: during construction
30. 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
31. 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
PARKS
34. 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
35. Exterior colors and materials. Exterior colors and materials shall be subject to final review and
approval by the Community Development Director and shall be shown on construction plans.
Responsible Agency: PL
Required By: Prior to building permit
36. 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
37. 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.
38. Finished Floor and Peak of Roof Elevation. A licensed Land Surveyor shall certify that the finished
floor of the room labeled "Foyer" does not exceed 609-feet and the highest point of the roof ridge does
not exceed 624-feet utilizing vertical datum that is subject to review and approval by the Director of
Public Works.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to Close-in Inspection and prior to occupancy.
40. Increase in height of residences prohibited. The increase in height of residences in this project
beyond that originally approved by the City is prohibited.
LANDSCAPING
41. 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), stamped and approved by the Director of Public Works and the
Director of Community Development. The plan should generally conform to the landscaping plan and
must reflect any revised project design shown on the Site Development Review with a later date.
Responsible Agency: PL
Required By: Prior to building permit
42. 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
43. Installation. Prior to final occupancy approval, all required landscaping and irrigation, shall be
installed.
Responsible Agency: PL, B
Required By: Prior to occupancy
44. Drought-tolerant and/or native species. The landscape design and construction shall emphasize
drought-tolerant and/or native species wherever possible.
Responsible Agency: PL
Required By: Prior to occupancy
POLICE SECURITY
45. 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.
Responsible Agency: B, PO
Required By: Prior to Occupancy of first residence
FIRE PROTECTION
46. 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: Ongoing
47. Fireground operation area. The rear yard shall have a minimum 10 foot of fireground operation area.
Responsible Agency: F
Required By: Ongoing
48. Rear yard accessibility. The rear yard shall be accessible from both sides of the structure.
Responsible Agency: F
Required By: Ongoing
49. Roofing material. The roofing material shall conform to the City of Dublin Fire Area specifications
which require Class A or better.
Responsible Agency: F
Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits
50. Wildfire Management Plan. Site development shall be in accordance with the City of Dublin Wildfire
9
Management Plan.
Responsible Agency: F
Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits
51. Water supply. Water supply shall be adequate to support required fire flow.
Responsible Agency: F
Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits
52. Fire Hydrants. The applicant shall construct any required new fire hydrants in streets to City and
Alameda County Fire Department standards. The Developer shall comply with applicable Alameda
County fire Department, Public Works Department, Dublin Police Service, Alameda County Flood
Control District Zone 7 and Dublin San Ramon Services District requirements.
Responsible Agency: F, PW
Required By: Prior to Occupancy of adjacent building
53. Delivery of any combustible material. Prior to the delivery of any combustible material for storage on
the site, fire hydrants, water supply, and roadways shall be installed and sufficient water storage and
pressure shall be available to the site. Approved roadway shall be first lift of asphalt.
Responsible Agency: F
Required By: Prior to delivery of any combustible material
DSRSD
54. 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
55. 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
56. 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, aone-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
10
57. 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
58. The Applicant/Property Owner shall hold DSRSD, its Board of Directors, commissions, employees, and
agents of DSRSD harmless and indemnify and defend the same from any litigation, claims, or fines
resulting from completion of the project.
Responsible Agency: DSRSD.
Required By: Ongoing
59. 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
60. 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
61. 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
62. 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
71. To apply for building permits, the Applicant shall submit thirteen (13) 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
72. 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
11
73. Postal authorities. The developer shall confer with the local postal authorities to determine the 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:
74. A statement shall 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. The precise language of the deed restriction shall be submitted by the
applicant and shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit.
75. A Tree Protection Zone shall be established 5-feet away from the edge of the drip lines of trees #346 -
351. No grading, excavation, construction or storage of materials shall occur within this zone. Any
modifications must be approved and monitored by the consulting arborist.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit.
76. 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
77. 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
78. 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.
79. 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
80. 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.
12
81. All pruning, including after completion of construction and occupancy, shall be completed by a Certified
Arborist and Tree Worker in the~resence of the City's arborist 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.
82. 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 (2133.1) and Pruning (A300).
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit and Through Construction.
83. Prior to work the contractor must meet with 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.
84. 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.
85. 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
86. 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
87. 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
13
88. 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
89. Equipment shall be serviced and fueled outside the tree canopy to avoid accidental spills in the root area.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
90. 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
When Required: Ongoing
91. 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
92. 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 City's selected arborist. 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 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 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
93. 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
94. 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. The Fire Marshall
has indicated the Heritage Trees conform with the Wildfire Management Plan and that no Heritage Tree
on the project site will be removed pursuant to the Wildfire Management Plan.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
14
95. 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
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 25th day of March, 2003.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST
Planning Manager
15
..
~~~
i II,m,
x
~7~
~i~~!.
~~~i~~
,I~ ~~,
/ .„,
:,
Ir ~i~mi
,~
'~~ ~~"
~"~
~' +
~~~ ,ail'
~~~~
~,~~~ ~~ -
TM~„
~i ~h 'ill~',i
~~ r~
~a
i
f
1.~
~~"
~ _ 1n
_ ~ ~: ~
_ r~
~,
.;
._ ~ ~
H
INC.
