HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.3 BlkMtnSiteDevRevLot8 · CITY CLERK
File # [-~ /IIO 45]~
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 2, 2003
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS:
Public Hearing, Site Development Review Amendment to Black
Mountain Site Development Review, Lot 8. This item was
continued from the August 5, 2003, City Council Hearing
Report Prepared by: Andy Byde, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
2.
3.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: No
BACKGROUND:
This item was continued from the Aug'
Council voted to continue the item ant
information submitted by the Applicant.
RBF Consulting sent a survey crew to the
including the deck. The survey crew a
represent the 5-foot setback from the dril;
Survey completed by RBF Consulting;
Photograph of site;
August 5, 2003, City Council Agenda Statement with
Attachments; and
August 5, 2003, City Council Minutes.
Open Public Hearing and i~eCelve ~i~ispres~fitati0n".
Take testimony from the Applicant and the Public.
Question Staff, Applicant and the Public;
Close Public Hearing and deliberate; and
Adopt Resolution to Deny Amendment to Site Development
Review.
inancial impact at this time.
,st 5, 2003, City Council meeting. At the meeting, the City
i directed Staff to conduct a third party survey to verify the
Staff engaged RBF consulting to prepare the third party survey.
site to place stakes at all of the comers of the rear of the house,
lso placed stakes set back 5-feet from each of the comers to
line of the tree. In addition, a licensed Land Surveyor checked
the methods employed by the survey crl:TM and prepared a plot of all the points staked as Well as the
location of the drip line of tree # 340 (included as Attachment 1).
/
The conclusion of the 3rd party survey c4mPleted by RBF Consulting was, the location of the house and
drip line as depicted in the information ~ubmitted by the Applicant, was correctly drawn. However, the
location of the proposed tree trim line waI incorrect. The August 5, 2003, City Council Agenda Statement
indicated that a maximum of 12 feet would be required to be trimmed, based on the information submitted
/
G:~PA#~2000\00-009 Black MountainL2003\sdr amend sr 8-25
COPIES TO: Applicant
Project File
In-house Distribution
ITEM NO. ~
by the Applicant. However based upon the information prepared by RBF Consulting, the maximum
trimming would be 15 feet. The City's Arborist previously reviewed the proposed 12 feet of tree
trimming and concurred with the Applicant Arborist that determined the trimming would not affect the
health or structure of the tree The City's Arborist reviewed the additional 3 feet of trimming and
concluded it would not affect the health or structure of the tree.
To depict the area proposed for removal, the Applicant placed 8-foot long pipe sections at select stake
points shown on the Attachment 1. The pipe sections roughly depict the outline of the rear plane of the
house (shown as a black line on Attachment 2), the proposed drip line setback (shown as a red line on
Attachment 2) and the portion of the tree proposed for removal (shown as red hatch mark on Attachment
2).
CONCLUSION:
The site plan approved by the City Council in February 2001, depicted the drip line of the Tree No. 340,
5-feet beyond the rear of the residence. During the review of the grading permit, it was discovered that
the tree was actually between 4 and 15 feet further north (closer to Brittany Lane) than depicted on the
approved site plan. In order for the applicant to construct the residence as approved would require
trimming of the tree a maximum of 15 feet. The conclusion of the 3rd party survey was the location of the
house and drip line as depicted in the information submitted by the Applicant, was correctly drawn.
However the location of the proposed tree trim line was incorrect.
Trimming the tree 15 feet (as shown in Attachment 1) versus 12 feet (as shown in Attachment 1 of the
August 5, 2003, City Council Agenda Statement) does not change the Arborist's determination that the
prOposed trimming would not affect the health or structure of the tree. Trimming the tree 15 feet versus
12 feet does not change the Staff conclusion and recommendation contained within the August 5, 2003,
Agenda Statement.
Staff has reviewed the application and finds the trimming of the tree is inconsistent with the intent of the
Site Development Review approved for the Brittany Lane/Blackmountain Development Project. The City
Council modified the Wildfire Management Plan and decreased the front yard setback from 20-feet to 13-
feet to preserve the large 26" - 27" trunk of tree #340. If the City Council denies the Application, the
Applicant would be required to submit an application for a new Site Development Review, modifying the
design of the residence to accommodate the 5-foot required setback from the dripline of Tree No. 340.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council Open Public Hearing and receive Staff presentation; take
testimony from the Applicant and the Public; question Staff, Applicant and the Public; close Public
Hearing and deliberate and adopt a resolution denying the Site Development Review Amendment
requesting the trimming of Tree No. 340. Alternatively if the City Council determines that trimming the
tree is appropriate, direct Staff to prepare a resolution approving the Site DevelOPment Review
Amendment.
ATTACHMENT i
ATTACHIV~ENT2,
~'~Y CLERK
File # ~--~ ]T"'"~I J
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003--
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS:
Public Hearing: PA 00-009 Site Development Review
Amendment to Black Mountain Site Development Review, Lot 8.
Report Prepared by: Andy Byde, Senior Planner
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Project Plans;
February 2001 Approved Site Plan;
Photos of proposed tree trimming;
HortScience Letters Dated May 16, 2003, and November 25,
2002;
City Council Agenda Statement, Dated February 20, 2001
(without Attachments);
City Council Agenda Statement, Dated January 16, 2001
(without Attachments);
City Council Resolution approving the Site Development
Review dated February 20, 2001;
Resolution Denying the Site Development Review
Amendment.
RECOMMENDATION:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Receive Staff presentation;
Question Staff;
Take testimony from the Public;
Deliberate; and
Adopt Resolution to Deny Amendment to Site Development
Review.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: No financial impact at this time.
BACKGROUND:
Hat_field 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. City Council Resolution 82-85
set forth the conditions of approval for the three tract maps.
ATTACHMENT
..........
GSPA#~2000\00-009 Black MountainX2003\sdr amend-03.doc
COPIES TO: Applicant
Project File
In-house Distrib~
IT~/~Q~
Brittany Lane/Black 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-t2). 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.
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 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 the tree health. The City Council reviewed and approved the Tree
Protection Plan as part of the Brittany Lane/Black Mountain project Site Development Review approval.
Relocation o£the Residence on Lot 8:
The City Council, at the January 16, 2001, meeting, directed the Applicant to revise the location of the
residence on Lot 8 to decrease the front yard setback from 20-feet to 13-feet, to eliminate the need to
remove a significant limb of Tree No. 340 (as identified by the Tree Protection Plan) located on Lot 8
(according to the Tree Protection Plan, Tree No. 340 is a mature Coast Live Oak with two minks that are
26" - 27" and 40" in diameter, the 26" trunk bows northward, touching the ground 25-feet from the trunk).
The Applicant revised the site plan to reflect the reduced setback and the City Council subsequently
approved the reVised location. The newly revised site plan for Lot 8 depicted the drip line of Tree No. 340
5-feet beyond the rear of the residence, consistent with the Tree Protection Plan (see Attachment 2 for the
approved Site Plan).
Prior to the February 20, 2001, amendment to the Wildfire Management Plan, all new homes had to
provide up to a 100-foot defensible space, trees within the space must be pruned up at least 6-feet from the
ground. As a resuk of the requirement contained within the pre-February 20, 2001, Wildfire Management
Plan, a large 26" - 27" trunk, which touched the ground, on Tree No. 340 was required to be removed.
The. Tree Protection Plan stated removal of this' trunk would create larger wounds to the tree than
preferred. However, On February 20, 2001, the City Council amended the Wildfire Management Plan to
exempt certain trees, which qualified as "fire resistive" from the 6-foot pruning requirement, which
allowed the residence to placed within 100-feet and not require the large 26" - 27" trunk touching the
ground to be pruned.
This Application is to amend the Site Development Review approval by requesting to modify two
conditions of approval of the previously approved Site Development Review (SDR), PA-009 Black
Mountain. Specifically, the requested amendment proposes to prune Tree No. 340, a Heritage Tree at
11183 Brittany Lane, a vacant lot (the property is also know as Lot 8 of the Hatfield Development) to
facilitate the placement of the residence as approved by the City Council in February of 2001.
ANALYSIS:
In April 2002, during the review of the grading plan for the seven lots, Staff determined that the approved
location of residence on Lot 8 conflicted with Tree No. 340. Specifically, the location of the tree was
between 4 and 14~feet beyond the location shown on the site plan the City Council approved as part of the
Brittany Lane/Black Mountain Site Development Review (see Attachment 2 depicting the approved
February 2001 site plan and see Attachment 1 depicting the proposed tree trim.line). The Applicant has
staked the location of the foundation of the approved residence in the field. The required trimming would
be 5 feet beyond that location (see Attachment 3, photo of tree #340 depicting stake location). The newly
proposed pruning would result in trimming of the large 26" - 27" trunk, which extends approximately 54-
feet from the base of the tree. The largest-extent .of the trimming would result in reducing the limb (and
associated branches) by 12-feet, in addition the applicant also proposes to prune approximately one-foot
from other smaller branches west of the large 26" - 27" trunk.
As part of the application material submitted by the Applicant proposing the trimming of Tree No. 340,
the Applicant's Arborist, Dr. James Clark of HortScience, examined the proposed tree trimming and
determined the trimming is minor, would not affect the health or structure of the tree and are well within
accepted tolerances of the tree (see Attachment 3). The conclusions reached by Dr. Clark were then peer-
reviewed by the City's Arborist, Robert Cantrell. After a reviewing the plans and a site visit, Mr. Cantrell
concurred' with consulting arborist's conclusions.
Significant modifications to the approved residence would be required if the Tree No. 340 is not trimmed,
including reducing the square footage of the 2,812 square foot residence, by a minimum of 500 square
feet. Additionally, the building permit for Lot 8 will expire and a new submittal and plan check fee will
be required by the Building Division.
Conditions of Approval:
Condition 88(D) of the February 20, 2001, City Council Approval of the Brittany Lane/Black Mountain
Development (PA 00-009) Site Development Review (Attachment 6) stated that only limited pruning was
permitted on the Heritage Trees. Condition 78 established a tree protection zone around all of the trees
on the properties, including Lot 8. Additionally, Condition 93 required that no work, including pruning,
was to occur within the tree protection zone. In order for the Applicant to construct the residence on Lot 8
as shown on the approved site plan, a Site Development Review Amendment is required due to the
inconsistency between the approved location of the residence, the newly discovered location of Tree No.
340 and the conditions of approval 88D and 93 of the February 2001, Site Development Review.
CONCLUSION:
The site plan approved by the City Council in February 2001, depicted the drip line of the Tree No. 340,
5-feet beyond the rear of the residence. During the review of the grading permit, it was discovered that
the tree was actually between 4 and 14 feet further north (closer to Brittany Lane) than depicted on the
approved site plan. In order for the applicant to construct the residence as approved would require
trimming of the tree a maximum of 12-feet.
Staff has reviewed the application and fmds the trimming of the tree is inconsistent with the intent of the
Site Development Review approved for the Brittany Lane/Black Mountain Development Project. The
City Council modified the Wildfire Management Plan and decreased the front yard setback from 20-feet
to 13-feet to preserve the large 26" - 27" trunk of tree #340. If the City Council denies the Application,
the Applicant would be required to submit an application for a new Site Development Review, modifying
the design of the residence to accOmmodate the 5-foot required setback from the dripline of Tree No. 340.
Moreover, other residences approved as part of the Brittany Lane/Black .Mountain Development have
maintained the Heritage Trees as identified in the tree protection plan without significant modification or
pruning and therefore pruning tree #340 would result in a development not consistent with the
surrounding properties.
Alternatively, if the City Council determines that trimming the tree is appropriate, Staff recommends that
a third party land surveyor survey the dripline of'the trees in conflict with residence, to determine the
exact location of the dripline and the extent of the necessary trimming. Staff has determined that this is
necessary given the large margin of error (between 4 and 14 feet) in depicting the location of the tree on
the previous site plan. After such survey is complete Staff would return to the City Council to present the
location and necessary trimming of the tree on Lot 8.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council, open the public hearing, receive the Staff's presentation, question
Staff, take testimony from the public, close the public hearing, deliberate and deny the Site Development
Review Amendment requesting the trimming of Tree No. 340. Alternatively, if the City Council
determines that trimming the tree is appropriate, Staff recommends that a third party land surveyor survey
the dripline of the trees, in conflict with residence prior to the approval of the Amendment.
4
BLACK
MOUNTAIN
Ill]t
DEVELOPMENT
June 26,2003
Mr. Andy Byde
City of Dublin Planning Department
100 Civic Drive
Dublin, CA 94568
RE: Lot 8, 11183 Brittany Lane
Dear Andy:
Enclosed, please find the package displaying a minor change to the approved
Lot 8 (2-20-01) City Council approved homesite.
The change I am requesting from the original 2-20'01 approval is minor trimming
of the oak tree.
The situation occurred as I was finalizing the plan at the Building Department
level. We realized the original topography drawing showing the tree line location
was off by 2-5 feet. There has also been 2-5 feet of small branch growth that has
taken place during the two-year processing time.
In order to move forward, I am requesting the ability to trim 5-9 feet of branches
in one small area of the tree in order to meet the necessary fire conditions per
the Conditions of Approval.
I feel it is important to note that I have designed this' home originally to meet two
sensitiVe criterias, (1) keep the home as Iow as possible to preserve the views of
the neighbors across the street and (2) to be sensitive to the oak tree.
Cont. Lic. #584024
3925 Old Santa Rita Road, Suite 200 · Pleasanton, CA 94588
(925) 520-0001 °.FAX (925) 520-0002
www. blackmountaindev, com .~ i i~i~.
BLACK
MOUNTAIN
DEVELOPMENT
June 26, 2003
Page Two
I have discussed the trimming that Will be required with Hortscience, my arborist,
and have attached their letter. We have also met with the city arborist and
explained what our intentions are.
As I believe this tree to be an asset to my home, I feel that the minor trimming of
this large tree helps meet the goals of the neighborhood, the tree and the future
homeowner.
