The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6.3 BlackMtSDR Appeal CITY CLERK File # q / O -3 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 sing le-family, residence on an existing lot on Rolling Hills Drive. (Report Prepared by: Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner/Zoning Administrator) ATTACHMENTS: 1) Project plans 2) Resolution of City Council affirming the December 12,2000 Planning Commission action with changes proposed by Staff 3) Letter dated December 21, 2000 appealing Planning Commission decision 4) Heritage Tree Ordinance 5) Tree Protection Plan 6) Dublin Wildfire Management Plan 7) Alameda County Fire Department—Removal Requirements 8) Letter dated September 27,2000,from Jeffrey Gamboni in support of fire safety pruning 9) Letter dated December 6,2000, from Jeffrey Gamboni approving the Tree Protection Plan 10) Letter from the Director of Community Development approving the Tree Protection Plan 11) December 12, 2000 Planning Commission Staff Report without attachments 12) Planning Commission Resolution 00-71. 13) Portion of minutes of the December 12, 2000 Planning Commission deliberation on this item . 14) Analysis of Grounds for Appeal with Staffs Response 15) Dublin Planning Commission.Rules of Procedure 16) Study comparing topography profile prior to 1985,the 1985 finish grade profile and proposed finish floor elevations in relationship to Brittany Lane RECOMMENDATION: 1) Hear Staff presentation 2) Open Public Hearing . 3) Question Staff,Applicant and the Public COPIES TO: PA 00-009 File. Appellants ITEM NO. 6., 4) Close public hearing and deliberate 5) 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 of Block 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 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. B. The City Council could decide that the Planning Commission decision be reversed and direct Staff to prepare a resolution reversing Planting 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 1 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 D_ evelopment Review be processed for the development of these lots. On May 22, 2000, Jeff Woods of Black Mountain Development 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 created in conformity with the Single Family Residential plan designation of the Dublin General Plan. Zoning. The proposed residences are located on existing single 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-l 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-l Zoning District are meJ 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 project's proposed deviation and/or refinement using Section 8.36.110.C.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which 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 siting 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 subject SDR. Condition 7. This condition sets forth requirements for fencing. A Planning Commission condition of approval ensures conformity with this 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 HatfieldlInvestec (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'sarborist, 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 of approval relating to Heritage Trees ensure that the requirements of the Tree Protection Plan will be implemented. Condition 19. Requires developer to confer with local 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 HatfieldlInvestec 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. C. 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 geotechnical report for this project which was peer-reviewed by K1einfelder, 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. D. 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 of a 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 subsidiary trunk of Tree 340 will be removed in compliance with the Fire Code. The removal of this trunk 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 approval 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 bpth 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 furthest 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 4 front porch. Landscaping plans were prepared by Gates and Associates and will provide an attractive landscape presence on Brittany Lane. ANALYSIS OF GROUNDS FOR APPEAL Staff has responded to specific grounds of appeal 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 approval to Planning Commission Resolution 00-71 are proposed by Staff: Storm Drain Easement on Lot 1. This conditionis 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 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 allow 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 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 issuance 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. If, 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 five feet from the furthest extent 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 following changes to conditions of approval of Planning Commission Resolution 00-71 are proposed by Staff: 5 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 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 unauthorizeo removal or destruction of a Heritage Tree. . Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing Condition 112. 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 trunkto 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 affirm the Planning Commission action, with changes proposed by Staff, 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 Staffto prepare a resolution reversinKPlanning 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. 6 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The environmental impacts of this project were addressed under the Negative Declaration prepared for the PA 85-035 Hatfield Development Corporation Planned Development Rezone, Annexation and Site Development Review of which the subject lots were a part. The Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. 