Heritage Tree Protection Plan
Brittany Drive Estates, Tract 5073
Dublin, CA
Citgr of Dnbiin
x #'
~~.~~ ~ ~~
Res~ci~iion teo.: 2 b -~ t
Resolution E3ate: ~ ~u'' l ° J
PREPARED FOR:
Black Mountain Development ~
12 Crow Canyon Ct., Suite 207
San Ramon CA 94583
PREPARED BY:
HortScience, Inc. ~
4125 Mohr Ave., Suite F
Pleasanton CA 945fi6
February 2001
a CCCO~IC~
FEB ~ ~ 2001
cmr of oueuro
euu.ol~ca iNSPECT~ oar.
ATTACHMENT 3
G
Heritage Tree Protection Plan
Brittany Drive Estates, Tract 5073
Dublin, CA
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction and Overview 2
Survey Methods 2
Description of Trees 3
Suitability for Preservation 4
Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations for Preservation 6
Tree Preservation Guidelines 7
List of Tables and Exhibits
Table 1. Condition ratings and frequency of occurrence for trees 3
Table 2. Suitability for Preservation ~
Attachments
Tree Survey Map
Tree Protection Fencing Plan
Tree Survey Form
Heritage Tree Pi i Plan, Brittany Drive, T. 4073, Dublin HortScience, Inc.
February 12, 2001 Page 2
Introduction and Overview
Black Mountain Development is proposing to develop six lots located on Brittany Drive
and one lot on Rolling Hills Dr. in Dublin, CA. The project encompasses portions on the
native oak woodland. The Tentative Tract map was approved by the City Council of
Dublin in 1985 in Resolution No. 82-85. That document requires preparation of a
horticultural report if project grading is performed within 25 feet of the dripline of trees.
Since that time a Heritage Tree Ordinance (No. 29-99) has been enacted that requires
preparation of a Heritage Tree Protection Plan. HortScience, Inc was asked to prepare
that report. This report provides the following information:
1. A survey of trees within the project boundaries.
2. An assessment of the impacts of constructing the proposed project on the trees.
3. Guidelines for tree preservation and protection during the design, construction
and maintenance phases of development.
Survey Methods
Trees were surveyed in July 2000. The survey included trees greater than 6" in diameter,
located within the project boundaries. The survey procedure consisted of the following
steps:
1. Identifying the tree as to species;
2. Tagging each tree with an identifying number;
3. Measuring the trunk diameter at a point 54" above grade.
4. Evaluating the health and structural. stability using a scale of 1-5:
5 - A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptoms of
disease, with good structure and form typical of the species.
4 -Tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, minor
structural defects that could be corrected.
3 -Tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback,
thinning of crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that
might be mitigated with regular care.
2-Tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large
branches, significant structural defects that cannot be abated.
1-Tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and/or trunk; most
of foliage from epicormics; extensive structural defects that cannot be
abated.
0 -Dead tree.
Heritage Tree Pr. ., IPlan, Brittany Drive, T. 4073, Dublin l HortScience, Inc.
February 12, 2001 Page 3
5. Rating the suitability for preservation as "good", "fair" or "poor„. Suitability for
preservation considers the health, age and structural condition of the tree,
and its potential to remain an asset to the site for years to come.
Good: Trees with good health and structural stability that have the
potential for longevity at the site.
Fair. Trees with somewhat declining health and/or structural defects
than can be abated with treatment. The tree will require more
intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life
span than those in `good' category.
Poor. Tree in poor health or with significant structural defects that
cannot be mitigated. Tree is expected to continue to decline,
regardless of treatment. The species or individual may have
characteristics that are undesirable for landscapes, and generally
are unsuited for use areas.
6. Recording the tree's location on a map.
Description of Trees
Twenty (20) trees were evaluated. Descriptions of each tree are found in the Tree
Survey (see Attachments). A summary is provided in Table 1. Tree locations are shown
by tag number on the Tree Survey Map (see Attachments).
The trees on the subject property are a portion of a small woodland associated with a
drainage course south of Brittany Dr. ,Two oak species were present on the south-facing
slope: the evergreen coast live oak, which comprised 20% of the population and the
deciduous valley oak with 80% of the population (Table 1). Two of the oaks were on a
west-facing slope off Rolling Hills Dr.
As is normal for native oak woodlands, a range of tree condition was present, from
excellent to poor. Tree condition ranged from excellent to poor, although most (80%)
were in the good to fair category. Most were large, mature individuals. Tree size ranged
from 14" to 61"diameter single-trunked trees. Average trunk diameter was 28". There
were six multiple-trunked trees with individual trunks ranging in size from 6" to 40".
Table 1: Condition ratings and frequency of occurrence of trees at T. 5073
Common Name Scientific Name Condition Rating No. of
Good Fair Poor Trees
(4-5) (3) (1-2)
Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia
Valley oak Quercus lobata
1 1 2 4 (20%)
7 7 2 16 (80%)
Total
8 8 4 20
40% 40% 20% 100%
Heritage Tree Pry .!Plan, Brittany Drive, T. 4073, Dublin HortScience, Inc.
February 12, 2001 Page 4
Heritage Trees
City of Dublin Ordinance No. 29-99 identifies "Heritage Trees" as being any of the
following:
1. Any oak, bay, cypress, maple, redwood, buckeye and sycamore tree having a
trunk of 24" or more in diameter measured 4.5' 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.
By definition #1,13 trees are Heritage. However, because the project was approved with
the trees at the Tentative Tract Map stage, all trees are now designated as Heritage by
definition #2.