Please feel free to give me a call.
JW/sb YEnclos~'es ~
Cont. Lic. #584024
3925 Old Santa Rita F~oad, Suite 200 · Pleasanton, CA 94588
(925) 520-0001 · FAX (925) 520-0002
www. blackmou ntaindev, com
Z
17
0
HortS¢ience, Inc.
P.O.Box 754
Pleasanton, CA 94566
XLSadOHd
.!
i' ~ ' / / '
"t . .; ./., ..' ' ~,
'v
~ ........ ,.,. :/- ... // '~
-::':.':.:-::.-:.'. -.......::.'. - .-'
-~---_. .... - _._.. g....:.;... ~
Line per aerial photo, March 1,
2000, by Cartwright Aedal Surveys.
Verified by field measurement, July 17,
2000, by RMR Design Group.
Original 2-20-01
Date of Approval
Site Plan/Tree Location
......... Tree #340i ............
'60' ~AI( .... .>-'
HortScience, Inc.
P.O.Box 754
Pleasanton, CA 94566
DRi,
Line by field measurement
November 12, 2002, by RMR Desi
~. - ......... p-.~f~.
New Location of
Tree/Growth Branches
HortScience, Inc:
P.O.Box 754
Pleasanton, CA 94566
' --{-...:i .... Dated 11~12-02 ......... Tree #340~ ............ '--'~" .........
.... ---.__ ~._ e.../ ._. .: ........... ..-' ./" .__
--_ ....... : ........ _.,_o~_ ~41 0~ ~o- C~K " ~ ..... ..." ...-
........... - ............... - .¥.(.z_._;[.:__~ 'L., ' _ ---'" .-- .-' '"
............. -. "': .... - ............ '[: ' .' ...... '
......... . ...... ~ o~ ......... . ~ .......... 1 ....... ' ,-""?' , .... o,,..~ ....
------- ..... --... I ~t' ..... ~ .- ~ ,- ... / .
..__ ' ..... " .~2 .( ~" .," , ."' ·
::,':'.'"':' :'.'.:-.-:..--:;':.".:., ...... :t..'~-./o~, ...... '¢ ...--.~7!: .... ~.~.--- ,.::..,..-..,-.. ..' ..........
...... ~8.-'~(~ .'.:.~',, ..... ~1_ .... - ....' .......... ...~--
...................... -~-*o:..'.~.~E::'.-.: ....... Z.:: ............... ,zZ¢.~_--:_ L ............... -". ..... .-. '" ...._- .---' ..-
......... ' ............ "1- ..... ' .......... : - ............. r~.-.?'.i.. .... . ............ .:.~.-' .. ~ ~, .... .. o .
......... :":_z::-...: ......... 7: :.. : ...~...:. -"--~:: . . ....... ...... . .... . ...... -'.:. .,:~..:o~ :'...~. '
%-. .... · ... · .... .,... . ..' , ...... ,...
_. ...... -~_ . .I ..... ,.,..>~ ...... ~ .__.. ......_.. .. .
.......... ' .....~ . ,. h. ' .............. , "
~ -- . .2--'::..~'.'. · '-..-'-----~ _ I ,: . ~-? J /' ~.-d'*¢;.: .' ~ ' ,..-- '
............ ' .... '...--%L-! .:'-. .~" .) .~" .~'" /' -" ¢'3..~ .' ..~ .
......... ~._ ........ :::.-. .... ¥_'~~ ......... ..,.,~,' ,.-.......--' ......,../...< .-~.._ .. .... . .... .
.... -----.-~--. .... .3 .... ., ..... - ..... '-~-~ ...... ~
--- ,.:~-..,... ~.... ..... ...... --~.~ ~ll~Des/an Grouts,
_ ~.....~,..--,-,,. x '. x. '.. "-.. '-... "-.. ._;.-,:,r"~."---.~.-;~.,...,
~ ~ '. · '-.. - '% -. '-~. '.,.,_ /.......-.-'
..... '%",, ",. '.,,%: .. . '--. · ....... ' ............ ~,' ~--~":,-~ ,,30,.,,<A,,,..~,~.^ ~1~! /
· . ,~ . .~ .. -~._ . ....... _ ........
.From Lot8 to Lot7
Mr. Jeff Woods
Black Mountain Development
3925 Old Santa Rita Rd., Suite 200
Pleasanton CA 94588
Subject: Brittany Lane, Lot 8
Horticultural Consultants
Dear Mr. Woods:
I am writing as a follow-Up to our meeting at the site earlier this week. You asked that I
review the site plans that have been submitted to the City of Dublin for the proposed lot and
the requirements for tree pruning. This letter summarizes my observations.
The canopy of tree #340, a coast live oak (Quercus agrifo/ia), extends to the ground on the
south side of the lot. In order to construct the house and provide the required five foot fire
clearance, you must reduce the size of the tree's canopy on the north side of the crown. In
order to depict the amount of pruning needed, you had the civil engineer survey the lot and
tree canopy, place poles at the edge of the home, and flag the projections of the deck areas.
Pruning would extend 5' beyond these lines.
A pier foundation will be utilized for this house. Piers would be drilled at the edge of the
flagged areas.
The house design and the required pruning of tree #340 have been discussed previously in
letters prepared by my partner, Nelda Matheny. Nelda noted that impacts associated with the
pruning and construction of the home are well within the tolerance of the tree. I concur with
Nelda's assessment. The amount of pruning needed to provide clearance is minor and will
not adversely affect the health or structure of the tree. Excavation for the piers is also a
minor im pact, well within the tolerance of the tree.
This letter will also confirm your request of my presence during the pruning of tree #340 at
the time of construction.
I hope my comments clarify any lingering concerns over this tree.
James R. Clark, Ph.D.
Certified Arborist W E-0846
RECEIVED
tAY 1 9 Z003
DUBLIN PLANNING
R0. Box 754
Pleasant?n, CA 94566
Phone: 925 484 0211
FAX: 925 484 5096
www.hortscience.com
November 25, 2002
~ Horlicul~ura[
Jeff Woods
Black Mountain Development
3925 Old Santa Rita Rd., Suite 200
Pleasanton CA 94588
Subject: Brittany Lane, Lot B
Dear Jeff:
1 have reviewed the Tree Driplihe Exhibit for Lot 8 prepared by RMR Design Group, Nov. 14,
2002. in my opinion the impacts depicted in the ~,hibit are well within the tolerance of the
tree. The very minor amount of pruning needed to provide cl~.rance forths proposed house
will be insignificant to the health, stability and appearance of the tree.
Sincerely,
Nelda Matheny ~'~
Consulting Arborist %J
JUL-28-200S O3:44PH
TEL)1925520000~
ID)CITY OF DUBLIN
P.O. Box 754
FA](; 0~$ 4~4 5~J6
www, r,0rtS¢l~nce.c{:m
P~GE:002 R=~OOX
Heritage Tree Protection Plan
Brittany Drive Estates, Tract5073
· . Dublin, CA.
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 94566
February 2001
FEB ~;,.[ ;~001
OlTY OF DUBLIN
BUILDING INSPECTION ,DEPT,
A'rrA . 5
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.
Table 2.
Condition ratings and frequency of occurrence for trees
Suitability for Preservation
Attachments
3
5
Tree SUrvey Map
Tree'Protection Fencing Plan
Tree Survey,Form
Heritage Tree Protection Plan, Brittany Drive, T. 4073, Dublin
February 12; 200l
HortScience, Inc.
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 fimea 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 bUnk diameter at a point '54' above grade.
4. Evaluating tt~e 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 diebacl~, minor
struc~ral defects that could be corrected.
· $- Tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback,
thinning of crown, poor leaf color, moderate structura! defects that
might be mitigated with regular care.
2- Tree in 'decline, epicormic growth, extensNe 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.
O- Dead tree.
· Heritage Tree Protection Plan, Brittany Drive, T. 4073, Dublin
February 12, 200'1
HortScience, Inc~
Page 3 c~O ~'~-~
Rating the suitability for preservation as 'good', "f~ir' 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 ~tructural stability that have the
potential for longevity al 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
spa~ than those in 'good'category.
Poo~. Tree in poor health.or with significant ~tructural defects that
bannot be 'mitigated. Tree is expected to continue to decli.ne,.
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 Bdttany 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 Roliing Hills Dr. '.
As is normal for native'oak woodlands, a range of tree condition was present, from
excellent to poor. Tree condition rangedfrom excellent to poor, although most (80%)
were in the good to fair category. Most Were large, mature individuals. Treesize ranged
from 14" to 61" diameter single-trunked trees. Average trunk diameteFwas 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 Ratinq No. of
· · GoOd Fair Poor Trees
(4-5) (3) (1-2)
Coast live oak
Valley oak
Quercus agrffofia 1 I 2 ' '4 :(20%)
Quercus lobata 7" 7 2 16 (80%)
Total
8 8 4 20
40% ' 40% 20% 100%
Heritage Tree'Protection Plan, Brittany Drive, T. 40.73, Dubfin
February 12, 2001
HortScience, Inc.
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 plant'ed 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 s~re. that they may survive development impacts,
adapt to a new en~vironment 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 Iow risk of damage
or injury if theyfail. 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 well as their st~ctura'l
stability. Where development will not occur, the normal.lEe'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 arid other structural defects that
canr~ot be corrected ate 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 indMdual spec[as 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 roan altered environment. Young trees are better
able to generate new tissue and respond to change.
Heritag~ Tree Protection Plan, Brittany Drive, T. 407:3,, Dublin
February 12, 2001
HortScience, Inc.'
Page 5
.Each tree was ratedfor suitability for preservation based upon its age,.'health, structura~
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 Valfey oak 28
353 ValleY oak'. 19, 18, 15, 13
354 Valley c)ak 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 thosein the "good"' category. Eight (8) trees were rated
as having moderate suitability for preServation.
Tree No, Species ' Diameter
'(in.)
358
342
343
344
347
348
349
351
Valley oak 29
Coast live oak 41
ValleY oak 14, 13, 12,!1, 6
Valley oak -33
Valley oak 25
Valley oak ' 17
Valley oak .. 61
Valley oak 17, 13
Low
Trees in this category are in poor hea~th or have significant defects in
st~uctu're 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 Iow suitability for- preservation.
Tree No. Species Diameter
(in.)
336 Valley oak 20
339 Coast tive oak 22
341' Coast live oak 15
345 Valley °ak 14
Heritage Tree Protection Plan, Bdttany Drive, T. 4073,-Dublin
February 12, 2001
HortSciende, Inc.
Page 6.
We 'consider trees with good suitability for preservation to be the best candidates for
preservation. We donot recommend retention of trees with tow suitability for Preservation
in 'areas where people or structures will be present. Retention of trees with mo"orate
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 tots 1, 8
and 9 prepared by EDi Architecture, Inc. (received Feb. 12, 2001).
Potential impacts from Construction were ~ssessed 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 downsiope from the home areas, they Cab-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 ~xpect 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 wilt occur downslope
from the trunks. A TREE PROTECTION 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 sliali be l~ept free.of weeds and
dead wood.:' Weed cohtrols 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 irrfgated 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 Protection Plan, Brittany Drive, T. 4073, .Dublin
'February 12, 2001'
)-'7
HortS.cience, Inc.
--Page 7
Tree Preservation Guidelines
The goal of tree preservation is .not merely tree surVival during development but
· maintenance of tree t~eatth and beauty for many years. Trees retained on-sites that are
either subject to extensive injury during construction or are inadequately maintained
become a.iiab[lity'rather than an asset. The respons, e 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 e. nd
construction phases.
Design
1.
recommendations
A TREE PROTECTION ZONE shall be established at the dripline of all trees. No
grading, excavation, construction orStorage of materials shall occur within that
zone.
2. All site development plans shall be reviewed bythe Project Arbodst for evaluation
of impacts to trees and recommendations for mitigation.
3. Retain the rock. outcropping within 30~ ot trees #335 and 342.
o
No underground services including utilities, sub-drains~ water or se~/er shall be.
placed in the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. -
Tree Preservation Notes, prepared by the Consulting Arborist, shoutd be
· included on all construction plans.
Irrigation systems must be designed so that no trenching wilI oc. cur within the
TREE PROTECTION zoNE. Surface 'Water from irrigation runoff must be directed
away from oak trunks..
N° 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. .
-As'trees.withdraw water from the soil, expansive soils may shdnk 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 Manageme~ Plan, and to clear the crown. All pruning
shall be completed by a Certified Arborist or Tree Worker and adhere to the Tr&e
Pruning Guidelines'of. th~ 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 driplines as depicted on the Protection Fencing Plan (see Attachments). it-
Heritage Tree. Protection Plan, Brittany Drive, T. 4073, Dublin
February 12, 2001
HOrtScience, Inc.
Page 8
is not necessary to fence'trees on the downhill side, away from ail construction.
Fences shall be 6 ff. 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 occuf within the.TREE
PROTECT~ONZONE. Any modifications must be approved by the City Of Dublin and
monito red .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 occurtO 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 within 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.
Certified Arborist #WC-0~J5
=~ :,--'.: . -:.'~ .~..--' . .. ~ , o--. - :- ;. . ~ - . ~ '.
~ :...~ '/' '.:" := .~;'""=., -;~5:-:--, '='." S.' '.-_-"-,...--'"' , ' ~; -' ,.
: . . ;_.- ~ -:.:.-:- . '.....::....~_-.-.:.': ::: ~,_:.'~~,~ '_ . . :: .:.=.,
· - .... ; .... ~o' '.., '~-~:~"".:___ ~4~: ~::- ~,' ' \' '.