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 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 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, 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-1)Zoning District. AGENCY REVIEW This project has been reviewed by other City departments and interested agencies, and their comments have been incorporated as conditions 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: 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, or 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. G:\pa00-009/ccappealsr Jan 4 7 ATTACHMENT I RECEIVED t2!' ~; DEG 0 4 zoao DUBLIN PLANNING \;:' \..;"\ :(: (;.~~ ~~ .. I ~ r I VIEW FROM SOUTH 00011 "- 01 NOVEMBER 2000 DUBUN-SITE-10-03-aO.OllG I Black Mountain DeV". PAGE 1" ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ I ~ ROLLING HILLS & 0 BRITTANY DRIVE LOTS 0 ~ ~ lXIXIXIX\XIXIXIlXlXIX lZL ) I DUBLIN II'" FOR N A An:blUdure ~ RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA ED! ARCHITECTURE. INC. 450 SANSOME. SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310 'F 415.39:1.8116<1 This project consists of seven hillside lots; six in a row on Brittany Drive and one flag lot off of Rolling Hills Drive. All seven lots have fairly similar topography, the lots along Brittany have a terrace that extends out into the lots approximately 40' before the topography drops down a slope. This terrace formation follows the up-hill climb of the street On the flag lot the front terrace is closer to the level in both directions before the land drops off to the rear of the lol All seven lots overlook the same oak filled valley and creek. The oaks are a valuable asset to the views from the proposed homes and will be preserved. Our design challenge was to develop seven unique single-family homes that would meet Dublin's guidelines while minimizing site and view disruptions. To that end~ we studied the topography of each lot as well as the location of neighboring homes. To meet Dublin's guidelines we are proposing no more than two story high homes. The lower :lloors are a maximum of 9' above natural grade and the avemge height of the lowest levels are (f off finished grade (or lower). In all cases the maximum height of the homes is well below the allowable height limil In order to preserve views for the neighbors, the proposed homes are designed to keep as Iowa profile as possible while retaining street presence. Because car access is governed by the limits of driveway slopes, we started our design process with the placement of the garages which we placed at the lowest front comer of each site. The garages are set back 20' from the property line to allow driveWay parking. The actual house sits behind the garage forming an "L" shaped configuration. This "L" shape lillows a courtyard to be developed out front where the hillside owners will have the luxuiy of access to a relatively flat grade. The homes attached to the rear of the garages are what we call "up-side down" plans. This concept places the main living floor at the upper grade and the smaller secondary bedroom level tucked below, stepping down the hillsides to the rear. From the top, or front, of each lot the homes appear to be only one story high because the "second" story is actoaIly downhill. . To further open up views the homes are topped by low slope 4: 12 hipped roofs. In the case of the Brittany lots the street continues to climb up-hill as it passes, so part of the homes are depressed below the line of the road, again lowering their profile and increasing the view potential of the existing neighbors. Another important consideration was that each house appear to be unique. This has been achieved in a variety of ways. We have provided a variance in the massing of the homes with the location of the garage as well as the garage access which varies from front to side. In regards to finishes, roof tiles consist of both flat and round tiles with each roof being a different color. Some homes will be finished with stucco and others with horizontal siding, in some cases the sided homes will have shingle trim. Each honse will be painted a different color scheme, the colors chosen consist of bold natural based colors inl?luding green, gold and berry tones. In addition to providing a sophisticated look, these rich shades also help the houses blend into the lIee filled surroundings. The landscaping schemes for each house are also unique and include varying arrangements of flowering pear, Chinese elm, crape myrtle and crab apple trees as well as shrubs such as rosemary, lavender and California iris. PROJECT DESCRIPTION BRITTANY DRIVE BRl'ITANY DRIVE fEEEr ~ '" C :} !Ii "" 3 ~ - SILVER z 0 ::a '" i>',! "" <0 ~ rn - - 580 - - VICINITY MAP DEVELOPER: BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT 12 CROW CANYON COURT. SUITE 207 SAN RAMON, CA 94583 TEL: 925 855 1232 FAX: 925 855 1238 ARCHITECT: ED! ARCHITECTURE INC. ,450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94111 TEL: 415 362 2880 FAX: 415 394 8767 CIVIL EN(;lNEER: RMR DESIGN GROUP 1130 BURNETT AVENUE. SUITE A CONCORD, CA 94520 TEL: 510 686 6300 FAX: 510 686 0707 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: GATES & ASSOCIATES 2440 TASSAJARA LANE DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94526 TEL: 925 736 8176 FAX: 925 736 8184 <> ~ ~ ~ ....c.. \.r.. 2 PAGE 00011 o 1 NOVEMBER 2000 !lecond 0011 afp2.dlftI BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT A <> N R o F L A c . -........ """""""""'... N L B u D RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA ED! ARCHITECTURE, INC. 450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310 T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.8767 x X Jh t ~ \ ..,. r- , ?, ~ ~ ~\Lj I "::v: l'. ~ '; . "" \" , f. . x __2/~) t, Jj " ,1"':21,'\\ W - =1\ 11 '" /. 'f. · " X X t- tt-~ m....3......, , , '~I~I~mID~\ Mii741 } ~-:=J \.-1l,,,,,~~~, \" ~. , ,~ ( MlT581 - - l.G ~ "\ \? ~.( ~ <' X ~ ~~ ~{ ~Ill! I\. :JJ:~:)I~~ ~-.~_~~ '~ffJ;':J ~l~_,,;. '..ll . '..J ~~~ ". ,,~ (o~. 