Suitability for Preservation
Before evaluating the impacts that will occur during development, it is important to
consider the quality of the tree resource itself, and the potential for individual trees to
function well over an extended length of time. Trees that are preserved on development
sites must be carefully selected to make sure that they may survive development impacts,
adapt to a new environment and perform well in the landscape.
Our goal is to identify trees that have the potential for long-term health, structural stability
and longevity. For trees growing in open fields, away from areas where people and
property are present, structural defects and/or poor health presents a low risk of damage
or injury if they fail. However, we must be concerned about safety in use areas.
Therefore, where development encroaches into existing plantings, we must consider the
potential for trees to grow and thrive in a new environment as weA as their structural
stability. Where development will not occur, the normal life cycles of decline, structural
failure and death should be allowed to continue.
Evaluation of suitability for preservation considers several factors:
^ Tree health
Healthy, vigorous trees are better able to tolerate impacts such as root injury,
demolition of existing structures, changes in soil grade and moisture, and soil
compaction than are non-vigorous trees.
^ Structural integrity
Trees with significant amounts of wood decay and other structural defects that
cannot be corrected are likely to fail. Such trees should not be preserved in areas
where damage to people or property is likely.
^ Species response
There is a wide variation in the response of individual species to construction
impacts and changes in the environment. Coast live oak has good construction,
while valley oak has moderate tolerance to impacts.
^ Tree age and longevity
Old trees, while having significant emotional and aesthetic appeal, have limited
physiological capacity to adjust to an altered environment. Young trees are better
able to generate new tissue and respond to change.
Heritage Tree Pr Plan, Brittany Drive, T. 4073, Dublin HortScience, Inc.
February 12, 2001 Page 5
Each tree was rated for suitability for preservation based upon its age, health, structural
condition and ability to safely coexist within a development environment (see Tree Survey
Form). A summary is provided in Table 2.
Table 2: Suitability for Preservation of Trees in Tract 5073.
Good These are trees with good health and structural stability that have the
potential for longevity at the site. Eight (8) trees were rated as having
good suitability for preservation.
Tree No. Species Diameter
(in.)
335 Valley oak '27, 23, 23
337 Valley oak 25, 16
340 Coast live oak 40, 26
346 Valley oak 31
350 Valley oak 31
352 Valley oak 28
353 Valley oak 19, 18, 15, 13
354 Valley oak 31
Moderate Trees in this category have fair health and/or structural defects that
may be abated with treatment. Trees in this category require more
intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life-
spans than those in the "good" category. Eight (8) trees were rated
as having moderate suitability for preservation.
Tree No. Species Diameter
(in.)
338 Valley oak 29
342 Coast live oak 41
343 Valley oak 14, 13, 12, 11, 6
344 Valley oak 33
347 Valley oak 25
348 Valley oak 17
349 Valley oak 61
351 Valley oak 17, 13
Low Trees in this category are in poor health or have significant defects in
structure that cannot be abated with treatment. These trees can be
expected to decline regardless of management. The species or
individual tree may possess either characteristics that are
undesirable in landscape settings or be unsuited for use areas. Four
(4) trees were rated as having low suitability for preservation.
Tree No. Species Diameter
(in.)
336 Valley oak 20
339 Coast live oak 22
341 Coast live oak 15
345 Valley oak 14
Heritage Tree Pry ?Plan, Brittany Drive, T. 4073, Dublin HortScience, Inc.
February 12, 2001 Page 6
We consider trees with good suitability for preservation to be the best candidates for
preservation. We do not recommend retention of trees with low suitability for preservation
in areas where people or structures will be present. Retention of trees with moderate
suitability for preservation depends upon the intensity of proposed site changes.
Evaluation of impacts and Recommendations for Preservation
Appropriate tree retention develops a practical match between the location and intensity
of construction activities and the quality and health of trees. The Tree Survey Form was
the reference point for tree condition and quality. Potential impacts from construction
were evaluated using the Composite Site Plan (June 2000) and house layouts for lots 1, 8
and 9 prepared by EDI Architecture, Inc. (received Feb. 12, 2001).
Potential impacts from construction were assessed for each tree. The project has been
designed to retain all trees. Normally we would not recommend retention of trees in poor
condition. However, because this is a native stand of oaks and the trees in poor condition
are downslope from the home areas, they can be retained.
Only trees along the north canopy edge will be impacted by construction. These include
trees #335, 342, 340, 341, 345, 346 and 353. Construction will occur a minimum of 5'
outside the driplines of all trees. Roots of oaks typically extend for a long distance beyond
the dripline. Construction of the homes on lots 1, 7, 8 and 9 will encroach into the root
area. However, we consider the encroachment to be within the tolerance level of the
adjacent trees. We expect no observable reduction in plant growth or health from the
construction. Fill placed outside the driplines years ago when Brittany Drive was
constructed has had no observable effect. No impacts to the trees will occur downslope
from the trunks. A TREE PROTECToN zoNE at the driplines of trees shall be established.
The Wildfire Management Plan contains several requirements that affect management of
the trees:
Pruning is required to, "thin foliage, remove dead wood, raise the foliage one-foot
above the ground, and separate the crowns of the trees." Implementation of
these requirements will be directed by the Fire Marshall, project arborist and
City's arborist. It is unclear at this time how much pruning will be required to
separate crowns of the trees because they exist in small groves of continuous
canopy. Specifications for pruning will be provided following on-site consultation
with the Fire Marshall.