.... ~ ' '~.1, : ~..: ' ~ '"" - ~""- ~42 .~41 e$40 ', ' ~,4 \ · L :
......... :,-:,'~' '-' '- ~ .... ~ .... '.."-.'~ '-'. :-. ~'"' '/"°' ' "."'. ' "' '1 ~'i ..~_.~...~..,.~ ' -
'... ... . . · ° ~. - .,."';
.,
.×
Tree' Survey.Map
Brittany. Drive
· Tract. 5073
· Dublin; CA
Prepared fo.r:
Black Mountain
'Development
San Ramon, CA
July 2000'
Not to Scale
Base map provided by
RMR Design Grou;
Concord, C,
Driplines and numbered tree Iocation~
are approximate
< -------- Tree Protection
Fencing
'Tree PrOtection
Fencing Plan
Brittany Drive
Tract- 5073
Dublin, CA
Prepared for.
, Black Mountain
· Development
. San Ramon, CA
February 2001
No Scale
Notes;
Base map provided by;
RMR Design (3toup
Concord. CA
Driplines and numbered tree locations
are approximate.
TREE SURVEY
TREE· SPECIES
No.
TRUNK CONDITION SUITABILITY.
DIAMETER 1=poor .for.
(in inches) 5=excellent ' 'PRESERVATION
335. Valley oak
27,23,23
Good
336 Valieyoak
337 Valleyoak
20
25, 16
4.
Poor
Good
338 Valleyoak
339 Coast'liveoak
29
22
3
2
Moderate
POor
340 Coast live oak '
40,26
4
Good
341 Coast live oak
342 Coast live oak
343 Valley oak
·15
41
14, 13, 12, 11, 6
2
3
3
Poor
Moderate
Moderate
344
345
~346
347
348
349
Valley oak
Valley oak
· Valley oak
Valley o. ak.
Velley oak
Valley oak.
3·
14
31
25
17.'.
61
3
2
4
3
3
3
·Moderate
Poor
Good '
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Black Modntain Development
Brittany Lane EStates
Dublin, CA-
July 201:)0
COMMENTS
'Multiple stems from base; good form; one 23" trunk leans south
over creek.
SuppreSSed growth; little foliage; large necrotic area at'base,
Multiple attachments @ 3'; slightly supp.ressed withcrown tO south;
some deadwood, . .. ~ '
Suppressed growth; leaning to soUth-east; deadwood incr0wn.
.'Suppressed by tree 340; major dieback in crown; decay fruiting
bodies evident, '
Excellent large speci~nen; some deadwood; groWth Cracks along
some scaffolds; scaffolds on north lying on ground.
Suppressed by 342; poor form; heavy end weight,
Good form; some'deadwood;'codominant with included union at 3'~
Multiple trunks at ground level; good form, "- ·
Partially failed; low scaffolds to southeast,
Highly suppressed; leaning 45 degrees to north...
Highly desirable; excellent fOrm and structure; minor deadwood,
CroWn slightly suppressed, ' ' ·
High crown,
Very large; multiple attachments at 3'; number Of.cavities in trunk;
included bark,
Page 1 '
III
TREE SPECIES TRUNK CONDITION SUITABILITY
No. DIAMETER 1=poor for
(in inches) 5=excellent PRESERVATION
350 Valley oak 31
351 Valley oak 17, 13 3
352 Valley oak 28 4
353 Valley oak 19, 18, 15, 13 4
· ' 354 Valley oak 31 4
Black Mountain DeveloPment
Brittany Lane Estates
Dublin, CA '
July 2000
Moderate
Good
Good
Good
COMMENTS '
.. MultiPle attachments @ 7'; good forrfi; Iow canopy on uphill side; ·
moderate deadwood.
Codominant @ 1'; trunk' obtside property; suppressed form;
Highly desirable; good form; minor deadwood.
Codominant trunks arising at ground level; one with multiple
attachment at- 2'; good overall form; minor deadwood.
Canopy one-sided; large scaffolds at rightangles; Iow branches on
down hill side..
CIT3~ 'C L E~Rt~i~
File#[
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 20, 2001
sUBJECT:
Public Hearing: PA 00-009, appeal of Planning Commission approval of
the Black Mountain Site Development Review, for six single-family
residences on six 'existing lots on Brittany Lane and one single-family
residence on an existing lot on Rolling Hills DriVe.
(Report Pfc, Pared by:' Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner/Zoning
Administrator)
ATTACHMENTS:
BACKROUND
ATTACHMENTS:
1')
2)
3)
4)
5)
1)
2)
3)
5)
6)
Revised project plans for Lots 1, 8 and 9
Resolution of City Council affirming the December 12, 2000 Planning
COmmission action with changes reflecting revised Wildfire
Management Plan
Revised Tree Pro'cection Plan
Letter from the Director of Community Development approving the
Revised Tree Protection Plan
Analysis of Grounds for Appeal witti Staff's Response
January 16, 2001 Staff Report including project plans
Letter dated December 2 I, 2000 appealing Planning Commission
decision
Heritage Tree Ordinance
December 12, 2000 Planning Commission StaffReport without
attachments
Planning Commission Resolution 00-71.
Study comparing topography profile prior to 1985, the 1985 finish
grade profile and proposed finish floor elevations in relationship to
Brittany Lane
RECOMMENDATION:
· 2)
3)
4)
5)
Hear Staff presentation
Open Public Hearing
Quesdon Staff, Apptictint and the Public
Close public hearing and deliberate
Options for action:
A. Decide that the planning Commission action be affirmed and
adopt resolution (Attachment 2) approving the Black
COPIES TO: PA 0O-009 File.
Appellants
ITEM NO. ..~ ~ .~,.. ?],
Mountain Development Site Development Review fbr seven
homes on seven existing lots with changes proposed by Staff.
Decide that the Planning Commission decision be reversed
and direct Staffto prepare a resolution reversing the Planning
Commission decision and deny the Black Mountain
Development Site Development Review for seven homes on
seven existing lots
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is an appeal of the December 12, 2000 decision of the Planning Commission to approve a Site
Development Reyiew for the construction of seven single-family homes on seven existing lots created as
lots 1 and 7 - 12 ofB16ck 1 of Tract Map 5073. The lots are located at 11299 Rolling Hills Drive and
11151, !1159, 11167, 11175, 11183 and 11191 Brittany Lane. The appeal shall be considered as required
by Chapter 8.136, Appeals, of the Zoning Ordinance.
The appellants filed a timely appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on December 21,2000.
The appellants gave six grounds for the appeal. This report will address each ground for appeal in
Attachment 5.
Under Section 8.136.060.D, the City Council may affirm, affirm in part, or reverse the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve the Site Development Review. Staff suggests' two options:
The. City Council could decide that the Planning Commission action be affirmed and direct Staff to
prepare a resolution affirming the Planning Commission decision and'approving the Black Mountain
Development Site Development Review for seven homes on seven existing lots with changes proposed
by Staff as further set forth in this Staff Report.
The City Council could decide that the Planning Commission decision be reversed and direct Staff to
prepare a resolution reversing_Planning Commission decision and denying the Black Mountain
Development Site Development Review for seven homes on seven existing lots
BACKGROUND:
Original development. On August 12, 1985, the City Council approved PA 85-035.3, Hatfield
Development Corporation Investee, Inc. Tract Maps 5072, 5073 and 5074. Lots 1 and 7 - 12 of Block I
of Tract Map 5073 were not built upon when the rest of the homes were built in 1985. These lots are the
location of the seven proposed residences of this project. City Council Resolution 82 - 85 set forth the
conditions of appro,val 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.
Black Mountain Development Application. On May 22, 2000, Jeff Woods of Black Mountain
Development applied fOr this Site Development Review. The project Proposes five 3,400 square foot
semi-custom homes on Lots 7, 10, 11 and 12. On February 12, 2001, Jeff Woods of Black Mountain
Development submitted revised project plans for the homes On Lots 1, 8 and 9 (Attachment 1). The
homes On Lots 8 and 9 will be 2,800 feet in size and the home on Lot 1 will be reduced in size to 3,255
square feet to draw it back 5 feet from a Fire Resistive Heritage Tree.
2
Planning Commission Action. On December 12, 2000, The Planning Commission voted 3 ~n favor wttg
2 absent to adopt Resolution 00-7,1 approving this Site Development Review.
Timely appeal.. On December 21, 2000 a timely appeal of the December 12, 2000 decision was filed.
January 16, 2001 Public Hearing. On January 16, 2001, the City Council heard the appeal of this
Project. The City Council continued the public hearing on this project until February 20, 2001 and
directed that the project be redesigned to minimize impacts to the heritage trees and provide for
construction of the homes. It was recognized that.the redesign of the homes to protect the heritage trees
could result in impacts to views of adjacent homes on Brittany Lane; The City Council also directed that
Staff look at ways to modify the Wildfire Management Plan' to take into consideration heritage trees in
proximity to the homes while minimizing Fire Code pruning impacts to the trees. Staff was directed:to
bring back a resolution modifying the previous resolution establishing the Wildfire Management Plan
General Plan. The proposed residences are located on existing single family lots that were created in
confoimity with the Single Family Residential plan designation of the Dublin General Plan.
Zoning. The proposed residences are tocated on existing single family lots that were created in ...
conformity with the R'I Zoning District. The proposed residences conform to all applicable development
.standards of the R-1 Zoning District. ..
ANALYSIS OF GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
Staffhas responded to specific grounds of appeal in the attached Analysis of Grounds for Appeal with
StatT's Response (Attachment 5). The analysis addresses and presenLS the staff response to each ground for
appeal.
PROJECT REDESIGN
Front yard setback. City Council Resolution 82-85 requires a 20-foot front yard setback for homes in
the development of which the subject 7 lots are a part. Condition 3 of that Resolution permits the
stipulation of other regulations, including setbacks, via the Site Development Review process. Staff has
proposed that the homes on lots 8 and 9 have the face' of the garage door at I8 feet from the curb and that
living areas of the house be able to encrOach to 13 feet from the curb. This level of encroachment will
permit the placement of 2,800 square foOt homes on these two lots and is typical of many homes in the
Hansen Hills developm&nt to the south. No changes to the front yard setback were necessary for Lot 1.
The home on Lot 1 was reduced in size to move it away from the Fire Resistant Heritage Trees on Lot 1.
Height. The peak of the roof on the redesigned home on lot 8 is at an elevation of 637 feet whereas the
peak of the roof of the home that was originally proposed on this lot is at an elevation of 634 feet 7 and ½
inches. This results in an increase in height of 2 feet 4½ inches. The peak of the roof on the redesigned
home on lot 9 is at an elevation of 646 feet whereas the peak of the roof of the home that was originally
propOsed on this lot is at an elevation of 640 feet 7 and ½ inches. This results in an increase in height of 5
feet 4 and ½ inches. Measured at mid-lot the home on Lot 8 will increase in height from 17 feet 6 inches
to 19 feet 10 and ½ inches measured from the sidewalk. The home on Lot 9 will increase in height from
I3 feet to 18 feet 4 and ½ inches measured from the sidewalk. The increase in height of the homes was
necessary to preserve the Fire Resistant Heritage Trees on lots 8 and 9. The homes on Lots 7, 1.0, 11 and
I2 average 13,16 feet high when viewed from the sidewalk on Brittany Lane.
Design of the homes. The seven homes will range in size from 2,800 square feet to 3,400 square feet.
The homes on Lots 7, i0, 11, 'and 12 are identical to those described at the January 16, 2001 public
hearing on this projeot. Two floor plans, one with a "straight-in" garage and one with a "side-in" garage
are proposed. The home on Lot 1 was reduced in size to draw it away from the driplines of the Fire
Resistive Heritage Trees on Lot 1. Other than a reduction in size, the home is identical to the design
proposed earlier. The homes on lot 8 and 9 were redesigned to move them closer to Brittany lane and not
encroach into the driplines of Fire Resistive Heritage Trees. The residences are sited on the lots to
minimize impacts to views from other residences on Brittany Lane. Hip roofs have been incorporated into
the design to minimize impacts to views. The homes on lots 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 will have a street
presence of a single-stow home. Landscaping plans were prepared by Gates and Associates and will
provide an attractive landscape presence on Brittany Lane.
WILDFIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Changes to the Plan. The Fire Marshall and Staff are proposing the following changes to'the Wildfire
Management Plan to allow construction of homes near Heritage Trees while insuring minimal impacts to
the Heritage Trees and insuring the safety of the residents of the homes:
Definition icl Fire Resistive Heritage Trees
Fire Resistive Heritaae Trees - Coast Live Oak, Valley Oak, Blue Oak, or California Buckeye trees that
otherwise qualify as Heritage Trees under the Heritage Tree Ordinance, Chapter 5.60 of the Dublin
Municipal Code
B. Construction requirements for buildings or lots containing Fire Resistive Heritage Trees.
Modified Construction Requirements for Buildings/Lots Containing. Fire Resistive Heritaue Trees
The following requirements shall be implemented in addition to the construction requirements set forth
above when there is a Fire Resistive Heritage Tree within 100 feet of the exterior wall or deck projection
as measured from'the drip line of the tree.
1. Exterior walls.. Fire rated construction standards required for the exterior wall of buildings most
exposed to.wildfire risk shall be extended to the adjacent, exterior walls of the building.
2. Windows. Install dual tempered glass windows in openings on the elevation most exposed .to wildfire
risk and adjacent elevations of the structure.
3. Metal Structural Members. Metal structural members shall be used in place of wood in construction of
all underfloor areas that are enclosed to the ground with exterior walls as required above in the Wildfire
Management Plan.
4. Automatic Fire Sprinklers. Provide fire sprinkler flow detection monitoring, through a central station
company.
C. Vegetation standards. ~ ~ ~ ~1 \
ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF FIRE RESISTIVE
HERITAGE TREES ON APPROVED LOT'S
When any of the Vegetation Standards callg for pruning of limbs and trees that are identified as Fire
Resistive Heritage Trees, the following standards may be implemented in place of required ground
clearance.
1 ' An irrigated fuel break/greenbelt shall be installed outside the dripline of the.Fire Resistive
Heritage Trees. Size and compatibility of the greenbelt shall be determined following consultation with a
Certified Arborist and review of the degree of slope surrounding the trees. The greenbelt vegetation shall
be fire resistive and requixe little watering.