0- / ~12rt.,,^, J' 1.' .1.. , " '<':':: ~./~ ~/ /~. ~ " ~ 'I '- ./.j,::.f"1' I . 'r- L .,b -\" "/z y/ ~ "' "'", ., .~,,' p/., .'" ]/ p" n' , .e, , I'. 1 ~/ ./ f?: ~ , ><-'jjA '/'.A.~ /// ~11!'T' JoJ. 1'",," .il c::r 6' "'" v r" ~ <~K~)~ r~ ~~~ ~ ~ e/..-j; ~ tK ~ ./'"", ( /, r ", Ll --' ^",~ "" . !(, - - ~. ". S7,,' ." '" ..... ~', . ~-~ "'p~~ =~. ~~) ~ ? ~~~ = '- ~~..... ~;=,- -== ,<.~ Iffi"~:;;;('0(~< . "" ~-' ~ - ~ , ~ ~ o' '1''''''' > . . ~">..: - ~ ~x::.~ ;'" ~ ~~~ . "'-"", f~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ = . ~ "" '" ii . . ~~... .~~ ~ ~ ., ~=--+ ~ ~ I,,' <' ~ JG<" <' ,)' 0 z' ~ I~~ ~.. .. '. ~"" . """"'...."" If, .l/ " ~;"=' = ~~ . - ~ ~ . . . ' ~ .~.~c . ~ ~ ' ~ -r~ 1l: '" E~~. ~ ~. 0' }~, , ' ,~~~. ~ "'.' ~. ~ '~~~~~\\~\\ ~ \~f ~\\ .' 'I.' '( , :":'---:::="\ "'~ ~"',' ~\\\\,\"", 1\ ~I ".,~\~ ~. ~ \ \:~ < " ." , '. . , ,\\ \ \ '" ...., ", ,,\' 't", ".c..., , .. - , I "x" x X T" X " , .. SITE PLAN X x x X OVERALL y' DRIVE X BRITTAN _ I ,..~'" I x X I.,,,, 1 HANDLEN, AlA 'I RICHt~gHlT TUR~'olJriCFLOOR EDl SANSOME. SECA 94111-3~0 ." 450 ..t>RANCISC . 5.394,8787 SAN.p-- 22880 F T 4'15.36 , L .-.. ~ ~ ~ -L. \.l\. -"'1 x ~ 01 000 DlIllUo-SmHo-2ll-0HO<l.D"" / PAGE 3 TAIN DEVELOPMENT )('"" 00011 N'~VEMBER BLACK M' ,,^ x <> . I A N R xII =~ .............. x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o 2' 4' eo' 8' 16' 4 00011 01 NOVEMBER 2000 0011 LOTS 7 . l1.dwg PAGE BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT o A STREETS CAPE 0 BRITTANY DRIVE . ~ JXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXJ)< DUBLIN III C'LIF'R' ~ --... 7 RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA ED! ARCHITECTURE. INC. 450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94111-3310 T 415.362.2660 F 415.394.6767 .--~I'::"-:"~:;~~'::':~!.~'~{;'~J~:~' 1_lr..:J:J~""I~'._._fT'" ..... ..-'-,--. I ...~,;.~.____~ - ~ _,~~~~I .~-; r..;;;...rlli~'~r.':", J ...! ~~....."....~ .... ~ Ii. ,Ii_.. .....:!=!.I..I:.~III!.II- -I .'1. ~.'....,.:....... ..,~ :.~. ". ..-. .p,!'.' ~ ". ........... ' . I 11- _ "'lI "";:_. PI!'......~ . ~~::.., .. ..:L..~...~tf.t.l11ir.'~I::'~'Ij,~~h..l '':.. .,.;":<t.;':'~~~' ~:::-_. .;' 10 LOT 11 LOT 12 LOT . . . , :_'.. ~;~i ~~:J=~;~i,~S'~_'i~!,J~"'.-"_1 . ,. ~ 1:~..!J..12;;; ~;~_"'.r''''A.JI!J:!I'!I-''''' ~.,p' .1_. , =--Mr:1. ~.-.r_.,..;.~j'.!i~I:~,.:J';'J-~' . .4, .. I ~.. I ........jr:; ",:;:.".,' 'i' .. ......~,."...,," . .=~:........~:! ~''',r~' .':~--, . ;;. ....,;LAJi1!!Jf.~ . .",1 . - _.r ., "",,>iii" - ~. ..;.....;:;....-i""'; ",-.::;,jl.-_l. : ,-;:?--=;, ,...;~ _ _ "\."~ ,.r-,..:rr:i~,.ir~Si-~".' ....~W:.~~.:..:' '. ".:. ~~:;::~:J;~::~~~..' - - -, ::."- 7 LOT lJ\ ~ ~ -t:::. ~ 00011 ~. 01 NOVEMBER 2000 se.ond 0011 alp2.d"I' PAGE 5 BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT LOT 8 REARS CAPE <) BRITTANY DRIVE <) . [ 8J lXIXIXlXlXlXlXIXI;><IXIXIXIX J I DUB L N _ 'A""" A """""""'... LOT 9 RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA ED! ARCHITECTURE, INC. 450 SANSOME. SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310 T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.8767 ------------------~~~~~~----------------- --------------------~---~ -------- ~ -------"""#' ~ ~ ~ G\ 00011 ~ 01 NOVEMBER OZ~.~ · e.eODd OOIl .lp2.d... PAGE 6 BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT 2000 CORRIDOR SECTION/PLAN ROLLING HILLS 0 F lXlXlXlxrxl I fOR N A .- --- N L B o D U RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA ED! ARCHITECTURE. INC. 450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94111-3310 T 415.362.2660 F 415.394.8161 1182 BRITTANY ------6 .----- 1182 BRITTANY 0 ~ lXIXJXIXI)< I - l~ FOR N 00011 ,-."r.....r-'I A 01 NOVEMBER 2000 O:r 4' b' &' 10' l!l'ltcond 0011 efp2.dws PAGE ~ BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT 7 G\ SIGHT LINE or ---------------~!~~~~~-------------------- ~----------- I I I 1 i i ..; ~ ~ ~ VIEW CORRIDOR SECTION/PLAN for o BRITTANY DRIVE L A c II """""'......- N L B u D RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA EDI ARCHITECTURE. INC. 450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310 T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.8767 o .... ~C':I oC':l 01 < ,.;l....l'- :;;: .t>:......~ U ....0:> :ia:i@~~ ~r.J8<~ Q~lO;:lU"" Z;::lrn .... ~t; .8 fa. lO;:lrn .~::;!....o u....oug!l Q~~~I\! O::~<O::~ ~<rnt>:..~ u-oz.... _QIl')<'" O::lO;:l~rn.... P::: IXI :2: 0 Q I" - P::: ." P::: ;:> 00 = u ~ ~ - :> ~ z < E-< E-< - ... sao i ~ o:l ~ l'- ~ ~ ~~ ..... 0:;.- ... <+-t~ to> zO== . <0 . I' s:~ .' .......... II 'z z< o Eo-< -E-< E-<~ Uo== ~'o:l ~!l .. CD ., ., I>l " ~ .. 100 Eo< ., Z i:01 ::s Q., o -'l r"l > i:01 !:l p;; Z r..:l :;;: aH' Eo< :::;L~ z r..:l.e- ~ :>" 0 0" ::s .... ;;: ....z'" l<:; o ." U 0.... g ::i o 0 ~ i:l:l o o o C\I g 05 J.~5 x I 1 1 I I I I I 1 \ I I \ I \ \ I I I I I 1 \ I 1 \ I --.'t"" I 1 l I I I I I I I I I ~ I 1 r \ I I I I I \ \ I I 1 \ ~I ~. 1 \ I I I I 1 \ 1 1 I I \ I 1 \ I 1 ~ I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I ~ .-.- '-'3Hl'n:i.iiidOiid'-'- 1 I I I I I l I "I I 1 l I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I~ I ' I I 1 1 I Y '" .... 1\3 I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I i-: Xl \!): -, \.0: I 4- : 01 1 ill! Z: -, -1: 1 I I I 1 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I ! I I 1 I I 1 1 I I I "'!I '"'I 0, "", l I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 \ I 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 \ I ,1 I I I I I 1 l I , I l I I "1 S: 1 E: f;;: C1l iill "'I !:I' 5: !! 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I >- ~ i t!: ... ... #,- ----- ~------< ff_. ----- <---- 00011 01 NO'lEMBER 2000 ....,,'" aatt .fpa."'...' P l\GE 1\Vcl<. \\O\JN'l'f\\N DEVELOp\\EN'l' 1166 131tl1'1' A.N"Y 0 ~ .. i fOR 1'1 t. \lIE'" CORRIDOR SEC'flON/P~ fo~ o BRl'f'fi\N'i DRIVE ~ ;, nUBt.