"Ground under the Fire Resistive Heritage Trees shall be kept free of weeds and
dead wood." Weed controls must be applied in a manner that will not harm trees.
Pre-emergent herbicides and tilling are not acceptable methods of weed control.
Post-emergent herbicides and hand-pulling weeds are allowable.
"An irrigated fuel break/greenbelt shall be installed surrounding the Fire Resistive
Heritage Trees." The irrigated area must be designed to protect the native trees
from excessive water and exclude trenching to install irrigation lines within the
TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
The rock outcropping on lot 9 will be removed to construct the home. To eliminate
potential damage to trees on that lot we recommend retaining any rocks in place within
30' of the trunks.
Heritage Tree Pry ., .`Plan, Brittany Drive, T. 4073, Dublin ' HortScience, Inc.
February 12, 2001 Page 7
Tree Preservation Guidelines
The goal of tree preservation is not merely tree survival during development but
maintenance of tree health and beauty for many years. Trees retained on sites that are
either subject to extensive injury during construction or are inadequately maintained
become a liability rather than an asset. The response of individual trees will depend on
the amount of excavation and grading, the care with which demolition is undertaken, and
the construction methods. Coordinating any construction activity inside the Tree
Protection Zone can minimize these impacts.
The following recommendations will help reduce impacts to trees from development and
maintain and improve their health and vitality through the clearing, grading and
construction phases.
Design recommendations
1. A TREE PROTECTION ZONE shall be established at the dripline of all trees. No
grading, excavation, construction or storage of materials shall occur within that
zone.
2. All site development plans shall be reviewed by the Project Arborist for evaluation
of impacts to trees and recommendations for mitigation.
3. Retain the rock outcropping within 30' of trees #335 and 342.
4. No underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer shall be
placed In the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
5. Tree Preservation Notes, prepared by the Consulting Arborist, should be
included on all construction plans.
6. Irrigation systems must be designed so that no trenching will occur within the
TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Surface water from irrigation runoff must be directed
away from oak trunks.
7. No landscape improvements such as lighting, pavement, drainage or planting
may occur within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE that may negatively affect the health
or structural stability of the trees.
8. As trees withdraw water from the soil, expansive soils may shrink within the root
area. Therefore, foundations, footings and pavements on expansive soils near
trees should be designed to withstand differential displacement."
Pre-construction treatments and recommendations
1. Prune trees to be preserved to clean the crown and to provide 1' clearance as
required by the Wildfire Management Plan, and to clear the crown. All pruning
shall be completed by a Certified Arborist or Tree Worker and adhere to the Tree
Pruning Guidelines of the International Society of Arboriculture. Specifications for
pruning shall be provided after consultation with the Fire Marshall. Brush shall be
chipped and spread beneath the trees within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
2. Fence all trees to be retained to completely enclose the TREE PROTECTION ZONE
at the dripiines as depicted on the Protection Fencing Plan (see Attachments). It
Heritage Tree Pro~~c.. .'Plan, Brittany Drive, T. 4073, Dublin ~ HortScience, Inc.
February 12, 2001 Page 8
is not necessary to fence trees on the downhill side, away from all construction.
Fences shall be 6 ft. chain link or equivalent as approved by consulting arborist.
Fences are to remain until all grading and construction is completed.
Recommendations for tree protection during construction
1. Prior to beginning work, the contractor is required to meet with the consultant at
the site to review all work procedures, access routes, storage areas and tree
protection measures.
2. No grading, construction, demolition or other work shall occur within the TREE
PROTECTION ZONE. Any modffications must be approved by the City of Dublin and
monitored by the Consulting Arborist.
3. Spoil from trench, footing, utility or other excavation shall not be placed within the
TREE PROTECTION ZONE, neither temporarily nor permanently,
4. If injury should occur to any tree during construction, it should be evaluated as
soon as possible by the Consulting Arborist so that appropriate treatments can be
applied.
5. No excess soil, chemicals, debris, equipment or other materials shall be dumped
Or Stored Wlthln the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
6. No tree pruning may be performed by construction personnel.
Maintenance of impacted trees
Native oaks in proximity to homes require regular maintenance. It is recommended that
the future homeowners be provided with a Guide to Maintenance for Native Oaks that
describes the care needed to maintain tree health and structural stability. Occasional
pruning, fertilization, mulch, and pest management may be required. In addition,
provisions for monitoring both tree health and structural stability must be made a priority.
As trees age, the likelihood of failure of branches or entire trees increases. Therefore,
annual inspection for hazard potential is recommended.
HortScience, Inc.
~~~I~
N da Matheny
Certified Arborist #WC-0
^
^
^
+•
d
Q
O
d N
> ~+
~ ~
D y
CW
;+ W
= C
ea
J
~ ~ v o
~ ~ ~ o
N
~ ~L ~ ~
~ m ^ ~
^
w
~,
W
W
« M Y
w
p
Q~
C
C r
~
~
O
O
3
o to
ai o C
3 ~. O
~ C
o
°
$ b
c
N C °
U~ Y ~ ~ y
U (b
~
~ O U ~ U ~ (>6
Y
~ N L
.= O 'O
3 L .p
~°
c C
. U
"' ~
U - c
~ ~
~ O r
~ L E
'C o
~
p
N ° N ~° ~ ~ ~ 3 3 ° ° ~
U ~ C O C
O O O
C
C
° C fl.