2. All vegetation shall be maintained per the Wildfire Management Plan standards or Alameda
County Fire Department Removal Standards, except as modified for Fire Resistive Heritage Trees.
3. Ground under the Fixe Resistive Heritage Trees shall be kept free of weeds and dead wood. Leaf
litter shall be allowed ~o remain as a mulch to protect the soil.
4. Limited pruning shall be completed to thin foliage, remove dead wood, raise the foliage one-foot
above the 'ground and where appropriate, separate the crowns of the trees. Crown separation shall be
based on the recommendation of the Project Arborist and the City's Arborist. Branches larger than one
inch in diameter shall not be pruned unless agreed to by the project arborist and the City's arborist. :
5. All other applicable standards Shall continue to apply except as modified above.
Liability issue
The proposed changes to the Wildfire Management Plan will .insure that the structures built adjacent to
Fire Resistive Heritage Trees meet the requirements of the 1998 California Fire Code,
CHANGES TO PROJECT SINCE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
The following additional conditions of approval to Planning Commission Resolution 00-71 are proposed
by Staff to address drainage issues and Fire Resistant Heritage Tree issues:
Storm Drain Easement on Lot 1. This condition is proposed to reflect the existence of a "Comm°n
Area Storm Drain Easement" on Lot 1 that was pointed out by a member of the public at the December
12, 2000 Planning Commission public hearing on this issue. The proposed house will have to be
relocated to avoid the easement. The condition reads as follows:
Storm Drain Easement on Lot 1. According to the final map for Tract 5073, an existing 10'-
wide "Common Area Storm Drain Easement" extends across Lot 1 (Rolling Hills Drive flag lot) to
aliow storm runoff from the neighboring Lot 2 to discharge downslope to Martin Canyon Creek.
No permanent structures, including the proposed residence, shall be constructed.over said existing.
eaSement. Concrete flatwork and landscaping may be allowed if the Applicant aemonstrates that
said improvement will not adversely impact the drainage pattern. Alternatively, the Applicant
may demonstrate to the City that permission from the Silvergate Highlands Owners Association
haS been obtained for the relocation of the eaSement and the associated drainage facilities.
Responsible Agency: PW'
W-hen required: Prior to. issuance of Building Permits.
5
Perpetuation of Oak Grove/planting of additional oak trees. This condition is proposed'because it ~-~ ~/ /
was recommended for inclusion by the City's arborist. Thc Condition reads as follows:
Perpetuation of Oak Grove/planting of additional oak trees.' Landscape improvements for this
project shall include the planting of additional oak trees.
Tree Protection Zone. This condition was revised to place a Tree Protection Zone around all of the trees,
not just north of certain ~rees.
Tree Protection Zone. A Tree Protection Zone shall be established, at the driplines of all the
trees. No grading, excavation, construction or storage of materials shall occur within this
zone.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior 'to issuance of Building Permit.
Construction Requirements. The wording of the condition is the same as in the modified Wildfire
Management .Plan.
Vegetation Standards/pruning. The wording of the condition is the same as in the modified Wildfire
Management Plan.
Tree pruning by construction personnel. This condition is recommended by the Project Arborist to
minimize impacts to the trees.
Tree pruning by construction personnel. No tree pruning may be performed by construction
personnel..
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
Encroachment of Driplines. This condition establishes a minimum distance of homes.from a Fire
Resistive Heritage Tree.
Encroachment of DripHnes.
Resistive Heritage Tree.
ResPonsible Agency:
When Required:
No structure shall encroach to within 5 feet of the dripline of a Fire
PL
prior to issuance of Building Permit.
The following changes to conditions of approval of Planning Commission Resolution 00-71 are proposed
by Staff:
Condition 39. Condition 39 of the Planning Commission Resolution of APproval is proposed to be
deleted because it is not necessary.
Condition 87. Condition 87 is proposes to be modified to substitute "1998 Califomia Fire Code" for
"1997 Uniform Fire Code" because the 1998 code h~ been adopted by.the City and has the same
requirements relating to this project.
Condition 106. Condkion 1'06 is. proposed to be modified to add the word "unauth0rized
wording identical to the requirements of the Heritage Tree Ordinance. That condition as amended
(underlined) reads as follows:
106. The applicant/devel°per':shall ~guarantee the protection of the Heritage Trees on the project site
through placement of a caSh boiid or other security deposit in the amount of $100,000. The cash
bond or other security shall be retained for a reasonable period oft/me 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 as a civil penalty for any
unauthorized removal or destruction of a Heritage Tree.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
REVISED TREE PROTECTION PLAN
A revised Tree Protection Plan was prepared by HortScience to reflect the preservation of the Fire
Resistive Heritage Trees. The Plan was revised to reflect the revised home plans for Lots 1, 8 and 9 and
mixnimize any impacts to the Fire Resistive Heritage Trees. The requirements of the revised Tree
Protection Plan are incorporated as conditions of approval. The Community Development Director has
approved the revised Tree Protection Plan (Attachment 3).
DECISION OPTIONS BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
If the City Council wishes to affirm the Planning Commission action, with changes proposed by Stuff, it
should choose Option A. Option A reads as follows:
Option A: Decide that the Planning Commission action be affirmed and adopt resolution (Attachment 2)
approving the Black Mountain Development Site Development Review for seven homes on
seven existing lots with changes proposed by Staff.
If the City Council wishes to reverse the Planning Commission action, it should choose Option B below.
Option B:
Decide that the Planning Commission decision be reversed and direct Staff to prepare a
resolution reversing_Planning Commission decision and denying the Black Mountain
DeveloPment Site Development Review for seven homes on seven existing lots. The
resolution should/dent/fy how the project fails to comply with applicable Site Development
Review findings and/or standards and how the project can be brought into compliance with
such findings and/or standards.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The environmental impactg 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. Further, the project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section
15304, Class 4, minor public or private alterations in the condition of the land, water, and/or vegetation
which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry and agricultural
purposes. Specifically, Subsection (I) providesprovides, Fuel management activities within 30 feet of
7
structures to reduce the voiume of flammable vegetation, 15rovided that the activities will not result in the
taking of endangered, rare, or tl~reatened plant or animal species or significant erosion and sedimentation
of surface waters. This exemption shall apply to fuel management activities within 100 feet ora structure
if the public agency having fire protection responsibility for the area has determined that 100 feet of fuel
clearance is required due to extra hazardous fire conditions. This project is adjacent to a wildfire area and
the 1998 California Fire Code, as adopted by the City, requires 100 feet of fuel clearance for this project.
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
The proposed Site Development Review is consistent with the Single Family Residential designation of
the General Plan and the PD (R-l) Zoning District.
AGENCY REVIEW
This project has been reviewed by other City departments and interested agencies, and their comments
have been incorporated as condkions of approval in the draft Resolution.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council open the public hearing; question' Staff, Applicant and the Public;
close the public hearing and deliberate, and either:
Option A:
Option B:
Decide that the Plarming Commission action be affirmed and adopt resolution (Attachment 2)
approving the Black Mountain Development Site Development Review for seven homes on
seven existing lot~s with changes proposed by Staff, or
Decide that the Planning commission decision be reversed and direct StatTto prepare a
resolution reversing_Planning Comnfission decision, and denying the Black Mountain
DeveloPment Site Development Review for seven homes on seven existing lots. The
resolution should identify how the proj eot fails to comply with applicable Site Development
Review findings and/or standards and how the project can be brought into compliance with
such findings and/or standards.
G:\p aO(}-oOg/ccappealsr 2-20-01
REsoLuTION NO. 26 -01
A RESOLU~ON OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 12, 2000,
APPROVING PA 00--009 BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR SEVEN SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES
ON EXISTING LOTS ON BRITTANY LANE WITH CHANGES PROPOSED BY STAFF
WHEREAS, Black Mountain Development has requested approval of a Site Development Review
for seven single family homes on existing lots on Brittany Lane; and
WHEREAS, a completed application for Site Development Reviow is available and on file in the
Dublin Planning Department; and
WI:[EREAS, 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. Further, the project is Categorically
Exempt pursuant xo Section 15304, Class 4, minor public or private alterations in the condition of the
land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for
forestry and agricultural purposes. Specifically, Example "F', Fuel management activities within 30 feet
of structures to reduce the volume of flammable vegetation, provided that the activities will not result in
the taking of endangered, rare, or threatened plant or animal species or significant erosi°n and .
..~sedimentation of surface waters. This exemption shall apply to fuel management activities within 100
feet of a structure, if the public agency having fire protection responsibility for the area has determined
that 100 feet of fuel clearance is required due to extra hazardous fire conditions. This project is adjacent
to a wildfire area and the 1998 California Fire Code requires 100 feet of fuel clearance for this project;
and
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
W~REAS, the project, is consistent in all respects with the Wildfire Management' Plan; and
WHEREAS, the project is consistent in all respects with Dublin General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the project is consistent in all respects with the conditions of approval of City Council
Resolution 82-85; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on
December 12, 2000; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, a staff report was submitted to the Planning Commission recommending approval of
the Site Development Review subject to conditions prepared by Staff; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgement and
considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth; and
WltEREAS, on December 12, 2000, the Planning Commission did by a vote of 3 ayes and 2 absent
approve PA 00-009:
NOW, TI~I~FORE, BE IT RESOLVED TItAT TltE Dublin City Council does hereby make
the following findings and determinations regarding said proposed Site Development Review:
The approval of this application (PA 00-009) is consistent with the intent/purpose of
Section 8.104 (Site Development Review) of the Zoning Ordinance.
The approval of this application, as conditioned, complies with the policies of the General
Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, the Heritage Tree Ordinance, the Wildfire Management Plan
and City Council Resolution 82-85.
The approval will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working
in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare because ail
applicable regUlations will have been met.
Impacts to views have been addressed by sensitive design and siting of the proposed
single-family residences.
Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed in the project through the
use of pier and grade beams and by minimal grading to site the homes and front yards.
The approval of this application, as conditioned, is in conformance with regional
transportation and growth management plans.
The approval of this application,, as conditioned, is in the best interests of the public health,
safety and general welfare as the development is consistent with all laws and ordinances
and implements the requirements of tlae General Plarg the Zoning Ordinance, the Heritage
Tree Ordinance and City Council Resolution 82-85.
The proposed physical site development, including the intensity of development, site
layout, grading, vehicular access, circulation and parking, setbacks, height, walls, public
safety and similar elements, as conditioned, has 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 other buildings, signs, building materials and
colors, screening of exterior appurtenances, exterior lighting and similar elements have
been incorporated into the project and as conditions of approval in order to insure
compatibility of this development with the development's design concept or theme and the
character of surrounding development.
2
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, TItEREFORE BE IT FIJRTltER RESOLVED TltAT the Dublin City Council does
hereby find that:
The Black Mountain Development Site Development Review is consistent with the intent of
applicable subdivision regulations and related ordinances.
B. The design and improvements of the Black Mountain Development Site Development Review
is consistent with the Dublin General Plan polices as they relate to the subject property in that
it is a single-family residential development consistent with the Single-Family Residential
.Designation of the Dublin General Plan.
C. The Black Mountain Development Site Development Review is consistent with the Heritage
Tree Ordinance, City Council Resolution 82-85 and with the City of Dub'lin Zoning .~ ...
Ordinance.
The project site is located adjacent to Rolling Hills Drive and Brittany Lane, on seven existing
lots. 'Six shallow building pads face on Brittany Lane and on one flag lot on Rolling Hills
Drive. The homes will be supported by the shallow building pads, but the majority of each
residence will be placed on a framework of deep-seated piers and grade beams. This will
minimize grading impacts to the lots. Functional padd0d exterior living areas are proposed in
the fi'ont yards and in raised deck areas. Therefore the site is physically suitable for the type
and intensity of single-family residential development proposed.
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. Further,
the project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15304, Class 4, minor public or private
alterations in the condition of the land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal
of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry and agricultural purposes. Specifically,
Example "F', Fuel management activities within 30 feet of structures to reduce the volume of
flammable vegetation, provided that the activities will not result in the taking of endangered,
rare, or threatened plant or animal species or significant erosion and sedimentation of surface
waters. This exemption shall apply to fuel management activities within 100 feet ora
structure if the public agency having fire protection responsibility for the area has determined
that 100 feet of fuel clearance is required due to extra hazardous fire conditions. This project
is adjacent to a wildfire area and the 1998 California Fire Code requires 100 feet of fuel
clearance for this project.
NOW, TItEREIrORE BE IT FIIRTttER RESOLVED TItAT ~ Dublin City Council does hereby
affirm the decision of the Plaxming Commission on PA 00-009 on December 12, 2000, and hereby
conditionally approves the Site Development Review Application for PA 00-009 to develop seven single
family residences on seven lots with the Assessors Parcel Numbers 941-2775-30, 941-2775-36, 941-
2775-37, 941-2775-38, 941-2775-39, 941-2775-40 and 941-2775-41 as generally depicted by materials
labeled Attachment 1, stamped "approved" and on file in the City of Dublin Planning Department. This
approval shall conform generally to the project plans submitted by EDI Architecture dated "received
3
December 4, 2000" and "received February 12, 2001", the Heritage Tree Protection Plan for this project
stamped "received February 12, 2001", the Site Development Plan by RMR Design Group dated
"received December 4, 2000" and.the Colors and Materials Boards submitted by EDI Architecture dated
'~received June 12, 2000" 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, lB] Building, [PO] Police, [PW] Public Works, IAI)M] Administration/City
Attorney, [FIN] Finance, .pCS] Parks and Community Services, IF] Alameda County Fire Dept., [DSR]
Dublin San Ramon Services District, [CO] Alameda County Flood Control and water Conservation
District Zone 7. The bolded words at the beginning or each condition of approval identi _fy the general
topic of the condition of approval or constitute the condition if not followed by explanatory text.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
Standard Conditions of Approval. Applicant/Developer shall comply with all applicable City of
Dublin Standard Public Works Criteria (Attachment A). In the event of a conflict between the
Public Works Criteria and these ConditiOns, these Conditions shall prevail.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Approval of Improvement Plans through completion
Modifications or changes. Modifications or changes to this Site Development Review approval
may be considered by the Community Development. Director, if the modifications or changes
proposed comply with Section 8.104.100, of the Zoning Ordinance.