\N RIC1\ARD c. 1\At.mLEN, AlA EDI ARCl1l'fEC'rURE. INC. 450 SANSOM-E. SECOND f\.OOR SAN fRANCISCO. CA 941.11-331.0 '\: 415.:i6Z.Z860 11 415.394.8767 ~ U I*c oT S \ &I-\\___-----------~--------------- ------------------------------------ x x x AWl1lA9\.Il IIEIIlIIT --------------------------------------------- --- --- ------- -- (-----~~~~-- ~ ~ ~ lJ\ 1158 BRl'l''1'AJfi 0 ~~ r L l' 0 \\ N A VIEW COR\UDOR SECTION/pLAN for <:; BRlTTAN'l DRIVE ~ c A -- 11 \) \l 11 L RiCHA.RD C. llM'lDLEN. A.IA ED\ A.RCll1'l'EC'1'URE. INC. 450 SANSOM'E. SEcoND fLooR SAN fR~NC\SCO. CA 94111-3310 or 4-10.36Z.Z660 f 415.3M.676'1 AlJ.OYABLE HEIGHT . --------------------------------------------- _____________~1~J;__~f__;21~ti][________________~____-----___ 12 LOT ~----~------~~~~---------- ~ ~------ E.._---------- .....2 LOT 11 'I. ----------.-----------------===--------- ....:i x x x I ~i ~! ..I 0. i 0.. 1150 BRITTANY o VIEW CORRIDOR SECTION/PLAN for o BRITTANY DRIVE ........ '- ~ '\-9 ....c '^ 00011 ~ 01 NOVEMBER 2000 ox.rr ~ second OOU afp2.dwg PAGE 11 aLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT A o R N F L A c . ~Cl1'Oll!l!Ul N L B u D RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AIA ED! ARCHITECTURE, INC. 450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310 T 415.362.288Q F 415.394.8767 ~ FRONT .::;..' ::::-..: '?"--~'::'.: '-:::. ::.:;~:;~~. ~r: ~ ~:~ ~..:~ ~rJ/ax6f'0N4- :-:-":':-:-:':"-:-":':-:---'~:'r-:-:-'."':"';.'....-".'.':.':-:''' .... ... I' .... ..._...._.... .1..... _... " _. $nltXCO(2)(4rCHl - ;;' .:.: ...:.....~:..~:.~: :..... -, .__.~: ..___ $t\U(lol2.'l4I'OHW'1lCtFaNof- . --.-- -;:~~ ~~L~:2':~~":-::Y-:; ~ a:.. RH; 11'I ------...:.-_. ,- " ..........-.. ----....., - p.J .. ~......-~...,::i-""-""---- :___-/ I.Ffi ;::~ :~iC: ~;~ .~." :::~~:~=~~~~;~.:;:.:; ~~"~~~~~:~;::.i,.Ll -- .- ~ilil,i=~~~ -~- :.. ! . -nJ"'!':liin:-' !w.:.'!i!!!. " ........ ~ ~ "P ~ Ht.l!RI1U usr. ROl:lI; 'S"TUIttAi5BCftfll!J'R7fJ IW.lS ""-"<0 ..... mNt$. 5l'ote\II!tI!eR~ PAlNtl!1 enu.o 0V'fR ,.0N4 "\ltIH Itf1I.A'II!OVIKtL~ """"- """"- p~~set;r.R<<J.-W -..... .tIAe~-RU.'f """*"" - REAR LOT 1 FRONT" ELEVATION 0 ROLLING HILLS DRIVE 0 : :;T~~ ~~~~~r~z;;~~.~.~\ ;~'i~CJ~~~~: .----- -.-. [..... ...... !iilli~:!!! --, :! mJr.ilr."I . '!IJ!T'!'m'",II"c""",r.mr.-mrn,' . ~~.:,J!l!!:.l:~I-:~lr:~~:!IIIIlI-_J~- -:--. ~.- ~)Em~t - .' ~ 00011 0 I' 2' 3' .' .. 01 NOVEMBER 2000 PACk: 1 2 0011 LOTS 6 10 12.dwg BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT A R N o F L A c II -~... &lfNfJQCIa:;~/JC, N L B u D RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA EDl ARCHITECTURE, INC. 450 SANSOME. SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310 T 415.362,2660 F 415.394.6767 a4'-3" "- ~ ~ ~ -c::. '^ MAIN FLOOR 2.110 SF 1,300 SF 3,410 SF ~ 02'4'&'&' 16' 13 -- !J-~ -, ~I 1 I I I I I I I J -------, 1 I I ..... .- """.-. MAIN LEVEL LOWER LEVEL LIVING TOTAL 00011 01 NOVEMBER 2000 0011 LOTS 8 10 12.d"l PAGE BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA EDI ARCHITECTURE. INC. 450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310 T 415.362,2860 F 415.394.8767 p-------- .... Average Slope = 38.8% ALLOWABLE HEIGHT -------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Height = 25' + 15' = 40' PROPOSED. HEIGHT .2 ~ 1 0 ;::;: ~ I 0 - "t ~I !>4&:20 () - " ~, i!<G:1O N - ~! - ....... 10 50% line of oS) , lower floor =1 I ________-.:..___ MIP_I?OI~T _of _NAJU~AL_.Q~AD}L~O!'!TA~.I.~ I I , ""'''' I ~ 6' . MAXIMUM HEIGHT above finished grade ~I 10 ALLOW ABLE for 50% of LOWER FLOOR " , 10 In oS) , - " Q, in -' g' MAXIMUM HEIGHT above natural gr~de '0 I \T- ....... ~ ~ ~ -t:. ~ ~ 00011 0 I' ""4' &' 01 NOVEMBER 2000 0011 LOTS 8 10 12,d"g PAGE 1 4 BLACK MOUNTAlN DEVELOPMENT LOT 1 CROSS SECTION 0 ROLLING HILLS DRIVE 0 . ~ F 0: ) I DUBLIN FOR N A AtihJlIcttt.rw --... BllJA:Hf'C~~ RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA EDI ARCHITECTURE, INC. 450 SAN SOME, SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310 T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.8767 SCALE:1".20' ~ ,~ U\ P .... 11,..- . ISI:'-' 1130___" _CA_ RMR Design Groull. PI.n".... E.,ln..... L..d...... A..hlta.... ~ ~ l' \ / / r I~L' Ir il'ico,\iBBiAGiUREA P: ":; AI.,L1 r- BRITT ANY DRIVE GATES ~ ~ GATES & ASSOCIATES I Z TRACT 5073 ............ I.^NDSCAPE ARC;JITECTURE OJ ==_:: ~ DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA ::-... LAND PLANNINC. URBAN OESICN ..... ::::_:.: 24<10 T^SS^lAR.. U[jE SCALE:l":20' AUGUST 9, 2000 -. : ~ ; : : : : : : ~ : ;-: : : DANVILLE. C.ALIFOH~IA 94526 . ... .... . . 't'EL 5)0.1,'6.S176_ FA.\: ,'i.llf. ;"36. 8tB4 J '.t!t~'.t Ii' ~ii m~m R~~~~i~~' ~~ ~~~ ~m Hff 99999lPilli .. ... ~.~.~. ~. ~::;::; 'io;"iOi~;;;; ~ ~ ~ p.~ F ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~~~;~~~ '"':i t:' ~ o-j. l:"" - r.n o-j E2H .01 > riP ~ In ! !lillnl I !{IUlII ! mil IU iti!fB~li !~Ji..[t i~Hf n; lIll!l J:il''1 -.R. if It jl r:. ~Il. r f ~ .~ ~ 1 i~ ~ I I I I 1 [fmHi Iilff. ra fl Jt=Jf t ~~ " m i1'[ [ ". f ~ I ~ D' ~ l'Hf. ~ fHlll if~lll' i r2~"! P! l...~ [ ~jf[' f.J~ t1i-n i~: [II ~.. I i( 1-< ~~. n , . [ . r . I H[-F f n nff ~l f f"1 d'!~ . . f" J' ~iI' .~~ .r ~ fgnit:~ 8'~H'"!f ~ ;:1-- ~ .. . ! ! , I r;/1t r i/ FRONT \:!_,~ ;;-\~i~~~r!;~~ )il~:~!~:!~~_;~;~r~~~}/~~-~~~!} I!-~;;._~ f:}:~-::i::~~;r:~~~~fiJ;-~~/i'~~:~j~:-::::~~:j:~:~i _ __ ".-- --~;~.~=;: ::- =-_.~-~ ....:............. 1m; Ii r ...-.....-......:::._'" ..........:.... 'li" 2llI2M!El1UH- raalH!-+I'T,- -. .. "\~!~~:~}~~~~f.~q'T-',:~--~'-' .. - .'. . .. .. .-- LEFT -"-:--~~ - . :M .;.>_:.--- '.'lJJil' .. " y-"" . . --_...:;...,./../~ ~ .11i!JDi -- , Jilljm!'uir ~!i:l'" :;J1L!!Hr[J]i[!; - :~:::~.~ , , Wl.~LI'5T. - - ROOr'. MTTlJ..e[CLA!l5!1Cl'tetf'T!PJ "m~i!TIVin;T:rr.ill::i1;irllJfilI' -.. "..-. ~ HORIZC)tfl'}L5IDfl5o ..-. - :oeTMA. INlIlA1EDVltTLI"lItI:lOt'tS . : - .1:::__..1:" I" :.!.-I~ I. .....!.!I. 1..1. TRIM..mrt:'Ol7 - - PiVt1m~5lSl:t.~ - .....-..... - - , - .,..~-FIU. .- """"'-'" LOT 7 REAR ELEVATIONS - ~ 0 BRITT ANY DRIVE 0 _XIXIXIXIXIXD ~ I - I 00011 ~ DUBLIN C A L FOR N A 01 NOVEMBER 2000 o I' :2' 5' 04' &' 0011 LOTS 7 0 U.d.., PAGE 1 7 BLACK .MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT r --- .