m a t0 Y
o° Df
3 c O R1 ~
c .~. tC y~
a~ m~ ._
rn ° ~ ca ~ 'S. ~' 'E o ~ ~ -a c~
~ ~ >' O ~ ~ 'C L ~ ~ N ~ N
~ U N
~
0 ~
~~~ O p E C
Nc ~
N
a-a > ~ O
w O
~
~ O ._ o~E O 0
~ A C C 'O L
ai ° M 'c °~ 0
0 3'° ~'c m m c°c
~ ~ ® a
~i ~ E o °a ~ ~ ~i ~ ai
~ a ~
~ =
L ~ ~
M
L O ~
N V m o
N -O ~ ~
~,
Q
y
?~ 'd
~
~ ~ N -p ~ Y N O M N cd A
e
~ M N fA ~
N ~ rnL rn~c rn `~Y °~ `
~
~
U
y
-a
L
o
c~
C
v
E ~
_
c.~s
N o~ c
o
~
Z
W N m °
'
i ~
a ~
v ~ ~
~ ~ N ~ ° n RS ?. >. c ~ `-° -moo
~ ~ ~ aa'a ~ n n`°o v E ~
~ ° ~ a~ rn o ~ ~
° ° o
(A C3 ~ 2 = U = > .~
a
(~ ~ o i~
Cn ~ t (n (n ~ w c
n .
z
} O
N d N
Q L ~ •V L ~ L ` ~ ~ L V
a ° 0C o~ ~ moo o~
~o oa
c~ ~c~ c
N
~
a
z --
o
H ~ N ~t M N ~• N M M M N tt M M M
Q ~ X
Z
T i
a
U
co
M r
Y
z W ~ N CO
r CD r
In r r
M i r In
h r'
~ W U N N 01 N
N N ~ r C M r M N r (fl
E- Q C
N r
Q ~ ~
r
~ m ~ O N Y ~C _Y ~C ~C .Y Y
W O O O O •~ ~ >> O 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N ~ N N N~ N~ ~ N
W N
~ ~
~ V ~
~
~ E
V V ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ..
W
W
C
~
M c~*~
c~*~ c°~i
~ ,- N M
~ ~t ~r v ~n ca r~
v ~t v ~
M M C'7 M oD rn
v ~
M M
~ Z M M M M M M M M M
a~
a~
(0
^
^
C
d
Q
O
d N
> ,~;
d ~
Q W~
= W
:a
C ~
~
J
~ ~ U°o
~ C N
V
~ ~ = T
m m ~ ~
^
^
W
~,
w
W
4.
~ ,~
It
~~
y
,~
^
I-
z
W
U
z
>- O
J Q
m c >
~ w W
N
N ~
a
z -~
oar
o
U
z X
U T
Q
W ~
U
~ C
~ a_ ~_
Q ~~
N
W
V
W
a
z°
C
O
N to
~ C
~ ~
a
~ o
,•- ~ ~
~ ~ E~ 3
~ ~ ° ~
~
~ o
~ ~ a
o i
U 7
N O
O O -a ~
~ ~ 'fl > C
~
a ~ ~ •~
- 'i
E
a -a o
3 ~ ~
o
.° o
~
° ° ~
~
:a •
E
°>- o
~
a, ~ ~ ~ co
~
~ E
o a, a~
c o ai
a~
Y
•
L O ~ 0
c °p _ o~ Y rn
C
C ~ T ~ C •'
N
U ~
~ ~ ~ w
~- f° y Qj
-
cu
z
~
~ ~
~
~~ a
m
o ~`~
c
c ~ a
i
a~ __
~ a _
~s as
~ ~ L
o~ ~ ~ ~ O
~ E U 2 Uc~ U-o
m
8 ~` 8 8 8
c~ ~ c~ ~ c~
~~~
ch
r
r T ~ T T
C7 ~ N ~ Ch
r T
r
0 Q ~ ~ ~
~
~ A, ll
^
W ^^``
WW
`
/ ~ ``
/ / /
M ~ M ~
f~
N
N
i ~_ ~
V L.L ~ .Q ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ n, Q ~j a~i ~ ~ ~
O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~
~ ~ m ~ ~ ~~
L ~ ~ as
~ m ~
4~ `°
.~
~ V-
~ -~
~1
__ . _ ___
;;,
. - ` ~;~
~~~~; "
~.
~ ~s+
\~
~`
., 1,
x ' \'' ''~
., ;, , .,
';~'~'~
~ =, ~:
i ,~~+
;''l
,,
.,
~,,
"" ~1
,,
1
l
1
~f~
_.Jfl
1
m ~
~~'rl_
~-~~
,,
j~_
fi
1
~-
I ~-~
~, ~~
i
:~-t-°°
~~
~,
=y-~
/~// j
~>>~ l
J~j r 1. j.