Responsible Agency: PL
Required By:: Approval of Improvement Plans through completion
Term. Approval of the Site Development Review shall be valid for one year from approval by the
Planning Commission. If construction has not commenced by that time, this approval shall be null
and void. The approval period for Site Development Review may be extended six (6) additional.
months by the Director of Community Development upon determination that the Conditions of
Approval remain adequate to assure that the above stated findings of approval will continue to be
met. (Applicant/Developer must submit a written request for the extension prior to the expiration
date of the Site Development Review.)
Responsible Agency: PL
Required By: On-going
o
Fees. ApplicantJDeveloper shall.pay all applicable fees in effect at the time of building permit
issuance, including, but not limited to, Planning fees, Building fees, Dublin San Ramon Services
District Fees, Public Facilities Fees, Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees, City
Traffic Impact fees, City Fire Impact fees; Noise Mitigation fees, Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu
fees; Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water
Connection fees; and any other fees as noted in the Development Agreement. UnisSUed building
permits subsequent to new or revised fees shall be subject to recalculation and assessment of the
fair share of the new or revised fees.
4
10.
11.
Responsible Agency:
When Required:
Various
Various times, but no later than Issuance of Building Permits
Revocation. The SDR will be revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8.96.020.1 of the
Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions of this approval shall be
· subject to citation. Responsible Agency: PL
Required By: On-going
.Required Permits. Applicant/Developer shall comply with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
and obtain all necessary permits required by other agencies (Alameda County Flood Control
District Zone 7, California Department ofFish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional
Water Quality Control Board, State Water Quality Control Board, Etc.) and shall submit copies of
the permits to the Department of Public Works.
Responsible Agency: Various
When Required: Various times, but no later than Issuance of Building Permits
Building Codes and Ordinances. Ail project construction shall conform to all building codes and
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit.
Responsible Agency: Bldg.
When Required: Through Completion
Compliance. Applicant/Developer shall comply with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance, City
Council Resolution 82-85, the Wildfire Management Plan, the Tree Protection Plan for this project
and the City of Dublin General Plan.
ResPonsible .Agency: PL
When Required: Issuance of Building Permits and On-going
Conditions of Approval. In submitting subsequent plans for review and approval, each set of
plans shall have attached an annotated copy of these Conditions of Approval and the Standard
Public Works Conditions of Approval. The notations shall clearly indicate how all Conditions of
Approval and Standard Public Works Conditions of Approval will be complied with.
Improvement plans Will not be accepted without the annotated conditions and standards attached
to each set of plans. Applicant/Developer will be responsible for obtaining the approvals of all
participating non-City agencies.
Responsible Agency: PW, PL, Bldg.
When Required: Building Permit Issuance
Solid Waste/Recycling. Applicant/Developer shall comply with the City's solid waste
management and recycling requirements.
Responsible Agency: ADM,
When Required: On-going
Refuse Collection. The refuse collection service provider shall be consulted to ensure that
adequate space is provided to accommodate collection and sorting ofpetrueible solid waste as well
as source-separated recyclable materials generated by the residents within this project.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Occupancy of Any Building
5
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Water Quality Requirements. All development shall meet the water quality requirements of the
City o£Dublin's NPDES permit and the Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program.
Responsible Agency: PW, PL
Required By: Issuance of Grading Permit
NPDES Permit. Pursuant to requirements of federal law, a NPDES permit shall be obtained from
the RWQCB, and any terms of the permit shall be implemented, if applicable.
Responsible Agency: PW
Required By: Finaling Building Permits
Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental Assessment Studies. ApplicanV3Developer shall supply the
Director o£Community Development and Public Works Department with a copy of the ' '
Developers'Phase I and Phase 2 (only as required by Phase 1) environmental assessment studies.
All remediation required by those studies shall beimplemented' to the satisfaction of the Director
of Public Works prior to Improvement Plan approval.
Responsible Agency: PL, PW
Required By: Issuance of Grading Permit
Rodenticides and Herbicides. The use ofrodenficides and herbicides within the project are~ shall
be performed in cooperation with and under the supervision of the Alameda County Department of
Agriculture and will be restricted, to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development,
to reduce potential impacts to wildlife.
Responsible Agency: PL
Required By: Issuance of Grading Permit
Dust Control/Cleanup. ApplicanffDeveloper shall ensure that-areas undergoing grading and all
other construction activity are watered or other dust control measures are used to prevent dust
problems as conditions warrant or as directed by the Director of Public Works. Furthermore,
Applicant/Developer shall keep adjoining public streets, sidewalks and driveways free and clean .
of project dirt, mud, materials and debris, and clean-up shall be made during the construction
period as determined by the Director ofpublic Works. In the event that the Applicant/Developer
does not complete the clean-up within 48 hours of City's direction, the City has the option of
performing the dean-up and charging the costs of such clean-up to ApplicantfDeveloper. The use
of any temporary construction fencing shall be subject to the review and approval of the Public
Works Director and the Building Official.
Responsible Agency: PW
Required By: Ongoing
Hold Harmless/Indemnification. Applicant/Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless
the City of Dublin and i~s agents, officers, and employees from any clain~ 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 Cie/of Dublin or i~s advisory agency, appeal board, Planning Commission, CiW
Council, Director of Community Development, Zoning Administrator, 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
6
DRAINAGE/GRADING
18.
19.
20.
21.
Grading, drainage and improvement plan. The Applicant/Property Owner shall submit a
grading, drainage and improvement plan for each residence subject to review and approval by the
Public Works Director.
Responsible Agency: PW
Required By: Grading Permit
Compliance. The Applicant/Property Owner shall _c~.mply. wi.~h~he C~i.~y ofD~ub~lin ~Pu.b. lic ,W~ orks
Department grading permit process and Plan Check-L~st. An ~n~ormauon pamcet OUulmng me
grading permit process and Plan Check List is attached.
Responsible Agency: PW
Required By: Grading Permit
Undocumented f'dl. Any undocumented fill on the project site shall be removed during the
grading for this project.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permits.
Drainage. All rain water leaders from roof gutters, balconies, and patios shall be connected to a
pipe network that discharges to the abutting public street via through-curb drains. Foundation or
retaining wall subdrains that must discharge towards the rear of the properties due to their lower
elevation in relationship to the street shall terminate with City-approved energy-dissipation
devices or per a design that prevents erosion of the natural downslopes. No water from subdrains
or from earthen swaies shall discharge in a concentrated manner over and across fine natura~ slopes
below the proposed building envelopes. No surface storm runoff shall be directed towards or
across the neighboring sideyard lot lines.
Responsible Agency: PW
When required: Prior to issuance of Building Permits.
22.
Lots 8 and 9. The cluster of boulders that exist on Lots 8 and 9' shall be removed to allow for
construction on the existing slope and to eliminate the hazard they..may pre,sent~ t,o~p~ple. Other
surface boulders that may be discovered on the existing slopes shall be evamatea ay me
geotechnieal engineer to determine whether a hazard potential will exist ifleft in place. The
Director of Public Works shall concur with the recommendations of the geoteehnical engineer
with respect to any boulders or other topographic features proposed to remain.
Responsible Agency: PW
When required: Prior to issuance of Building Permits.
23.
Storm Drain Easement on Lot I. According to the final map for Tract 5073, an existing 10'-
wide "Common Area Storm Drain Easement" 'extends across Lot 1 (Rolling Hills Drive flag lot) to
allow storm runoff from the neighboring Lot 2 to discharge downslope to Martin Canyon Creek.
No permanent structures, including the proposed residence, shall b.e e.on ~st~. ct .ed?ver s~i.'d ~exis'st~g
easement. Concrete flatwork and landscaping may be allowed iftlae Appncam aemonstrates ma
said improvement will not adversely impact the drainage pattern. Alternatively, the Appti.can. t
may demonstrate to the City that permission from the S!Iv. ergate I-Iighl. a~. ds Own~s ...As..somataon
has been obtained for the relocation of the easement and the asso¢iatea arainage raeintaes.
Responsible Agency: PW
When required: Prior to issuance of Building Permits.
DEDICATIONS AND 12VlPROVEMENTS
24.
Site Drainage and Erosion Control Plan. The project site shall drain in accordance with City of
Dublin Grading Ordinance and State Regional Water Quality Control standards, A Site Drainage
and Erosion Control Plan and "Best Manag~ent Practices" erosion control measures must be
reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to approVal of improvement plans,
Responsible Agency: . PW
Required By: Approval of ImproVement Plans
25.
26.
Mitigation Measures/Drainage Impacts. Applicant/Developer shall demonstrate tOthe
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works that all mitigation measures that need to be improved
as a result of drainage impacts of this project will be constructed prior to occupancy of any
building. Ail drainage improvements shall be constructed to the satisfaction to of the Director of
Public Works.
Responsible Agency: PW
Required By: Occupancy of any Building
Retaining Walls. Where finish grade of this property is in excess of twelve (12) inches higher or
lower than the abutting property or adjacent lots, a concrete or masonry block retaining wall or
other suitable solution acceptable to the Director of Public Works shall be required.
Responsible Agency: PW
Required By: Issuance of Building Permit
27.
Joint Utility Trenches/Undergrounding/Utility Plans. AppIicanffDeveloper shall construct all
joint utility trenches (such as electric, telephone, cable TV, and gas) in accordance with the
appropriate utility jurisdiction. Ail communication vaUlts, electric transformers, and cable TV
boxes shall be underground in designated landscape areas. Utility plans showing the location of
all proposed utilities (including electrical vaults and underground transformers) shall be reviewed
and approved by the Director of Public Works and Director of Community Development.
Location of surface or aboveground items shall be shown on the Final Landscaping and Irrigation
Plan and screened from view.
Responsible Agency: PW, PL
Required By: Occupancy of Affected Buildings
28.
29.
Driveway approaches. The driveway approaches for each residence shall be constructed in
accordance with City Standard Detail CD-306, and said work shall be performed pet an
Encroachment Permit issued by the Public Works Department. Driveways shall be constructed of
portland cement concrete or similar material in accordance with City Standard Detail CD-305.
For Lots 7-12, the driveway slopes shall act exceed 12%.
Responsible Agency: PW
When required: Prior to issuance of Building Permits.
Grading, site development, and foundation work. All grading; site development, and
foundation work shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations contained in the
geotechnical report prepared by Engeo titled "Foundation Exploration, Bordeaux Estates, Dublin
California" dated April 6, 2000. The responsible geotechnicat engineer shall certify on the
building plans that all proposed grading, site developmem, and foundation work conforms to the
recommendations contained in the geotechnieal report.
Responsible Agency: PW .
When required: Prior to issuance of Building Permits.
30.
plans for each residence. The plans for each residence shall include a site-specific plot plan
prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer in a format acceptable to the City. Said plans shall be based
on an accurate topographic survey of each lot, showing existing contour lines at one-foot intervals,
prepared by a licensed Land Surveyor. All proposed improvements including the house footprint,
proposed contour lines, drainage system, fences, retaining walls, building setbacks, street
addresses, water/sewer/joint trench utilities, etc. shall be shown on each plot plan.
Responsible Agency: PW
When required: Prior to issuance of Building Permits.
31.
Steep inclines. Grading which results in slope inclinations that are steeper than presently exist
wilt not be allowed, unless the grading results in slopes no steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical.
Responsible Agency: PW
When required: Prior to issuance of Building Permits.
PHASED OCCUPANCY PLAN
32.
Phased Occupancy Plan. If occupancy of residences is requested to occur in phases, then all
physical improvements within each phase shall be required to be completed prior to occupancy of
buildings within that phase except for items specifically excluded in an approved Phased
'Occupancy Plan, or minor hand work items, approved by the Department of Community
Development. The Phased Occupancy Plan shall be submitted to be Director of Community
Development, and Public Works for review and approval a minimum of 45 days prior to the
request for occupancy of any building covered by said Phased Occupancy Plan. No individual
building shall be occupied until the adjoining area is finished, safe~ accessible, provided with all
reasonably expected services and amenities, and separated from remaining additional construction
activity. Subject to approval of the Director of Community Development, the completion of
landscaping may be deferred due to inclement weather with the posting of a bond for the value of
the deferred landscaping and associated improvements.
RespOnsible Agency: pL, B
Required By: Prior to Occupancy for any affected building
Construction Noise Management Program/Construction Impact Reduction Plan
33.
Construction Noise Management Program/Construction Impact Reduction Plan.
Applicant/DeVeloper shall conform to the following Construction Noise Management
Program/Construction Impact Reduction Plan. Construction shall be conducted so as to minimize
the impacts of the construction on the existing community and on the occupants of the new homes
as they are completed.
Responsible Agency: PL
Required By: During any construction
34.'
Construction Noise Management Program/Construction Impact Reduction Plan. The
following measures shall be taken to reduce eonstmetion impacts:
Responsible Agency: PL
Required By: During any construction
bo
Off-site truck traffic. Off-site truck traffic shall be routed as directly as practical to and
from the freeway (I-580) to the job site. Primary route shall be from 1-580 along, San
Ramon Road, Dublin Boulevard, Silvergate Drive, Rolling Hills Drive and Brittany Lane.
An Oversized Load Permit shall be obtained from the City prior to hauling of any
oversized loads on City streets.
Watering. The construction site shall be watered at regular intervals during all grading
activities. The frequency of watering should increase if wind speeds exceed 15 miles per
hour. Watering should include all excavated and graded areas and material to be
transported off-site. Use recycled or other non-potable water resources where feasible.
9
.Idling construCtion equipment. Construction equipment shall not be left idling while not
in use.
Muffling devises. All construction equipment shall be fitted with noise muffling devises.
Erosion control measures. Erosion Control measures shall be implemented during wet
weather to assure that sedimentation and erosion do not occur.