- RICHARD C. HAND LEN, AlA EDl ARCHITECTURE, INC. 450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA94111-3310 T 415.362.2BBO F 415.394.8767 34'-: - ......... - ,..,,, MAIN FLOOR MAIN LEVEL 2,110 SF LOWER LEVEL 1.300 SF LIVING TOTAL 3,410 SF - ~ 00011 ~ )\ 02'4'6'&' '6' 01 NOVEMBER 2000 0011 LOTS 8 10 12.d", PAGE 1 8 I~ BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT \1\ N I i- N ----, I -l ... ........... r---- I ROOF PLAN LOWER FLOOR LOT 1 FLOOR & ROOF PLANS 0 BRITTANY DRIVE 0 . ~ F lXlXIXIXIXI I DUBLIN FOR N A Ati:blIm.rne - ..---.... RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA ED! ARCHITECTURE, INC. 450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310 T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.8767 _______~!~~~g~_~~y_~_~_g~~6____________________________________~~~Q!~~~~_HEIGHT Maximum height = 25' + 10' = 35' PROPOSED HEIGHT 9 fH ~ <:::: tf" "t N ~ to -, ~ ____________ MlP_1:.'OlNT _of _NA.:rU~AL_JI~AD..E_~Ol'{TA~T &lObi 50% line of lower floor , I I L I 6'lbI . -, 2, inl \, 2: ~ to -, ~ t;- 6' MAXIMUM HEIGHT above finished grade N ALLOWABLE for 50% of LOWER FLOOR ~ to N .1 1"'" 9' MAXIMUM HEIGHT above natural grade i i r::lj Z ~ ~ ~ ~ t:l.. o ~ ll. LOT 7 CROSS SECTION BRITTANY DRIVE ~ G\ ~ (I" ;1' 9'.,' tJ' PAGE 1 9 BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT 2000 00011 01 NOVEMBER 0011 LOTS 7 9 11.d.., <> A R N o F L A c N L Q <> u D RICHARD C. HANDLEN. ALA EDI ARCHITECTURE, INC. 450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310 T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.8767 \11101- . I'trll: tIIII4107 113l_........_A ~CA-.nO BRITT ANY DRIVE TRACT 5073 DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA SCALE:1":20' AuquST,2000 b -l Z ~ ~ N o RMR Design GroUIl.. Pl......r.. .'".1....... L."d...p.. Arohll.eta f t#' o~ ...."...... ./ '" /'-~~ .</ . ~. 0,#........ .------------ --~-~ --.... ,.- .' / " / / / / ./~. / " ./ ,n r- BRITT ANY DRIVE GATES GATES & ASSOCIATES 1 N 5:1 ............ . LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Z TRACT 5073 ::-:: LAND PLANNING. URBAN DESIGN ~;, P DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA H-U.. 2440 TASSAJ^R^ LANE. "" SCALE:1":1Q' DANVILf!&', CALIFORNIA 945%6 AUGUST 9, :WOO .. ..... .. .... .. .... . .... .. ..... . .......... . .... TEL510.136. Sl16. rAl1S10.136. 8184 ;~;~F. ~.~.~.~. ~:t~r9~~ii~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ 'i;; ~~}> ~h ( JiL:' l'lf ~ ~~~ if rm ....... iiiiiiii iiiii iiii ir! ~ ~ ,.., !: c:n .., {H un i '! ~1 >iTf ~ f ~ Ji i ~ HIU ~~ '21 ~~u~ I... ; .J ~i ilHf . I~ UJI JJR UJ 111 ! l[ilt~(n ; (fUfIlI [l~I' ~iiJihr Rlrf~a[~ 9 tU I &:"'011 ~ n: .. ~. J 1ft II lwmUf rl H nJ! I~ I p t r2i'H~~ gf.3:i"'~f 'iiir ~~ . i' iH ~ [aHeJOi n.f'~ Ii I; ~ t {n!l~ tnl~ i ~HI[ ~ i~'.!lli i uh f :!i r :- i 15'.. ~ ~ !. < 'r I B. f . un' .3:' 3: ~. ~ "f .~""'~'- --'.-il.'.'. :~~.;;.:, (.' :-..~ "" "~""ii.' .'==I~r''-' ,;,,(~,=<.;;. .' 1'-." .-~.,..:'.' . . - ' . -' , - , . . ...... ..--.---. -- ...- -' '-i<,..:;.k~:~., ~;":.. .,...., d. ' ._(~;t.-'":r,;; ....- -- .....:'l!. ~". - """, ,. .~. .~.~"',1'IL'!('.N"I'" . t ~:..,> 'I:;il~ : r." :... . -. - .. . r:::t ;: -."----- , ~..-........- ...........-........, FRONT :'/! l;j~:~;?'~[.,'::t;:;:;~, RIGHT Ll5T. . "5"lU~8~een!I'J . """""...... ~ :mlte V!;lUR..-.e:am pA!HJB' l5n.eGO OVIR fl'N41RlM fs.tATJD YIM. ~ .....~ .....- PAIH'I'ED rIOC'O ~T.I2dLl.-IP ....... """" . ~ f'ROla:mTON" fU,Ll' "'"""'"" ~.~~::-.:~;f.~~~~~ ~:' ~ :'~ ~ ~~- ~~~.;: i-h ~ ~~f~: ;~~~~..I.;:= _ ~:..::-:.;7;;"'.':";";.;-.~~-;:,;::.....:;~..~ : . - I" .. . , " '.!i.1r::![~lid~r ~]:J.r:mi!.; .-_--~I.. ..-.. - .. . - '_4_ '~-;:"'f:':;~;:"~~~i::~::~~:l .- . .:~: :. "#-'~;~-::-:i ~=;~~ ~. I' --... . ~ f!l, ill ~U~1i1)lli!I' ----->- --- --~--- .I;cn;.u.m: Jimr.m!r1l1l!rnt:i1{if,lf! ~ ~ )\ ~ ~ REAR LOT 8 ELEVATIONS BRITTANY DRIVE ~ o " :t 3' 4' &' 22 2000 PAGE BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT 00011 01 NOVEMBER 0011 LOTS 8 10 12.4"'1 <> A R N o F L A c II -... 8lCAIll:MI&~1M:. N L B u <> D RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA ED! ARCHITECTURE. INC. 450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310 T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.8767 :34'-:3" ~ "" - .,- ==:a:: ..- ~ ~I - ~ ......""" -- ...... C=--=>- - - MAIN FLOOR ! - - MAIN LEVEL 2.122 SF LOWER LEVEL 1.300 SF LIVING TOTAL 3.422 SF - 00011 ~ 0:2' 4' 6' 0' Ib' 01 NOVEMBER 2000 0011 LOTS 8 10 12.d"'l PAGE 2 3 I~ BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT ...c:... ~ -, I I I I I I _J """ LOWER FLOOR ..~ LOT 8 FLOOR & ROOF PLANS BRITTANY DRIVE ... r , I I I I I I L ROOF PLAN A <> R N o F L A c . N L 8 <> D U RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA EDI ARCHITECTURE. INC. 450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310 T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.8767 Average Slope = 29.3% ALLOWABLE HEIGHT ---------------------------------------------------------- <(; in (I) ~ .a I in N PROPOSED HEIGHT Maximum height = 25' + 10' = 35 ~ ::s ',..0 . ::n $'1' N I <0 ! I I i i i ! I I !:J;;li z ::3 ~ JZJ P.. o ~ ll. ~.Q~AD_~~Ol'!T A~.L N! , <0 LOT 8 CROSS SECTION BRITTANY DRIVE ~ 00011 ~ ~ 01 NOVEMBER 2000 01' "29' 4' &' 0011 LOTS 8 io 12.d"l PAGE 2 4 BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT ~ o A ~ 6' MAXIMUM HEIGHT above finislked grade ~ ALLOWABLE for 50% of LOWER FILoOR N R o F I L A c &1&.0 - 50% line of lower floor 1 I 6OT.Il J - -r--- - ~ ~ = --- - - - 0 XIXIXl g DUB L N in! I; Q ~ ~ in 9' MAXIMUM HEIGHT above natural grade RICHARD C.. HANDLEN, AlA EDI ARCHITECTURE, INC. 450 SANSOME. SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94111-3310 T 415.362.2BBO F 415.394.B767 .'01__ . Fax: eee.0701 1130~___A Coftcoo<l. Cl.lMIi>>4lI10 BRITTANY DRIVE TRACT 5073 DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA SCALE:1.~20' AU~UST, 2000 r- o -I Z P co ~hr tv c.Jl RMRDesiu.n 'Graue I".liner., '1I.,lnee.., Llndlcape ...'.IIIt.... ./ /,/' ..../ ::-'/;>../ / ~g~ ~/rtf; /,./ -~~ ,--_." ,--" ......---- ~---'-- '. /,/' // / .," "/,,, /,""',,--- "q- " .-'~ ..../,,;/ ,,/ - - ~ .......