~:~~ , ,
,,
--.~
~,,,
~'7. it + ~ // ~
~, ,/I '/
/// /
~~
,r~ ~ ~. /~
~~~ ~~
i~~f;
l ~~ i 1 ' ~,
~ , ~.
f+ ~
~ 1 ,~ ~
~~,, f ~~ ,
'~i,,~i i l'rJl~-' ~
o 1,
~,
V '
~ ~ I
fl ~' i/
i ~~/,
~ ~ Q p.~ C Q ~ ~ ~.naU c~ '~o
C~ ~L- O ~ .~ O v ~ a c~ ~ ~~u .~ w
` j ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ N ~~~
l 1) ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I..V y ~ 'a ~ ~ 4
U (0 E FF O
\V ~ ~ m ~ QmP
C ~ N
M ~ ~ ~arn_
N
N
c
n , .Q
nW' 0
W
L
X
X
X
X
X
X
5~548~15a9E HORTSC I ENCE I hJC. 737 P82
^ Horli;ulfurgl Gonsultards
HOKf$..
e,~~~
February 11, 2003
Pierce Macdonald
Assaciat® Planner
City at Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 84588
S`utljer~ Brittany Estates, Lot 7
Dear Ms. Macdonald:
FEB 11 ' 83 1E~: 1~
Mr. and Mrs. Wieser are applying to the City of Dublin for permission to build their home an
the subject lot. 1 have been asited to review the proposed site plan to evaluate its potential
impact an the hative oaks fan si#e,
There are thr+e native asks on the lot that we originally evaluated in July 2000. We tagged
and inspected four native valley oaks (C?ueraus lobafa) an the lot: ff346, 347, 348 and 349.
The canopy of tree #344 extends into lot 7 although the trunk is located on lot 8. Tres #346
is the furthest uphill and adjacent to the building pad.
In Fekaruary 2001 I prepared a Heritage Tree Profectian Plan for Brittany Estates, That
document proscribes tree protection measures during grading and construction for all lots,
including lot 7. In that document I described the impact from constructing a hams outside the
driplines of the trees to be within the tolerance level of the trees, and I expected no
abserva6fe reduction in plant growth ar health from the aanstructian. The Plan also
recommended establishment of a treo protection zone at the dripline of the trs~os.
fn the summer of 20132 tree protection fencing was placed outside the northeast edge of the
driplines of the trees an lots 7-9 as depicted in the Tree Protection Fencing Plan
(HartScienca, Inc., Feb., 2001). Although the dripline of tree #34B was altered somewhat
when the owner had the tree pruned, the tree protection fence location remains unchanged.
The current plans for the borne as represented by the architect Randy,3ones and owner
Michelle Wieser indicate that construction on lot 7 will be limited to the area outside the tree
protection zone (fenced area). The plans are therefore consistent with the recommendations
and standards in the Werrtage Tree Protection Plan.
ce` rely,
`~~
el a Matheny
Consulting Arborist
cc: Mr. & Mrs. Wieser
^ P.O. 8az 754
Pleasanton, CA 94566
ATTAC H ENT 925 484 509611
maw.hatecience.cam
FEB-11-2803 84:84P~1 TEL)9254845896 ID)CITY C1F DUBLIN PA~E:882 R=9E.':
Nov~10. 2002 5~46PM !6AMBaNI LAND RRCH No~1765
Tr~r~ oFRtc~ or~
~EFFREY' F. GAMBOI.~I
7..ANDSC~r'B ATtC.~rr'rECr 2702
Cr~zrx~x~ Arzlaorzrs~r WE-520AR
~ 3 Nc3vr,1t 2002
Pierce Macdonald
.Associate Planner
CommcYnitq Development Depart~.ent
City of Dublirx
17.0. Box 2340
Dublin CA 9455$
Fax: 925 833 GG2$
5~(7BrECT: 11191 Brittany Lane, Lot 7
Tear Ms. Macdonald:
P~ 1/1
Per your lettrx oi- 9 September 2002, Z understand that unauthorized pruning of a Heritage
Oak Tzee an Lot 7 (tree #34G) occurred on 6 September.
On 17 Septernbex, I visited the site (10:30am-11:00am) to examine this tree and the pruzxing
that had occurred. The only pruning that I observed was in fact the removal of the 10"
diameter limb. It was cleanly removed vcrith only a minor stub left at the trttixlt where the
branch had been, There was no teaxiz~.g of bash or othez obvious damage to the tree. There
will probably be no adverse reaction to this pruning which appears to have been done in a
careful manner and which will in all likelihood heal. Per current industr}r practice, no ~xround
dressing vcras applied to the cut All evidence points to the conclusion that the pruning
techniques were in conformance with the lntesnatiorial Society ofArboxicuiture Tree
J.7xuning Guidelines.
Per you questions, the pruning was n,ot extreme nor did it damage or pextnanently disfigure
the flee. 'T'his tree •exrill co'r~tilmue to grow and thrive after this pruning. The removal. of the
branch constitutes a sts3.all percentage of the canopy. The Lumb removal ~uc~ill not stress the
tree or zxxake it more vulnerable to disease.
If you have additional questions regarding this site visit or this report, l encourage you to call
me to discuss our findings.
Its ct ~ttefi,
E ambonx (rL~-
Ce rifle A,xborist WL-520A1t
dscape Architect 2702
3102 ~r1CIFIC Av~NU~ STOCr~~raN, C.A 95204 TFI. 209.94$.8335
FAX 209.4Cr5.2603 l~,MAIL G.~MBONr@G41NET.~E'I'
ATTACNMEIVT5
NOU-13-2002 05:46PM TEL)209 465 2603 ID~CITY OF DUBLIN PAGE:001 R=100
ORDINANCE NO. S - 02
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AMENDING THE HERITAGE TREE ORDINANCE, PA 02-013
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. RECITALS
A. The City of Dublin is desirous of preserving Heritage Trees and facilitating the development
of sites which contain Heritage Trees in a manner consistent with the intent. of the Heritage Tree
Ordinance 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.