Mud and dust clean up. Mud and dust carried onto street surfaces by construction
vehicles shall be cleaned-up on a daily basis.
Excavation haul trucks. Excavation haul trucks shall use tarpaulins or other effective
cover~.
Wind erosion. Upon completion of construction, measures shall be taken to reduce wind
erosion. Replanting and repaying should be completed as soon as possible.
Phasing. Houses will be constructed in phases such that most of the construction traffic
can be routed into the subdivision without traveling in ~ont of existing homes that are
occupied.
Fugitive dust. After grading is completed, fugitive dust on exposed soil surfaces shall be
controlled using the following methods:
ko
Seeding and watering of inactive portions of the construction site. Inactive portions of
the construction site should be seeded and watered until grass 'growth is evident.
Watering. Require that all portions of tho site be.sufficiently watered to prevent excessive
amounts of dust.
m. On site speed limit On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 mph.
no
co
Air Quality District. Use of petroleum-based palliatives shall moot the road oil
requirements of the Air Quality District. Non-petroleum based tackifiers may be required
by the Director of Public Works.
The Department of Public Works. The Department of Public Works shall handle all dust
complaints. The Director of Public Works may require the services of an air quality
Consultant to advise the City on the severity of the dust problem and additional ways to
mitigate impact on residents, including temporarily halting project construction. Dust
concerns in adjoining communities as well as the City of Dublin shall be addressed.
Control measures shall be related to wind conditions. Air quality monitoring of PM levels
shall be provided as required by the Director of Public Works.
Construction interference with regional non-project traffic. Construction interference
with regional non-project traffic shall be minimized by:
I. Seheduling receipt of construction materials to non-peak travel periods.
2. Routing eonstruetion traffic through areas of least impact sensitivity.
3. Routing construction traffic to minimize construction interference with regional
non-project traffic movement.
4. Limiting lane closures and detours to off-peak travel periods.
5. Providing fide-share incentives for contractor and subcontractor personnel.
10
Emissions control of on-site equipmentl Emissions control of on;site equipment shall be
minimized through a routine mandatory program of low-emissions tune-ups.
to
Radios and loudspeakers. Radios and loudspeakers shall not be used outside of the
residences during all phases of construction.
Construction vehicles and worker's vehicles. Construction vehicles and worker's '
vehicles shall not be parked on the north side of Brittany Lane or in any driveways on the
north side of Brittany Lane.
Double-parking. No double-parking shall be allowed along Brittany Lane.
Fencing of construction site. Fencing of construction site shall be to the satisfaction of
the Building Official.
PARKS
35.
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 amoums 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
36.
37.
38.
Exterior colors and materials. Exterior colors and materials for the structures 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.
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
Fencing, and of all retaining walls. The design, location and materials of all fencing, and of all
retaining walls installed by the developer, shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning
Director. ProviSion of common fences for all side and rear yards shall be the responsibility of the
developer. Fencing installed by the developer at the bottom or top of dopes higher than ten feet,
and/or fences of rear yards with a high visibility from adjoining down dope areas, may be
designed with an open mesh material, subject to review and approval by the Planning Director as
regards the location and material utilized.
Responsible Agency: PL.
When Required: Prior to approval of Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plans.
39.
Pad elevations. Ail residences shall be built at the pad elevations shown on the project plans by
EDI Architects dated received February 12, 2001.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to occupancy.
40.
Increase in height of residences prohibited. The increase in.height of residences in this project
beyond~'~-offgir~ally approved by the City is prohibited.
11
LANDSCAPING
41.
42.
43.
45.
Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan. Applieant/I)eveloper 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
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
NPDES. The final landscaping and irrigation plan shall address erosion control as an ongoing
prevention program that will meet the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
requirements.
Responsible Agency: PW, PL
Required By:' Ongoing
InstallatiOn. Prior to final occupancy approval, all required landscaping and irrigation, shall be
installed.
Responsible Agency: PL, B
Required By: Prior to occupancy
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
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
46.
Damage/Repairs. The Developer shall repair all damaged existing street, curb, gutter and
sidewalk along Brittany Lane and Rolling Hills Drive, lot frontages that exist now, or that result
from construction activities to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
Responsible Agency: PW
Required By: Prior to Occupancy of first residence
POLICE SECURITY
47.
48.
Residential Security Requirements. The development shall comply with the City of Dublin
Residential Security Requirements (attached). 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
Projected Timeline. Applicant/Developer shall submit a projected timeline for project completion
to the Dublin Police Services Department, to allow estimation of staffing requirements and
assignments. Responsible Agency: PO
Required By: Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
12
FIRE PROTECTION
49.
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
50.
Rear yard accessibility.
Responsible Agency:
Required By:
The rear yard shall be accessible from both sides of the structure.
F
Ongoing
51.
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
52.
Wildfire Management Plan. Site development shall be in accordance with the City of Dublin
Wildfire Management Plan.
Responsible Agency: 1*
Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits
53.
Water supply. Water supply shall be adequate to support required fire flow.
Responsible Agency: F
Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits
54.
Fire Hydrants. The Developer 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
55.
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
AI,AMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, ZONE 7
56.
Wells. Any water wells, cathodic protection wells or exploratory borings shown on the map that
are known to exist, are proposed or are located during field operations without a documented
intent of future use, fried with Zone 7, axe to be destroyed prior to any demolition or construction
activity in accordance with a well destruction permit obtained from Zone 7 and the Alameda
County Department of Environmental Services or are to be maintained in accordance with
applicable groundwater protection Ordinances. Other wells encountered prior to or during
construction are to be treated similarly.
Responsible Agency: Zone 7, PW
Required By: Prior to any demolition or construction
13
57.
Salt Mitigation. Recycled water projects must meet any applicable salt mitigation requirements of
Zone 7.
Responsible Agency: Zone 7, PW
Required by On-going
58.
Requirements and Fees. Applicant/Developer shall comply with ali Alameda County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District-Zone 7 Flood Control requirements and applicable fees.
Responsible Agency: Zone 7, PW
Required by Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
DSRSD
59. Requirements and regulations. The Applicant/Property Owner shall comply with all applicable
requirements and regulations of the Dublin San Ramon Services District.
Responsible Agency: DSRSD.
Required By: Ongoing
60. Improvement plans. 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.
Responsible Agency: DSRSD.
Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits
61. Sewers. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity flow to DSRSD's existing saait~ sewer
system. Pumping of sewerage is diseourag.ed and may only be allowed under extreme
circumstances following a case by case rexnew with DSRSD staff. Any pumping station wilt
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 .pr. es?ut worth
20 year maintenance costs as well as other conditions within a separate agreement vntn the
applicant for any project that requires a pumping station.
Responsible Agency: DSRSD.
Required By: Ongoing
62. Fees. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, all utility connection fees, plan che~k 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
63. Signatures, 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 ofth.e sanitary sewer or
water facilities shown. Prior to approval by the District Engineer, the Appheant shall pay all
required DSRSD fee, s, and provide an engineer's estimate of construction costs for the sewer and
water systems, a performance bond, a one-year maintenance bond, and a comprehensive general
liability insurance policy in the amounts and forms that are acceptable to DSRSD. The Applicant
shall allow at least 15 working days for final improvement drawing review by DSRSD before
signature by the District Engineer.
Responsible Agency: DSRSD.
Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits
64. Utility Construction Permit. 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.
14
Responsible Agency:
Required By:
DSRSD.
Ongoing
65.
Hold Harmless. The Applicant/Property Owner shall hold DSRSD, its Board of Directors,
commissions, employees, and agents of DSI~SD 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
66.
Limited construction permit. 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
67.
Construction by Applicant/Devdoper. All onsite potable and recycled water and wastewater
pipelines and facilities shall be constructed by the Applican~eveloper in accordance with all
DSRSD master plans, standards, specifications and requirements.'
Responsible Agency: DSRSD.
Required By: Completion of Improvements
68.
DSRSD Water Facilities. Water facilities must be connected to the DSRSD or other approved
water system, and must be installed at the expense of ApplicantfDeveloper in accordance with
District Standards and Specifications. Ail 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
69.
Fire flows. 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
70.
7I..
72.
Compliance. The Applicant/Property Owner shall comply with all applicable Alameda County
Fire Department, Public Works Department standard conditions, Dublin Police Services, Alameda
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the Dublin San Ramon Services.
District regulations and requirement, s. P_rior ~to issuance o.f g.radi?.g or. b?il,ding p?rmk.s' orthe
installation of any improvements related to this project, the Applmam. snz~_~ su,ppty wr,~tten
documentation from each such agency or department to the Commumty Development
Department, indicating that all applicable conditions required .have been or will be met.
Responsible Agency: B, PL.
Required By: Ongoing
Compliance. The Applicam/Property Owner shall comply with all applicable regulations and
requirements of the Uniform Building Code and the Building Inspection Department.
Responsible Agency: B
Required By: Ongoing
Building permits for the proposed project shah be secured and construction commenced
within one (1) year after the effective date of this approval or said approval shall be void.
This one (1) year period may be extended an additional one (1) year after the expiration date of
this approval (a written request for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration date) by
15
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
the Community Development Director upon the determination that the Conditions of Approval
remain adequate to assure that the above stated Findings of Approval will continue to be met. lB,
PL]
Building permits. To apply for building permits, the Applicant shall submit thirteen (13) sets of
full construction plans for plan cheek. Each set of plans shall have attached an annotated copy
of these COnditions of Approval, including any attached Special Conditions. The notations
shall clearly indicate how ali 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, PI,, PW. Required By: Prior to issuance of building
permits
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 qualified design professional. The site plan, landscape plan and
details shall be cor~istent with each other.
Responsible Agency: B, PL, PW. Required 'By: Prior to issuance of building permits
Hours of operation. Ail construction shall be limited to take place between the hours oral:30
a.m, and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except as otherwise approved by the Director of
Public Works.. Responsible Agency: PW. Required By: Ongoing
Compliance. The ApplicanffProperty Owner shall develop this project and operate all uses in
compliance with the Conditions of Approval of this Site Development Review and the regulations
established in the Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions specified may be
subject to enforcement action. Responsible Agency: PL. Required By: Ongoing
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
RESISTIVE HERITAGE TREES:
78. Tree Protection Zone. A Tree Protection Zone shall be established at the driplines of all trees.
No grading, excavation, construction or storage of materials shall occur within this zone.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit.
79. Plot plans to be reviewed by Project arborist. All plot plans shall be reviewed by the project
arborist for evaluation of impacts to trees and recommendations for mitigation.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit.
80. Rock outcropping. The rock outcropping within 30 feet of trees #335 and 342 shall be retained.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
16
81.
lines shall be placed in the Tree Protection Zone.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
82.
Tree Preservation Notes. 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
83.
Irrigation systems. Irrigation systems must be designed so that no trenching w/Il occur within
the Tree Protection Zone except that necessary to protect the tree from surface runoff.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior lo issuance of Building Permit.
84.
Landscape improvements. 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
85.
Foundations, footings and pavement. Foundations, footings and pavement on expansive soils
near the Fire Resistive 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,
87.
Construction Requirements. The following requirements shall be implemented in addition to
the construction requirements set forth in the Wildfire Management Plan when there is a Fire
Resistive Heritage Tree within 100 feet of the exterior wall or deck projection as measured from
the drip line of the tree.
Exterior walls. Fire rated construction standards required for the exterior wall of
buildings most exposed to wildfire risk shall be extended to the adjacent exterior
walls of the building.
88.
B. Windows. Install dual tempered glass windows in openings on the elevation most
exposed to wildfire risk and adjacent elevations of the structure.
C. Metal Structural Members. Metal structural members shall be used in place of
wood in construction of all underfloor areas that are enclosed to the ground with
exterior walls as required abOve in the Wildfire Management Plan.
D. Automatic Fire Sprinklers. Provide fire sprinkler flow detection monitoring
through a central station company.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit.
Vegetation Standards/pruning. When any Of the Vegetation Standards of the Wildfire
Management Plan call for pruning of limbs and trees that are identified as Fire Resistive Heritage
Trees, the following standards shall be implemented in place of required ground clearance.
A. An irrigated fuel break/greenbelt shall be installed outside the dripline of the Fire
Resistive Heritage Trees. Size and compatibility of the greenbelt shall be
17
89.
90.
91.
determined following consultation with a Certified Arbor/st and review of the
degree of slope surrounding the trees. The greenbelt vegetation shall be fire
resistive and require little watering.
All vegetation shall be maintained per the Wildfire Management Plan standards or
Alameda County Fire Department Removal Standards, except as modified for Fire
Resistive Heritage Trees.
Ground under'the Fire Resistive Heritage Trees shall be kept flee of weeds and
dead wood. Leaf litter shall be allowed to remain as ~t mulch to protect the soil.
Limited priming shall be completed to thin foliage, remove dead wood, raise the
foliage one-foot above the ground, and separate the crowns of the trees. Branches
larger than one inch in diameter shall not be pruned unless agreed to by the project
arborist and the City's arborist.
All other applicable standards shall continue to apply except as modified above.
Responsible Agency:
When Required:
PL
Prior to issuance of Building Permit.
Irrigation of Irrigated Fuel BreairdGreenbelt. Irrigation systems must be designed so that no
trenching will occur within the Tree Protection Zone. Surface water from the irrigation runoff
must be directed away from oak trunks.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit.
Pruning. Fire Resistive Heritage Trees shall be pruned in conformance with the Wildfire
Management Plan. All pruning shall'be completed by a Certified Arbor/st and Tree Worker in the
presence 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: Prior to issuance of Building Permit.
Tree Protection Zone for trees on lots 1, 7, 8, and 9. The Tree Protection Zone for trees on lots
1, 7, 8, and 9 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 arbor/st. Fences are to remain until all grading and
construction is completed.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit.
Meeting to review work procedures, access routes, storage areas and tree protection
measures. Prior to work the contractor must meet with the 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.