- "",,'" " ./'~ .,~ _\ .---.----- :-____..!.._ .__..".. '60.'g~'''-' ,/,/ / /. ././~ '...." '-.- --'----- 36 OAK 14 -- " .....,/ / " '" / ..--- ,/ _ __ ~I}' ,j..------:--- // /30' ,,-O'AK .../.--- ......./ -_______. ,;);7' ---, ............. - ,/.. ~ ./ ,-- .,.,..... /,-'.. .. - --~._- _...~----.. //'" -.. ,,/ //,........ ..... .',.................. . '-.- - - - ~- .' /.// /....... ..' ..."., /- --'.. 18 OAK - -- --1--... ------ . ....:fi;" ~ - -./ ../ . ./ " . __ __'__.. -"'" ~r .....-:;/ ,../ ../ ~--- ----.- /' //.... - /.' ...-// .--.,.-:- _ ~_ _ __ .. o-A:~ ---.-.- -----::.....----- /' .. ./...-'" .... .... ~ __- _ _. r.J:. -__ ____ . ___------ - .-----::::--.- /./ p-(.r/.,.W...OA"( ____ ____ --4i!:liA.c'2~, .- ---.-- . /./ .. ..------ ./,/ 7';'/ /. ----..' _____ 3.0".::tr,A _ :::::::::=:::-- =--=-~/- .-/ ",/ /" ./ /.--;/ ---..,. .' --.- -_.~ / ." /-;,.. .." .." -:-;-~_.--::-. ____~ _=::~=---.. __. :_~. _'" _ .~__ _,/./ . ____ _M ___ / ~ /:.:.~-;::~..~_~~. ... _ __ _ ". .. -- .........-- ....-6 '/../' ~ ->4,,/ --.~ __ __.... _,___.____ -- ----~ ''''" . .-"/r- .' ..',./' ........ / / ,</~~_. / ..-'--'- __ -... --. I. -:-:-- ", --" 9' ---...- ./// /.' /,/ ,~ ~ _~--=~ -=~ ~,.~_ ~- _'i .,,-/ '/;:'/". ././ /.>'.<.:,'. ~ ....------- . --.:-----... ---- '--- ---- ~~;.,,/"'. -.-::..---" .....'/ ...,....",-",--, --' - . -- --... ----- -- --.....-- / /'./ .....,- /' :----- /:;; '~---..... ......... --------- ------..:------- ./ /' / /---.---.- '~ ,,' -- .. .. ~~.,;":<,,, ........., ......~--'....... - .-.-...------ ..../.- ~ ~-;:::::-_/..// . "- =.~~~'~<... ", . . --...---- './ / j /' ". ,/ /--- -.-..-.- . , _.____ ........ ~...' -"-.. .""...._......- I.. /' ." ,J' }" //.... .......... . -~ ' .~_ \ ,,,:,:~~ "<.'-.. _ ""..:/)_'-- .k--"'//~,/~'/'/ /--..-..-.-.-,......-.. '" .__~ _,", '" '.:-:.. '.<-_.____:.....~....._ ,..ov-----~/../ /'./:/ e . - "....... ....., '....~... .........~ -. ".. .~. -.n..."I-o_. ... ........ . ~~ -'- "" ~ '... "~,, '.. 1'\., '.'". ___ '... '-.~ _____.-f::....-_ .... /~/ ~1h /-.--~ .--..----........ "" ',........." '''" '''..'' J(...,"".<,<~~~:--,~:::, --:_.~"'C7'::::..';='-:_./<_/ ,/:?;~ci-:'(f./ ," - .~...- '..-.."..- -... '''-, ___ ......, '" ~... '" \'.. '. 'C"'--.....- -------....-.. :/:~'..(/"~"""""" ~. "... -. . ......... -., . --, ...... - .....,..,.. ( . / "-'\ -"'-:. . -..;; "~. --.,........ ..... ......"-. "". ~..'..,. .... ___ __/'-/--; ,/ I / .,,\,\ ....,....... "'- . ..... ...,..11...-...- ,,'// / /' t-- \.-,,",1 ) "'\~l" G~ AVq. NATl/IfAL s!.o,Pe~ (~"'Z.L"2.-~c(,,'''Tc..t1-.0-~....!'>\/ / ...' ,J ..' "... \ s-z.. 3'Z- '}/'2-" 2.'1.~./o / // / ,// / /- ,../,. -",/ ~!!~'.'=- t4~~~~F:;i GATES &; ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE LAND PLANNING. URBAN DESIGN 2440 TASS~JAR^ L^NE DAI'lVlla. CALIFORNIA 94526 , ':.:-GATES .~ . .. .... .. .. . . .. . .. . ::::-:: ::;:-:: ::::-:: BRITT ANY DRIVE TRACT 5073 DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA l\) \Q OJ ~' <J~ ~'~.~ ~ C:==> ~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~R~ ~~~~ ~.~. ~~ ;" ;' ~9~':}~9'"'i9 ~~~~~~~ 8~~~~'~~~ ~~~;~;~ .".. m' Uti ~ t'" .~ o-J t"" - rn o-J ({[HUI r .iJth ,i I f ~~~ ~!" P ~H ~. M~ [f!'j:j", ~~ r:a~ rn n ~ tLI~ ..~n rLJ!a ~.lUJ~ ~ ~. i l'r ~ '~-~"'I>r 2 Ur'li'''F~ ~ .<. ~ :' n;r~ ~ ili: i Ui[fJ J~ I ndlfrl ~ HUt ~ !;h ~ Hilll ..nu ~ J~I ~! i lfi il t ~ R~iH ~ B [if fi-ilil i ~. f tl~ i ]: H i: r r 1 .:.~ I · 1" l,l l ~, r~ fir[~ rill 'n ,. I;~r I" !lU"-! ;:~. ! ~ ii, I fr . >. n~ ' .' I J u~; 1 f .' J' . rEHif~ ..!~r"'ff 'i[ir " .. ~, ~ff , !l 691S~ FRONT r'~-'- .~;"~'t!,~\,i{i.';;)W.2.~2~'*~~]'"-- -- -- .~ _....::: === .. :- """'..........- ' ""'"'"""'" LcGAtlOM .--_:~-;;;'~'";-,,,-;.; :,;;.;c{~0i:f7J;~i~ -~ .-...------. .. _. --.. ;::=-..: ..___.;.. . ~]i!rr.'11119' " __._.___'" .... . uJw., .'. . '3 ~.'--;_::-- .-,~ --. .. . - """""...'. -~~ " J!iJ.!.Juw. LEFT ..~_. --- -~~I~iiii~~T RIGHT L ~:~':-I'':, ~I ~ :~::~.~:i;'~'l;~}:~.:~~;+.~;~.~:~~~~?;~;;~~~;;g.~~':!! :P' .,~: ':.~~! - .~.~ .--. '-' '.. ';':' ~ '.. : IU;1Ii .ill~~J!!;t -....:. : : _ !!I!.;II.I,i1L'.~I(i![ --- .., .. .- ;- -- ~li~l :. ------ t1A~U5T. ~l I'\.AT1'l.EttlA!!l!l'IOftBETltPJ I"WJ.!fi fORI:1)::Iftt',lL5It:fMt WAUo.It4!!lI.Io1!D''W'RttLJ1IClOte .-- lRtM~2Mri:lOC1 PAINIS I'tXID 5I:t<f. RaLo\J" -""'" .f'IItI!f'lft1fEGmoR-Al.LY """""'" ::Tjr.'!~gl~: :-::;r. --- ~ ~ REAR LOT 9 FRONT ELEVATION BRITTANY DRIVE ~ o I' 2' 9' "'. 8' PAGE 2 7 ~ BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT ~I 2000 00011 01 NOVEMBER second 001l I!lfpl.dwg <) A N o R F L C A N L B <) u D RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA ED! ARCHITECTURE, INC. 450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310 T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.8767 34'-3' -- - A-tJ -. N II i- N ,----, I I .....""'" ,----, I I MAIN FLOOR 2.127 SF 1.300 SF 3.427 SF MAIN LEVEL LOWER LEVEL LIVING TOTAL LOWER FLOOR LOT 9 FLOOR & ROOF PLANS BRITTANY DRIVE ROOF PLAN ~ ~ 01'4'6'&' 16' 00011 01 NOVEMBER 2000 0011 LOTS 7 9 lI.d"l PAGE BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT <> A R N o F L A c . IDHlQlftim1lIl.te. N L U Jl <> D RICHARD C. HANDLEN. AlA EDIARCHITECTURE. INC. 450 SANSOME. SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA94111-3310 T 415.362.2660 F 415.394.8767 ALLOWABLE HEIGHT Average Slope :::: 43.4% ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Maximum Height :::: 25' + 15' :::: 40' Q I b "t PROPOSED HEIGHT ~ " tflIo .q. I in N 6Zl.a ~ ~ 9 Q ____________ MIJLI..'OIt'lT .of _NA.:rU~L_..Q~ADJL(:OI'{TA(:T~ ~Q 6' MAXIMUM HEIGHT above finished grade = ~I ALLOWABLE for 50% of LOWER FLOOR ~, "t ~ () I g ~ .....0 00011 ~ 01 NOVEMBER " " .'.' 4' &' 0011 LOTS 7 9 l1,dwl PAGE 2 9 'P BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT 2000 rz:l Z! ::31 I >oi E-o' J:l::! r:.::I' lJ., o J:l:: lJ., T g! 50% line of lower floor I I I 624:1 61" in I g MAXIMUM HEIGH above natural grade b I, ~l LOT 9 CROSS SECTION <> BRITTANY DRIVE <> . I8l lXCxJXIXIXJXIXfXIXIX~ ) I DUBLIN .'