B. The Heritage Tree Ordinance, Section 5.60 of the Dublin Municipal Code, was adopted by
the City Council on December 21, 1999.
C. On December 19, 2000 and January 16, 2001, City Council directed staff to provide
clarification of terms currently within the Heritage Tree Ordinance; to amend the Wildfire Management
Plan; and to examine an increase in the penalty for illegal destruction of a Heritage Tree.
D. The City of Dublin is initiating the amendment to the Heritage Tree Ordinance in order to
provide new definitions, to outline tree protection plan requirements, to provide measures for utility
companies, to increase the penalty for illegal destruction, and to improve the writing of the Ordinance.
E. Properly noticed public hearings were held by the City Council on April 16, 2002 and April
30, 2002.
F. The application has been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the City Environmental Cruidelines, and Community
Development Staff determined that the Amended Heritage Tree Ordinance is categorically exempt
under Section 15307, "Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of Natural Resources," under
CEQA because the amendment is an action taken by a regulatory agency as authorized by state law to
assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource where the regulatory process
involves procedures for protection of the environment.
G. The amended Ordinance is consistent with the Amended Wildfire Management Plan,
approved by City Council on March 5, 2002.
H. The City Council heard and considered all said reports, recommendations, written and oral
testimony submitted at the public hearing as hereinabove set forth.
I. The amended Heritage Tree Ordinance supercedes the existing Heritage Tree Ordinance,
Section 5.60 of the Dublin Municipal Code, in its entirety.
ATTAC H ~ E NT 6
SECTION 2. ORDINANCE
Chapter 5.60 of the Dublin Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
Section 5.60.10 -Title
This Chapter shall be known as "the Heritage Tree Ordinance"
Section 5.60.20 -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, coumeract 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 intern to preserve as many Heritage
Trees as possible consistent with the reasonable use and enjoyment of private property.
Section 5.60.30 -Applicability
This Chapter applies to all property within the City of Dublin, including private property, residential
and non-residential zones, developed and undeveloped land.
Section 5.60.40 -Definitions
The following words and phrases, whenever used in this chapter, shall be as construed as defined in
this section:
"Cit}~' means the City of Dublin.
"Certified or consulting arborist" means as arborist who is registered with the International Society
of Arboriculture and approved by the Director.
"Development" means any improvement of real property that requires the approval of zoning,
subdivision, conditional use permit 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
standard arboriculture practices for a healthy Heritage Tree and that results in the tree's permanent
disfigurement, destruction, or removal ordered by the City pursuarn to subdivision (b)(2) of section
5.60.50.
"Heritage Tree" means any of the following:
(a) Any Oak, Bay, Cypress, Maple, Redwood, Buckeye and Sycamore tree having a trunk or
main stem of 24 inches or more in diameter measured at 4 feet 6 inches above natural grade;
(b) A tree required to be preserved as part of an approved development plan, zoning permit,
use permit, site development review or subdivision map;
{c) 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,
2
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 ofnon-destructive excavation techniques.
"Remove" or "removal" means cutting a tree to the ground, extraction of a tree, or killing a tree by
spraying, girdling, or any another means.
Section 5.60.50 -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 aCity-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 developmern 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.
Section 5.60.60 -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 deternunation 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 ($25.00) dOllarS t0 COVeT 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 emitlements
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.
3
(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 subdivision (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.
Section 5.60.70 -Appeals
(a) Any decision of the Director, pursuant to this chapter, maybe, 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 the Code. The decision of the City Council shall be final.
Section 5.60.80 -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 5.60.90.
4
Section 5.60.90 -Protection plan required prior to issuance of permit
(1) A plan to protect Heritage Trees as described in Section 5.60.80 above 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 achy-selected arborist for review and recommendation. The cost of this
review shall be borne by the developer/applicant requesting said permit.
(2) 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.
(3) Damage to any tree during construction shall be immediately reported to the Director so
that proper treatment maybe administered. The Director may refer to achy-selected
arborist 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.
(4) 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).
Section 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 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.
Section 5.64.110 -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 ordinance.
5
Section 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. Acity-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 acity-selected arborist.
SECTION 3. APPROVAL
The City Council hereby approves the Amended Heritage Tree Ordinance, Section 5.60 of the
Dublin Municipal Code.
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING OF ORDINANCE
This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage. The City
Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the
City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this 7~' day of May 2002, by the
following votes:
AYES: Councilmembers McCormick, Oravetz, Sbranti and Zika and Mayor Lockhart
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Mayor
ATTEST:
KZ/G/5-7-02lord-tieritagetree.doc (Item 6.1)
G:1PA#12D0210 2-01 31CCord.doc
6
,n-n~ - i nnn~
co~~~ o~a~o~rsr~'w~~ OOOZ `.LSC1rJi1d ~OZ=~.L=3ld~S ti
b~~- ~'~"'s'"""""+'4"'"~0~« i11Na0~1'1d~r^1 ~`Nil9fla o
•3~~114aJrr ~dua~puu~ '~JU~u~bub '/J~YYU~d ~r'LOS 1J Y al Z
dnOa~ u~6i ~ ~H/~ 3A1~ld JlNdlll~ls
~ ~ SZ ~ Z l~~r""~ T a' S~ ~ ~ L o ~j = ~O7S 7d~/~1b/Y Jit ti'
t - .._~, ._ ._ - _ - ___
. ~b5 - ~`fY .-- .. .__ _
--.
i
,,
_... I'I 'Id Z __
__-__ -
_... __.,~~, ----~--_.f .. l
., ~
__.~
__ - r ,•
___ . _
"~ ~ ..