18
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
Grading, construction, demolition or other work within the Tree Protection Zone. No
gradin~ construction, demolition or other work shall occur within the Tree Protection Zone. Any
modifications must be approved and monitored by the consulting axborist.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit.
Spoil. 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.
Damage. 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.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
'Dumping or storage within the Tree Protection Zone. No excess soil, chemicals, debriS,
equipment or other materials shall be dumped or stored within the Tree Protection Zone.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
Tree Pruning Guidelines. Ail pruning shall be in aceordance with the Tree Pruning Guidelines
(International Society of Arboriculture) and adhere to the most recent editions of the American
National Standard for Tree Care Operations (Z133.1) and Pruning (A300).
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
Tree pruning by construction personnel. No tree pruning may be performed by construction
personnel.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
Aerial inspection.' Wtfile 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
Chipping and hauling of brush. Brush shall be chipped and chips shall be spread underneath
trees to a maximum depth of 6 inches, leaving the trunk dear of mulch. Wood shall be hauled off
the site.
RespOnsible Agency:
When Required: Ongoing
101.
TreeS shall not be climbed with spurs.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
19
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
Thinning cuts are to be employed rather than heading cuts. Trees shall not be topped Or
headed back]
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
Vehicles and heavy equipment. 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 equipmem or vehicles.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
Servicing and fueling of equipment. Equipment shall be serviced and fueled outside the tree
canopy to avoid accidental spills in the root area. Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
Certified arborist. A certified arborist shall be Present on the project site during grading or other
construction activity that may impact the health of the Fire Resistive Heritage Trees in this project.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
Guide to Maintenance for Native Oaks. The consulting 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 each purchaser.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to occupancy
Cash bond or other security deposit. The applicant/developer shall guarantee the protection of
the Fire Resistive Heritage Trees on the project site through placement of a cash bond or other
security deposit in the amount of $100,000. 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 Developmem that the Fire Resistive 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.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
Overhead wires or underground pipes or conduits. 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
20
109.
Removal of Heritage Tree. 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 reriaoved
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 Fire ResiStive 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
110.
Designation of oaks as Heritage Trees. All nineteen 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.b,
Heritage Tree Definition.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
111.
Encroachment of Driplines.
Resistive Heritage Tree.
Responsible Agency:
When Required:
No structure shall encroach to within 5 feet of the dripline of a Fire
PL
Prior to issuance of Building Permit.
112. Perpetuation of Oak Grove/planting of additional oak trees. Landscape improvements for this
project shall include the planting of additional oak trees.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 20th day of February, 2001.
AYES:
· Councilmembers Oravetz and Zika and Mayor Houston
NOES:
Councilmembers Loekhart and McCormick
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST
K2/G/2-20-0 lfreso-blkmtn, sdr. do¢ (Item 6.2)
G:pa00-009/cc reso sdr
21
CITY CLERK
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 1.6, 2001
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing: PA 00-009, appeal of Planning Commission approval of
the Black Mountain Site Development Review for six single-family
residences on six existing lots on Brittany Lane and one single-family
residence on an existing lot on Rolling Hills Drive.
(Report Prepared by: Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner/Zoning
Administrator)
ATTACHMENTS:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
lO)
11)
12)
13)
14)
t5)
16)
Project plans
Resolution Of City Council affirming the December 12, 2000 Planning
Commission action with changes proposed by Staff
Letter dated December 21, 2000 appealing Planning Commission
decision
Heritage Tree Ordinance
Tree Protection Plan
Dublin Wildfire Management Plan
Alameda County Fire Department- Removal Requiremems
Letter dated September 27, 2000, from Jeffrey Gamboni in support of
fire safety priming ~i
Letter dated December 6, 2000, from Jeffrey Gamboni a~pproving the
Tree Protection Plan
Letter from the Director of Community Development approving the
Tree Protection Plan'
December t2, 2000 Planning Commission Staff Report without .
attachments
Planning Commission Resolution 00-71.
Portion of minutes of the December 12, 2000 Planning Commission
deliberation on this item
Analysis of Grounds for Appeal with Staff's Response~
Dublin Planning Commission Rules of Procedure
Study comparing topography profile prior to 1985, the 1985 f'miSh
grade profile and proposed .finish floor elevations in relationship to
Brittany Lane
RECOMMENDATION:
/~~"~2) Hear Staffpresentation
) Open Public Hearing
3) Question Staff, Applicant and the Public
· - .......................... ~ ................................................. ~ ............. ;'~
COPIES TO: PA 00-009 File.
Appellants
4)
5)
Close public hearing and deliberate (~E) ~ 45~-'/
Options for action:
A. Decide that the Planning Commission action be affirmed and
adopt resolution (Attachment 2) approving the Black
Mountain Development Site Development Review for seven
.homes on seven existing lots with changes proposed by Staff.
B. Decide that the Planning Commission decision be reversed
and direct Staff to prepare a resolution reversing the Planning
Commission decision and deny the Black Mountain
Development Site Development Review for seven homes on
seven existing lots
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is an appeal of the December 12, 2000 decision of the Planning Commission to approve a Site
Development Review for the construction of seven single-family homes on seven existing lots created as.
lots 1 and 7 - 12 ofB10ck 1 of Tract Map 5073. The lots are located at 11299 Rolling Hills Drive and
11151, 11159, 11167, 11175, 11183 and 11191 Brittany Lane:'.The appeal shall be considered as required
by Chapter 8.136, Appeals, of the Zoning Ordinance.
The appellants filed a timely appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on December 21, 2000.
The appellants gave six grounds for the appeal. This report will address each ground for appeal in
Attachment 14.
Under Section 8.136.060.D, the City Council may affirm, affirm in part, or reverse the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve the Site Development Review. Staff suggests two options:
A. The City Council could decide that the Planning Commission action be affirmed and direct Staffto
prepare a resolution affirming the Planning Commission decision and approving the Black Mountain
Development Site Development Review for seven homes on seven existing lots with changes proposed
by Staffas further set forth in this StaffReport.
The City Council could decide that the Planning Commission decision be reversed and direct Staffto
prepare a resolution reversing. Planning Commission decision and denying the Black Mountain
Development Site Development Review for seven homes on seven existing .lots
BACKGROUND:
On August 12, 1985, the City Council approved PA 85-035.3, Hatfield Development Corporation
Investec, Inc. Tract Maps 5072, 5073 and 5074. Lots 1 and 7 ~- 12 of Block t of Tract Map 5073 were not
built upon when the rest of the homes were built in 1985. These lots are the location of the seven
proposed residences of this project. 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.
On May 22, 2000, Jeff Woods of Black Mountain Dev. elopment applied for this Site Development Review
(Attachment 1). The project proposes seven 3,400 square foot semi-custom homes on existing lots
ranging between 11,635 square feet and 21,942 square feet.
2
General plan. The proPosed residences are located on existing single family lots that were create~in
conformity with the Single Family Residential plan designation of the Dublin General Plan.
Zoning. The proposed residences are located on existing s. ingle family lots that were created in
conformity with the R-1 Zoning District. The proposed residences conform to all applicable development
standards of the R-1 Zoning District.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Planning Commission voted 3 in favor with 2 absent to adopt Resolution 00-71 approving this Site
DeveloPment Review. The MinUtes from their meeting are in Attachment 13. The following major issues
were addressed in the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 11):
A. Conformity with City Council Resolution 82-85. The project conforms to the following
applicable conditions of approval of City Council Resolution 82-85:
Condition 3. Standards for setbacks, minimum lot size and width and other applicable regulations of the
R, 1 Zoning District are m~ by this project.
Condition 4. Requires a Site Development Review (SDR) for lots where more than 50 cubic yards of
grading will occur. A SDR was prepared and approved for this project.
Condition 6. Requires a maximum height of 25 feet for residences and requires a maximum skirt height
for undeveloped non-living spaces of 9 feet. Permits a deviation and/or refinement of these standards to
be considered as part of the SDR process covering these lots. The Planning Commission evaluated the
proj eot' s proposed deviation and/or refinement using Section 8.36.110.C.2 of the Zoning Ordinance
wkich permits.an addition to height limits for residences of 5, 10, and 15 feet when the natural slope '
within the proposed building envelope of the home exceeds 15%, 22.5% and 30% respectively. The.
proposed residences have slopes exceeding either 22.5% or 30% and can have heights of 35 feet and 40
feet. The homes as proposed are well below the 35 and 40 foot maximums and appear as single story
homes from the street. Design features such as si.~ing the homes as low as possible on the lots, no
chimneys and the use of hip roofs have minimized impacts to views. A Planning Commission condition
of approval prohibits the increase in height of residences in this project beyond that approved in the
subj eot SDR.
Condition 7. This condition sets forth requirements for fencing. A Planning Commission condition of
approval .ensures conformity with tiffs condition.
Condition 12. Requires a SDR for custom lots (including the seven lots of this project). Requires that
grading' of these lots be minimized while creating reasonably sized, functional exterior living areas. A
SDR was prepared and approved for this.project. Grading will be limited to the placement.of the
residences and driveways. The majority of each residence will not be directly supported by the soil but
will be placed on a framework of deep-seated piers and grade beams. Functional padded exterior living
areas are proposed in. the front yards and in raised, deck areas.
Condition 16.' Requires grading performed within 25 feet of the drip line of exiSting onsite or offsite
trees to 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 was. prepared
in 1985 for the Hatfielcl/Investec (Tract Maps 5072, 5073 and 5074) project which created these lots. A
Tree Protection Plan was prepared for this project by the Applicant's arborist and peer reviewed by the
City's .arbOrist, Jeff Gamboni. The recommendations and findings of that Plan are incorporated into the
3
grading and improvements plans of this project. Several Planning Commission conditions o"f appro'~al
relating to Heritage Trees ensure that the requirements of the Tree Protection Plan will be implemented.
Condition 19. Requires developer to confer withlocal postal authorities regarding main receptacles. A
Planning Commission condition of approVal implements this requirement.
B. Views/Height Limits. The residences have been sited based on the ground surface that was
created in 1985 to create the lots in the Hatfield/Investec project. As stated above, the residences
have been designed to have the appearance of a single story home from the street, have no
· chimneys and incorporate hip roofs to minimize impacts to views.
Grading. ENGEO Inc. is the geotechnical engineering company which prepared the geotechnical
engineering reports for the original development which· created these lots. ENGEO also prepared a
geotechn~cal report for this project which was peer-reviewed by Kleinfelder, Inc. for the City.
Kleinfelder found'that the grading of the subject lots was done properly and meets the current
standard of engineering practice in the Bay Area. Kleinfelder recommended (and the Planning
Commission approved) a condition of approval relating to removal of an area of boulders on Lots
8 and 9.
. Heritage Trees/Tree Protection Plan. A Tree Protection Plan was prepared as required by the
Heritage Tree Ordinance and was peer'reviewed and approved by the City's arborist after
revisions were made. Twelve of the nineteen oak trees on the project are over 24 inches in
diameter measured 4 feet 6 inches above the ground and are therefore Heritage Trees. No Heritage
Trees are proposed to be removed but the trees are proposed to be pruned to conform to the
requirements of the 1998 California Fire Code. That Code requires trees within 100 feet ora
residence to be limbed up 6 feet from the ground and that grasses be kept mowed to a height of 4
inches. The pruning will take place on all trees within 100 feet of a proposed structure. A
subs/diary trunk of Tree. 340 will be removed in compliance with the Fire Code. The removal of
· this tnmk is permitted by the Director as part of this SDR pursuant to SeCtion 5.60.50.b. 1 of the
· Heritage Tree Ordinance that allows removal of a Heritage Tree if it presents an immediate hazard
to life or property (the proposed residences). The Heritage TreeS will be protected during
demolition, grading and construction operations. All pruning will be completed in conformance
with the guidelines of the International Society of Arboriculture, Tree Pruning Guidelines, current
edition, on file with the City. Several Planning Commission conditions of appr°val implement the
Pruning Guidelines of the Tree Protection Plan. Pruning shall also conform with an agreement
· with the City to not exceed yellow pruning marks placed on Tree 340. Pruning. of a major scaffold
pointing toward a residence on Lot 8 shall be only as necessary to elevate the foliage 6 feet above
the ground. Under no circumstances shall that scaffold be pruned further back than as marked in
yellow unless found to be necessary by bgth the Project Arborist and the City's arborist, If the
scaffold projects to within 5 feet of the residence, the residence shall be modified to move it until
· it is at least 5 feet from the fia_rthest extent of foliage on that limb. Several Planning commission.
conditions of approval ensure that the requirements of the Heritage Tree Ordinance and the Tree
Protection Plan are met.
E,
Project design. The seven proposed 3,400 square foot, four bedroom, residences are well
'designed and sited. Two floor plans, one with a "straight-in" garage and one with a "side-in"
garage are proposed. The residences are sited on the lots to minimize impacts to views from other
residences on Brittany Lane. Hip roofs have been incorporated into the design to minimize
impacts to views. The homes will have a street presence of a single-story home. The homes
average 13.16 feet high when viewed from the sidewalk on Brittany Lane and 15.4 feet high at the
front porch. Landscaping plans were prepared by Gates and Associates and wilt provide an ~3 eS~q/
attractive landscape presence on Brittany Lane.
ANALYSIS OF GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
Staff has responded to specific grounds ofappeaI in Attachment 14 and believes that the Planning
Commission and Staff have addressed concerns adequately.
CHANGES TO PROJECT SINCE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
The following additional conditions of approvai to Planning Commission Resolution 00-71 are proposed
by Staff:
Storm Drain Easement on Lot 1. Tkis condition is proposed to reflect the existence of a "Common
Area Storm Drain Easement" on Lot 1 that was pointed out by a member of the public at 'the December
12, 2000 Plarming Commission public hearing on this issue. The proposed house will have to be
relocated to avoid the easement. The condition reads as follows:
Storm Drain Easement on Lot 1. According to the final map for Tract 5073, an existing 10'-
wide ,'Common Area Storm Drain Easement" extends across Lot 1 (Roiling Hills Drive flag tot) to
a~low storm runoff from the neighboring Lot 2 to discharge downstope to Martin Canyon Creek.