.LlF..' A -- ... !Dl~~M:l. RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA EDI ARCHITECTURE, lNC; 450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310 T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.8767 . lt1lII__ ."""~ ll30___-.SIlIItA eoo-.~_lQ BRITT ANY DR i VE TRACT 5073 DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA SCALE:1":20' AUGUST f 2000 oe W'I~ o ~ U) RMR Desig.,n GrOUIl p..'.io.,., In'8an..,.. L.......p. A,ohlt.ote ~ .. -- -=~=~;::~:=::~~ _:~~~.'~~.. '.-:-'~~' .~. '"=:~~!?:-~>( ~::> / ':...-.:~-::-~.---_. '-"~''..,,,,, ...""~" ^..." -. :',';." .. -.:;.,"'-::-~: "', '~~..::. .. . \ .",'-..::....... .... ," .' . ...... '-'" . , . '-" - ~ "- , " ','" ~,- ~, . 'c- " .::, -- '_'. '_, 'r-. <.: '. ' " " ". .."..:..... ' ..." /. " -.:.:: " .... '.. . '. ...... ''', .....,i. "", ":" . " "...''-....'''. ~).;"i -(,~.~)/: 4~ ,4"io .2.'?J.. -G,d.. +. . &4- 1/2.- 32.. "-----.,.:;.., .__,. <.~;-::::-=~~~.=:~...~~~~.:~::..... -'~'-=~~~- .-1dJ... .__w_....._.__"...._____._~. .~._... ./ .~.- . OA-K.....WO-~ --_.-~ -~~_._---- .--' --.--...... .- ----...---- -'- -" -_.__....~- ,............ 01 : :t\,. J'-::,~""" '- ~. ~; '). I.AND PI.ANNINC' URRA' :'I:'ICN 2440 TASSAJ It. ~.:\ L"~ DAHVI(LE. CAl.lf(ll(~:P. '\~ T~S)Q' 736.8176- f'.~X SlOe ': ;.,. (J184 : ::: :: : :: : :: : BRITT ANY DRIVE TRACT 5073 PUBLIN, CALIFORNIA SCAlE:~n .1p' AUGUST 9, 200ll r- o -l ~ !=> CD w ~ GATES & ,USOCUTES .LANDSCAPE ARClllTf.':T~ :.: GATES ................ ~Hf=ii ;~ ;:;; ; ;;; "llll""i"ll>; ~~~=~~F~ ii9o;=;o;Oi~ $I Sl" Q Q 0'0 1'1!' it to !o ~to ~q;; ~~~ I~ ..~~~ /I' iW ~RRRIR~ iiiiiiii IliiE liii m '"':I ~ J-j. t"' fij J-j . - ~ ~ ----=== ~ :=---' ~klJ' 0 ~ I.J~1!o~' !l. .9 I U[ I uf~rflllllil!Il!11I!m l !Ill 1 fllll'lllll ~i,. ."i ... ilft H . iiJh ~ I .!t Iii'l f fH ~1-'f iJI . If. ~ i W I -< f i ."~ i ~t i H~f ff. (I . I," rl ~ ~ 1 . . . [fn:~Jn run UtI. f ~l . Hrl~ i r HI~~'! 'il'i~ Of j 1-t d'l- r q I ! ii' . f .' JI ~ f !~i'!~!~ iffI'" "f. 'ii' ~ -~w ,; ~ ~ HOl'l""'" -- ::::JCC:::::::JC[:::: ~ p~C~ -- t>lllll<6ILtVltlO ...... 0,,"" ..,- FRONT 6SIM ): JE[II?::J;~::~;;~'I!~~:'~~~: ...."""'=. = .- - - -""-..- ,~- ----.: -== .~~ ~-- -.... , .............. : :: .~.:~~.:;;~~: ~~~J~t~.; ;.i~ ~Ji;~l;~;)l~_:.;J~::; ~;'~lt.l ...--..-...... .::;:~!::::..I. . ~::~ r IHI; k- \)) ~ 00011 n...n..r--"'1 01 NOVEMBER 2000 o.x~. w 0011 LOTS a 10 I~.d"g PAGE 3 2 '\-> BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT ~I UST, "S"mJ!{a..A9580f(~ &'""'" ..... pAJt('f!Q ~ QVtR FOAM ntlM QEI.lAT!!Pvtm.1'IfClrOre """'''''''''''''' """'- P'NNIW IQX1 ~r. RGtJ....tf" -"""" rt:;lOD.!i'EDl9H~ .2"IlV:~TJJON-F\.U..Y ......... REAR LOT 10 ELEVATIONS <> BRITTANY DRIVE <> . JSl JXJXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXlXlXIXIXJXJ DUBLIN III C,LI"" A _I,..,.,. ~CIl'OMl!U: 1!I:It~'/ZI:~lM:.. .f. :;;~ ~i;!~;L::;;~Ei.~;'!i~.l~~;i:.~~:'~;;: ~:. ;~.::; :'~Y~~~~~:.:i ~~t:.;:._, ;.~;, . I, .., ... :. -. . . . . . ~ I; : ~ ~ I !.. -'--rlTl'-T:Fmi" 1-.- I ri'--II-r-- I .T.:iITrn...-...,.... ~,b;!' lJ.hl, ~,;)I!L. :. I..-:-J' I Jlih i1,IJ!i1, ;~ill: .. -," ___ ..a -. . 'jja!irillJ~tjllJliilili![!!iiiili ~:~J: . . ~--- - r I' . iiJ:IT!!!i;. --- lib~;UJ. -11iI ",- RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA ED! ARCHITECTURE, INC. 450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310 T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.8767 N! I' T-' N! - ........ ;34'_~n """"""" ..,. deck be"'" ~ ...... ~ l J I I I I I J """ -.-- -----~-""'l I J I "'2 r------- I I I oW r I I I I I , I L MAIN FLOOR 2,136 SF 1,300 SF 3,436 SF MAIN LEVEL LOWER LEVEL LIVING TOTAL 00011 ~, 01 NOVEMBER 2000 0011 LOTS 8 10 12.4"1 PAGE BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA EDI ARCHITECTURE, INC. 450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310 T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.8767 Q I o '<t Average Slope == 45.3% ALLOW ABLE HEIGHT --------------------------------------------------------~--------~-- Maximum height = 25' + 15' == 40 PROPOSED HEIGHT N ::::" r= \ ~ N ~ <::: (I) -.t> -' ____________ MlP_I.:'OI~T _of _NAJ'U~AL_~~ADJL~Ol'{TA~1.. -.t> <::: ,(I) ~ ~ - Z =I'~ l>< ~ ~ 0.. o ~ 0.. CJCJCJCJ CJc=JCJc=J IiCJCJc:=J c:::J c:::::J c:::Jc:J t!W - ~I 50% line of lower floor I I I I (0 \, =1 ~ 6' MAXIMUM HEIGHT above finished grade ? ALLOWABLE for 50% of LOWER FLOOR 'T in '-'DO 9' MAXIMUM HEIGHT above natural grade = 91 tri ~ ~ 0" 2';'" e' PAGE 34 ~ BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT . 00011 01 NOVEMBER 2000 0011 LoTS 8 10 12.dwl LOT 10 CROSS SECTION <) BRITTANY DRIVE <) . ~ D<IXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXI>: J I DUBLIN ~ "",.., A AnIt_ -- ... 1'DIJoIIGt~1IN.-' RICHARD C. HAND LEN, AlA EDI ARCHITECTURE. INC. 450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94111-3310 T 415.362.2660 F 415.394.6767 11101__ , I'olc eee.olll7 1130_-'_" c..-a. CA841i2N81O BRITT ANY DRIVE TRACT 5073 DUBLIN. CALIFORNIA SCALE:1"=20' AU~t.lST, 2000 ..... o RMR Design Groull. 1"."Il.".. ill........ L.lldu.p. A..hlt..U ~ z p w U1 Avq NATt/RAL SLOPE .= f;f2 ;~ ~( i ~ -( \-h \~- il\, \ /t ---- - --- /..~ .:.:-GATES ............... ....- .. ;:::-.:: .... .. ::::-:: BRITT ANY DRIVE TRACT 5073 QUBLlN, CALIFORNIA SCALE:1"" 1 Q' .. AUGUST9,2000 5 -t :z 9 -" o w OJ GATES & ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE LAND PLANNINC. URBAN VESrCN 2440 TASSaJARA LANE DANVILI<'E. CALIFORNIA ~ I TE:L~Q~!M1:~..fAX 510.73~ .............. ~~i~ Cjt; n~~ ?'-;:iii ~C\9~9~~~ ~~~~t.~t.~ OiOiiiiiii-;'i<; ,,<) ~ SI 9 Q S' '"!> ~!'It' pJ'l ~~~ ~H ~ ~~~ ~ tW ~~~~~i~ ~~~~~i€~ i~if~ i~~~ ~H riP []~ ~ ~ ~ [Qj ~ 61 o. ~ qllllillm I 11111 ill r~f~ ~ I'~i a t .. j; L L" i '.Flli I Jili ~ d1i t ffifl fnu i il ~! hI't iH~ i if r~b ~ 1 . !:~fl ~ l[f~ 2 ~. ~ tf~t I { lZ I {i ,t r [ I . [ . ~ . nrf n"il ! '"tl 11 f~ri ~c:~ InUUJ ~ . B ~ ~ tltl~ n ~ rI!~~lf · .U~I ~! i ~ r. 11~ I n[ ~ z f[ ~ 2 of ~"g . .., i . ~~ I ; ." if~' jii' i' t"' r i. ' · .... en .., ~ f<~~~C~1~0~~:~~~~~~~g::~;~~~1 ~_~ fl'; ll1-ril'J!i'-!I-' .:III5t:: ,=:: ...~I. ;1-';'-' ..~., .