..
-,,,. __~ ~ ~ J
~.
~-
3s zcz 6r '~ ~~----____ ~___ __--~___.- ~ = ._
_.
_ .- __ -- -
.=
____ _~~'
__.__
:=
_-
/'
w / y .. .~
_
..~--
.-
l % '
~~Y
_ . _. .;
-__ _,
.... ...... t I ..
r yC/. ~ r.
._,_.,
~_
_ ._ _
'~ ~
... _ .. _.. -- _ -. ~"J
. ~,
_,\ _
_
.. __. -
<'
.. .- .,
..-
~1._. _ , __ " r,. ~ . r ,
., _ .~
,T -- -_._~_-_
... _
_. _ ..
- -
_. ,
- _
_ __
~.~. r _ _~ -- ---_- ___--_- --_- ~ CVO--~fi9r,.. - ,--'" "i
~.
~-
.. _, !-
~.
__.
~,; , /
_- ~,.
r` •~ ~ ~
_.
_. _ .
. _--
--~ _ - ~~
-__. r ~--- ,,
_ ...may `__ ._ .,~"'"~. ^~~" ~..1 /-' / ~ /' j' ~ ' M
_._._ - ~
_.
.~-
,,•
_.
--
_
;'
- _- ,.~ , _
- ~-
~~/ ~ )IV a0 / /
"
_.
....
~ /
_.._,
J
.._. ~-.-- ~ - ,,rte
-. , - % _
.-''
/`
/ ~~
_--
s' .~ ~ ' /
.. .~-'' / r' ~ ~~-' / l /
,.___ " "
_"- ~•
. ~ /'
e
~ -:
~ _.
- ~ _ / ~.J/
_ ~ ,- ~-
,- ,,,- ~. -- r~ _
,. .- -
.,--~ - i ~- .. ,- /
i ~ ~ / ~~
r` /!
.r' o' r /~ l ~ Jr / ' ~ j ~ ` ,i J~ F ` /~ ~ 0 / % f N J ~~. r~ 1 /
.'" ~ ~ //
.` / , / L / . ~ ~.
;.
,~ -` ~
~, ~
j ~ / ~ ~ 0 / _
~,, C, j ~ i i ~~ ~ ~~"- ~~ -
!f f ~ -
/Y bit 7~' lOd .--~ "~ ~:--~ ~` `~ `
~ ~ ~
_-
- _~-~
_.- ._
~ ~ ~ ~ ~! ~ ~
Z
Q
E-+
d O
w
~r /~~ Y~~
V1
Q
O
~7
1~--~
ow ~
W
MN~-I
Fs-1
F-~-1
m
ill W
M
d
- a
0
W
a
o °
o ~
o W
c~ A
x z
~° z
~~
~~ o
..., O ~,
.~ z o ~
O a U
O~~
00°o Cq
d
z
x
0
w
a
d
U
8
z
O
a
m
a
ca
O
.--i
~~
O ~
O ~
d a .-~ ~
~-, W~~
~ U "_' o
zzz~~
d ,r;
A~~V r
d H O w
x U Czj V
W~~o
Ux~z~
~ad~~
~Wd'CC~E-•
O
O
LL,
z
d
r~
~~~~
0 00 0
~~ ~
cv --~ c~
a d
a w E,,,
W> O
Wa H
~w z
~ °a a
O
O
O
a
w
x
U~
~ W
W M+^M
r 1~'~
O
NO~y
Fi-1
~~
0
o ~
a
O
z
d
a
a
w
0
0
cx
:~
a ~
r a z
o W
a
0
o a
o w
o w
C12 q
x z
w~ ~
al b Ey
~~ z
W° o
9m ~
r+O~
,-~ z -°~ U
O
O ~+ '"
O O o G]
d
z
x
0
~.
a
d
U
z
a
m
A
0
~ M
O ~
I
d O '~' coo
d U '~' ~
zA~d'
Z~"z ~
O
d
z~~U~
Ow
x U Gzj ~
W ~ ,._, o
U x ~ Z ~
A C,> Z d ~
~ .-. o z ~,
--~ A ~n d
xw~rraH
•r,DPd=d ~OD~~rJHd NI18f10 dD .IlIDCOI C1~1 Wki~S~60 ~00Z-titi-'dkjW
lei ~nr ~~~le tl~e~er
~~~
a~a~~. ~
NJ(arch lo, a~oa
icy afl3ul71in
Platurat~ Y'1gpartmeat
To whom it nay canCern,
"Phis letter is in reference w the heritage aak ardiraence and assr cutting of a diseased limb o!j' opr aalr uee. 1'ye hired
a licensed arbarist in (,rimming our tree, We were unaware o#'the rules to nat march. onr frets end were surprises
whan getting a ~itxtion fear doing sn, We purch~ed this: lot bec:au:,e of hnw heautifui rho Ire arc and hive no
intention of harming there . ~c plan to keep them healthy and beeutifuk far our family and :friends to appreciate and
enjoy. W e express deep regret in iriiaunittg tiie oa[t tree .
Sincerely,
r
Jeif and hTichele ViTes~er
~~
ATTAGHI~ENT S