N° permanent structures, including the proposed residence, shall be constructed over said existing
easement. Concrete flatwork and landscaping may be allowed if the Applicant demonstrates that
said improvement will not adversely impact the drainage pattern. Alternatively, the Applicant
may demonstrate to the City that permission from the Silvergate Highlands Owners Association
has been obtained for the relocation of the easement and the associated drainage facilities.
Responsible Agency: PW
'When required: Prior to issuanee of Building Permits.
Heritage Trees on Lot 1. A condition is Proposed to ensure that moving the house on Lot 1 does not
impact the Heritage Trees on that lot. The condition reads as follows:
Heritage Trees on Lot 1. The foliage of the heritage trees on Lot 1 shall only be trimmed as
necessary to elevate the foliage 6 feet above the ground. Under no circumstances shall said trees
be trimmed beyond required by the 1998 California Fire Code. Ill after pruning pursuant to the
Code, the foliage of said trees projects to within 5 feet of the proposed location of the residence on
Lot 1, the residence on Lot 1 shall be modified to move it until it is at least ~ive feet from the
furthest extem of foliage of said trees.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit.
perpetuation of Oak Grove/planting of additional oak trees. This condition is proposed because it
was recommended for inclusion by Jeffrey Gamboni in Item 1.7 of his December 6,.2000 letter. The
Condition reads as follows:
Perpetuation of Oak Grove/planting of additional oak trees. Landscape improvements for this
project shall include the planting of additional oak trees.
The roil'owing ch~mges to conditions of approval of Planning Commission Resolution 00-71 are proposed
by Staff.'
Condition 39. Condition 39 of the Planning Commission Resolution of Approval is proposed to be 04711
deleted because it is not necessary.
Condition 87. Condition 87 is proposes to be modified to substitute "1998 California Fire Code" for
"1997 Uniform Fire Code" because the 1998 code has been adopted by the City and has the same
requirements relating, to this project.
Condition 106. Condition 106 is proposed to be modified to add the word "unauthorized" to make the
wording identical to the requirements of the Heritage Tree Ordinance. That condition as amended
(underlined) reads as follows:
106.
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 $100,000. 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 as a civil penalty for any
unauthorized removal or destruction of a Heritage Tree.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
Condition112. Condition 112 is proposed to be revised to add the word "subsidiary" to make the
condition more clear. The Condition with change underlined reads as follows:
112.
Removal of the subsidiary trunk of Tree 340. The subsidiary trunk' to be removed and the
remainder of Tree 340 which shall remain are treated as one tree in the Tree Protection Report
because they are located immediately adjacent to each other and form portions of the same canopy
and dripline. The removal of this subsidiary trunk is permitted by the Director as part of this Site
Development Review pursuant to Section 5.60.50.b.2.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
DECISION OPTIONS BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
If the City Council wishes to affmu the Planning Commission action, with changes proposed by Stuff, it
should choose Option A. Option A reads as follows:
Option A:
Decide that the Planning Commission action be affirmed and adopt resolution (Attachment 2)
approving the Black Mountain Development Site Development Review for seven homes on
seven existing lots with changes proposed by Staff.
If the City Council wishes to reverse the Planning Commission action, it should choose Option B below.
Option B:
· Decide that the Planning Commission decision be reversed and direct Staff'to prepare a
resolution reversing_Planning Commission decision and denying the Black Mountain
Development Site Development Review for seven homes on seven existing lots. The · ·
resolution should identify how the project fails to comply with applicable Site Development
Review findings and/or standards and how the project can be brought into compliance with
such findings and/or standards.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The environmental impacts of this project were addressed tmde~ 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. Further, the project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section
15304, Class 4, minor public or private alterations in the condition of the land, water, and/or vegetation
which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry and agricultural
purposes. Specifically, Subsection (D providesprovides, Fuel management activities within 30 feet of
structures to reduce the volume of flammable vegetation, provided that the activities vdll not result in the
taking of endangered, rare, or threatened plant or animal species o.r significant erosion and sedimentation
of surface waters. This exemption shall apply to fuel management activities within 100 feet of a structure
if the public agency having fire protection responsibiliw for the area has determined that 100 feet of fuel
clearance is required due to extra hazardous fire conditions. This project is adjacent to a wildfire area and
the 1998 California Fire Code, as adopted by the City, requires 100 feet of fuel clearance for this project.
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
The proposed Site Development Review is consistent with the Single Family Residential designation of
the General Plan and the PD (R-l) Zoning District.
AGENCY REVIEW
This project has been reviewed by other City departments and interested agencies, and their comments
have been ineorp0rated as conditions of approval in the draft Resolution.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council open thepublic hearing; question Staff, Applicant and the Pubhc;
close the public hearing and deliberate, and either:
Option A:
Decide that the Planning Commission action be affirmed and adopt resolution (Attachment 2)
approving the Black Mountain Development Site Development Review for seven homes on
seven existing tots with changes proposed by Staff, or
Option B:
Decide that the Plarming Commission decision be reversed and direct Staffto prepare a
resolution reversing_Planning Commission decision and denying the Black Mountain
Development Site Development Review for seven homes on seven existing lots. The
resolution should identify how the project' fails to comply with applicable Site Develtpment
Review findings and/or standards and how the project can be brought into compliance with
such findings and/or standards.
G:\pa00-009/ccappealsr Jan 4
7
RESOLUTION NO. - 03
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
DENYING THE AMENDMENT TO PA 00-009 BRITTANY LAND/BLACK MOUNTAIN
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TO AUTHORIZE THE TRIMMING OF TREE NO. 340
ON AN EXISTING LOT (LOT 8) AT 11183 BRITTANY LANE
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Jeff Woods of Blackmountain Development has requested an
Amendment to the Brittany Lane/Black Mountain Development (PA 00-009) Site Development Review
for 7- single family home on a existing lots; and
WHEREAS, the requested amendment would authorize the trimming of tree #340 ((as identified
by the approved Tree Protection Plan for the Brittany Lane/Blackmountain Development Site
Development Review);
WHEREAS, a completed application for Site Development Review Amendment is available and
on file in the Dublin Planning Department; and
WltEREAS, the environmental impacts of the construction of the original 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, the Site Development Review Amendment is classified as Categorical Exempt from
the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15301 Classl, because the trimming of the
tree would be a minor alteration to the tree #340 because a certified Arborist examined the proposed tree
trimming and determined the trimming is minor, would not affect the health or structure of the tree;
WHEREAS, a Site Development Review Amendment has been requested for this project because
in April 2002, during the review of the grading plan for the seven lots, Staff determined that the approved
location of the residence on Lot 8 conflicted with Tree No. 340. Specifically, the location of Tree No.
#340 is between 4 and 14-feet further northeast than the location shown on the approved site plan; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has chosen to apply to an amendment to the SDR to remove a portion
of Tree No. 340, rather than applying for an amendment to the SDR to reduce the size of the proposed
residence; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing on said application on August 5, 2003; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said
reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby make
the following findings regarding said proposed Site Development Review Amendment:
The approval of this Amendment is not consistent with the intent/purpose of Section
8.104.020.A (Site Development Review) of the Zoning Ordinance because trimming of q
tree #340 would not promote development compatible with the individual site- - ~'~ O ~7 [
environmental constraints because it would significantly alter the tree from its natural
form. Moreover, other residences approved as part of the Brittany Lane/Btackmountain
Development have maintained the Heritage Trees as identified in the tree protection plan
without significant modification or pruning and therefore pruning tree #340 would result in
a development not consistent with the surrounding properties.
In addition the proposal to trim the 26" - 27" limb of Tree No. 340 does not promote a
harmonious development of the lot because the Applicant could apply for an Amendment
to the approved Site Development Review, which would eliminate the conflict between the
house and Tree No. 340.
The proposed Amendment would not be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, specifically
the intent/purpose of Section 8.104 (Site Development Review), as indicated in A above.
The proposed Amendment will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing
or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and general.
welfare.
The proposed structure and setback of the structure from Tree No. 340 will not provide a
desirable environment for the development because it would require a change to the
existing form of the tree and the Applicant could reduce the size of the proposed residence
as an alternative.
The subject site is not physically suitable for development because of the proximity of the
proposed structure to Tree No. 340.
Fo
Impacts to views have been addressed and would not be affected bythe proposed trimming
of the subject tree.
G. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed.
Architectural considerations, including the scale of the structure, would adversely affect
the compatibility of this project with the existing character of surrounding development.
Ho
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 and 'would not be directly impacted by
the proposed Amendment.
I. The proposed Amendment is not inconsistent with the General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT DETERMINED THAT THE City of Dublin City Council hereby
denies the Site Development Review Amendment Application for PA 00-009 to trim Tree No. 340 (as
identified by the Tree Protection Plan) located on Lot 8 of the Hatfield Development and further identified
as Assessors Parcel Number 941-2775-37, and as generally depicted by materials labeled Attachment 1 to
the August 5, 2003 Agenda Statement, labeled "denied" and on file in the City of Dublin Planning
Department, because the Council cannot make all of the findings for approval required by Dublin
Municipal Code section 8.104.070. The original approval Brittany Lane/Black Mountain Development
(PA 00-009) Site Development Review remains in effect, as do all of the conditions associated with that
approval.
2
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin on this 5ai day
of August 2003, .by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
G:kPA#k2000\00-009 Black Mountaink2003\black mountain deny reso 2.DOC
DEYELOPIg~NT
1925520000~
August 1,2003
Mr. Andy Byde, Senior Planner
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Sent via fax; 925-833-6628
Re: 11183 Brittany Lane, Lot 8
Dear Andy:
First, let me thank you for your cooperation. It is a real pleasure working with
you.
At this time, I would like to request a centinuance of my appointment with the City
Council Meeting and moved to the August 19, 2003 meeting, as i feel there are a
number of clarifications that potentially could be made with the Staff Report t
received just this afternoon.
As you are aware, the building permit is being held pending the result of the City
Council Meeting. I would hope that my building permit will be held in conjunction
with this meeting date change, as well.
Thank you for your efforts and time.
M~.~r~ory.~
City o Dublin
!cry Shreeve, Chief Building Official,
Cont. Lic. #584024
3925 Old Santa Rite Road, Suite 200 · pleasanton, CA 94588
(925) 520-0001 · FAX (925) 520-0002
www. blackmountaindev, com
RUG-0&-200~ 04:3&PH TELX9255~OO002 ZD)CZTY OF DUBLZN PRGE:OO& R=208x
FUBLIC HE._,AR[NG
BLACK MOUNTAIN SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, LOT $ PA 00-,009,
9:54 p.m. 6.5 (410-30)
Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing.
Senior Planner Andy Bycle advised that the City had received a letter from Applicant Jeff
Woods requesting a continuance of this item to the August 19ta City Council meeting.
They have revised their request to say either August I9t~ or September 2~a.~
Applicant Jeff Woods stated his arborist is out of town at a confErence, in Can~,, He got
the Staff Report on Friday and had a couple of questions. These were the reasons for the
continuance request.
David Bewley stated he was prepared to make statements and would like the decision
making proces.s to. go forward.
Vm. McCormick stated she felt there.is, a. lot .of. co, ion. amid....th...i.s.. ~s. mc .,~O~d .........
like to see it clarified and that she was leaning toward having another survey done.
Mayor Lockhart stated there .are some concerns that the .stmrey is not accurate. She
would like to make sure the next time they discuss this that there is another survey and
that it is clarified. We need a third party independent sUrVey.
Mr. Byde asked for clarification on whether the City would initiate a third party survey?
Mayor Lockhart stated it would be the applicant's responsibility but would like to see the
City select at the applicant's expense. There are some real differences in the figures of
the tree branch.
Mayor Lockhart stated she would be willing to continue the item, but not to August
She would consider September 2~a. -
Vm. McCormick asked ff it is posm~ble to have the survey done by September 2~.
Mr. Byde responded yes, we have contract people and he felt the turn around time could
be fairly quick.
Mr. Woods stated he agreed and apologized for the inadequacy of the original survey.
He mt.ed he would be happy to pay for another ~ey to bring clarity, ff you want to..
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 22
REGULAR MEETING
August 5, 2003
PAGE 518
pick a surveyor, he would be happy to pay them direct, or however the City feels would
be appropriate,
Mr. Ambrose stated the City would select and he could pay us and we would pay the
contractor directly.
Cm. Zilra clarified the Council.will know the.exact length when it comes back before the
City Council,
Mr. Bond expressed concern as he may not be here on September g~a. He was also
concerned that a continuance seems to be how much of the tree do we need to cut off: It
is totally disingenuous of Black Mountain ito make the...suggestion. They should not be
suggesting cutting any off the tree at this stage.
Mayor Lockhart clarified that she abbreviated her comments and they have not made a
decision to cut the tree. A number of figures have been presented and an independent
mrvey would answer questions in Order for them to all be talking about the same thing.
David Bewley stated they would like to be able to speak about the survey and what
they've been dealing with over the past couple of years. Their impressions hopefully
would still be relevant to be discussed at the ~e., ....
Mayor Lockhaz¢ stated she felt everyone will benefit from this, including the new
homeowner who must be in shock.
Jerry WeisS, Brittany Lane suggested the City Council drive up to Brittany Lane so they
can see what a real 13' setback looks like..cOmpared to 20'. This may help in the
decision process.
Susan Bewley stated she agreed with the excellent point to drive up and see the roofline
almost in the ground and also look at lot 11 which looks like a fine house .an., d fits in. the
neighborhood. Hous~ down Rolling Hills have rolling roof lines which fit into the
character of the neighborhood.
Mayor Lockhart clarified that they would continue this to the September 2~a City
Council meeting for further discussion with a new survey.
On motion of Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Sbranti, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Oravetz
absent), the Council continued this item to the September g~a City Council meeting.
CITY COUNC~'MINUTEs
VOLUME 22
REGULAR MEETING
August 5, 2003
PAGE 519