~;c1 .:.11.:/1',-" ~'~'.'.' ~.:' '. ~[r-":'1 ;:.;' . .':' ~ ~'~I""_ ..IiE:. --il. :', "";" . ,;~_..l:.::;.:z;~'-;';;; .:-... . ~. ': ..-':; !: '';:'' '.;.~; _.:.~~~.!._..;. .;,: _ _'...~T~~.~.l!j,;:..: ','Y; ""-~ ....1 .:,.,r _....<.":~...-:~:':"'!::;.:..;g.._7;.L: ;rof.. -./ ,. '.:: . ~. :.: I _<-,,~ -"'" ....... - :--. .' .:': ,,: i FRONT c MlJ1 =~;~{!"!;~~~:~~~~~f:~t~f'A' ---'-<:;.::~~ ........... - ...-- 1/IVrr...... ....."'" 2laeMa:1JUH - Faa-lRE..4-n:; --- RIG L_ '>~:~~~ ;'.\!:-~,::::'-: :,:,~:- . )i1iIf~J1]ji!m Qj[wI' ,. .-..-- --:--<:~~:~:-~!::.~~ ~r~t:~-- LEFT c - ~~E{~iW~~?:~~f~~{~~~j - -:::..=:_:~ _....: - .. .. -,.-., !TiliirO:' _ " - . 7l1i: .;-'- ---~.-' -:!::...d!:i/f,. ..,;.,...:---,' ,/// /.... ,/'/ "'-'fl!RIAL.SU5T1 fIeiOI"t f'l.AT1U~"'OltI!llmlPJ tw.15 ~,it.SlDttt Pl!T/l1UIt I!W.A1!DVIIm.~ """'''''''''''' 1"RlM-:zlC4~ PAlI(R!1rtXVs.r.IIXlU.-U" -""'" .f'Vl!~..NJ.Y -.., -.....:.~lW.i ;Wi/:Ii:!!!I.' .---... . "-~'Dii' .'Ir....,....lIiH!i~.n :0-' ~:Yii{~ "!!I.:!:!.I~!i.:~.h4 ~ ~ 00011 ~ 01 NOVEMBER 2000 0 " " 9' .' e' 0011 LQ1"S 7 · lI.dwg PAGE 3 7 1-3 BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT LOT 11 REAR FRONT ELEVATION 0 BRITTANY DRIVE 0 . [gJ lXlXIXlXIXIXIXIXIXlXlXlXJ)< I DUBLIN _ ,'LIFO" A -- l!DI~~m. RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA EDI ARCHITECTURE, INC. 450 SANSOME. SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310 T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.8767 ROOF PLAN RICHARD C. HANDLEN, ALA ED! ARCHITECTURE. INC. 450 SANSOME. SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94111-3310 T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.8767 ~ 0_1'2'9'4' &' ~ PAGE 3 9 BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT ~ --.() b . bi "'I"" ~ " 10 T in N 00011 01 NOVEMBER 2000 0011 LOTS 7 9 11,11"'( rz;li Z! :::3' I >oi E-<i ~. rz;ll ~ o ~ p.. ~ ~ n- -' n- ~ ~ n- -' n- __~_________ MIP_fOINT _of _NA.:rU~L_.QIJADJL~Ol'!TA~.:L' ~ 6' MAXIMUM HEIGHT above finished grade r- ALLOWABLE for 50% of LOWER FLOOR , (n LOT 11 CROSS SECTION <> BRITTANY DRIVE <> . [g] JXIXJXIXIXIXIXI I I DUBLIN _ "'''0'' A --- l!ElI~Ml!.'" 6<<.' 50% line of lower floor I I I "''' -, RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA ED! ARCHITECTURE, INC. 450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310 T 415.362.2BBO F 415.394.8767 = ~I ~I QI ~ " d;:)! 9' MAXIMUM HEIGHT above natural . grade .101_ ,., 886G7G7 11*l.......NMoa. SulltA ConcoIa. CA MI2Oa10 BRITT ANY DRIVE TRACT 5073 DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA SCALE:1".20' AUqUST, 2000 oj, ~~ ol~ .... .... ~/7t RMR Design Graue '.a"..-.',., Intln..r., L~nd.o.p. Arohlt..t. :'.5"i:~~:/:. ~:~:.. .... ,n' ._ "-. w~~~~_...~__.~--:. M .. . --- .... "" '. . -. ~ '\. \.., // ~ . "-, - .,.r..-.....'. .... - Il:'''''~ ~\ \\ "":~ ". J., ,\ -=- B#~ INUI <I PfN. "%. ',~ .,:.:$i~ . 'f: .C.' .... '",,:,i: ~ .,~: f ..-: .. ~ 5 BRITT ANY DRIVE ' . '.:~-GATES.- GATES & ASSOCIATES -I ::::I!iiiii:: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Z TRACT 5073 ~ 9 n~~H LAND PLANNINC . URBAN !lESleN .... DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA 2440 TASSAJARA LANE .... SCALE:1"=10' AUGUST 9, 2000 . .. .. .. .. .. .. '. ..- . .. ~ . DANVILta. CALIPORNlA 94526 .................. ttL 510.136 .a176_ rAX SIO.136- 8184 .co........... ~ ~ ~ ~ 'ili'ilili'f'i"i H~Hn~ (~//7 ~~,~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~n l'l;l t"" ~ ,.., t"" .... 00 >-'l ~H [OJ I i!(l ~ Inn ~ HfI i l'W~- IfHr I _ ~~& 11. ......if. il~i ~j-ll:; l i~f'=l ~Al.!. + ..~\lll H;.{!a i I ~ I ~ ., .. ~ !. f '. . ~l i. t i =~ i '.f ; .. [ i. '. f . I"l~n 'IIi ~ i~ 1~~~1 [,. ~ h~ [ .. ~ tt "i. I all.' ~ oJ · = P' 0 i Ylii m 't ~~~ Ii' ~W EiP [jj ~ l1P itll tUIHU t 'UUtil i ii' . (tfililt I~!.I il 901 !! I-fill ~ ti, .. "Ii. I r" T ~ i i 1,' II ;. UH!H[ ~ tli..h i~ I i rg~fl'~~ ntf.~li . .. -~t ~11 .. ,;,"!.. 64U'I FRONT ~i.:-i:~ ~~:;~~~J.;?~~(;\t~f~~ ~:-~ :- 'j{~!Ii4.~~;i:i, .............. ~.!.: ~ '= rf~f-~.)t~~;~;~'fl' ~~- ._...~-::..:'.__. \1I1.ITr~~llOM-.. ~ute~.Ff.- ......._.... ... II. ~1'IUHeNii!- ..------. RIGH' ~- ~~-r,;::F!:':~:~-{;~\~~~I; :;:~~;;;':.~;:_;~~-::;:.~"~', .: ._ f .. .. . ~:. i .. iilll!illlli!!:li U!!Im:' ~. ~ . . . -'~,;;rr!~I;;:Jji)i!li(' - - . ..-- ...- ~;;::J~-:~-::' -.. -. -...... __ '=;.i"j:.J"" I '-:j:in"'ifl'nrr.r...-r;iill"-I.inl.!~i;"'.ij.iD ;:!It r.':1 :..-: "Ifo!'llgp'rr~-1 ! .;.Il,I.I,\.1.~;o..;~,.:.J! I-=-~ ill:)..LI\;;;"~,!. .,bl.n!t!!-Id!!,1J.=.' .._!~b!u .. .. - ". LEFT :/~7it~:~~i=;'-~~~;: ~t(:T~~.;~;:~'?-\~I~~~: ~~.: :~.~; Ecrr!lii.il; - ;....;::.:..'~._- -- . ._'.1_-" . . .---- ...-.- .--...-: :.:...: .:.. ::: _ . ill..n ?;='-...:_._..::...~. :i~r.'[' ~ /''-'~ r HA~U5T, 1'l:OOP. "-AT t11.E (Gt.M5" aft f3E1"reR) rW.L5. 00Ia1J:lH'r.-.L. 501N6 'PETAl\.!. ~ AeC:aO'5 IHelt.AreoVIK'fL~ """'.......... """''''''''''''' """"'" ""'" !leGr. ROU...... 6AAM/J """" .l"iJtE!flJ.oT1$moH- N.l.Y - "'-c:: )-.:. 00011 01 NOVEMBER 2000 0011 LOTS 8 !U 12.d". PAGE BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT REAR LOT 12 ELEVATIONS 0 BRITTANY DRIVE 0 . I2?J JXlX!XlXlXJXJXIXIXIXIXIXI)< ~ DUBLIN III CALt.... A AmM_.", -.""""""" I!lIAAeMm:;nIfe.~ RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA EDI ARCHITECTURE, INC. 450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94111~3310 T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.8767 ~ - """'''''''''' - """ - - -,,- ". ,::::::::: - ~ ~I ~ -' ~ r' .... \"'l! !;;.:: - :::::::.-- - - \ -- ~ - ~ - { - - M.AIN FLOOR, MAIN LEVEL 2.136 SF LO,<<ER LEVEL 1 300 SF LIVING TOTAL 3,436 SF - - - 00011 ~. 01 NOVEM.BER 2000 0011 LO'fS 8, 10 12.d",g pA.GE BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOP~ENT ~ ~~I 01' 2'" 4' 8' PAGE 44. '" BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT '\.3 (:) I G "<t ~ ~ "<t I in HEIGHT 2000 = i .Q . " I ('() i 9 ! - I o . - I _ MID POINT of NATURAL GRADE CONTACT i --~------------------------------------ , ~;::; 6' MAXIMUM HEIGHT above finished grade ~: .Q ALLOWABLE for 50% of LOWER FLOOR , i I ('() i m 0 i I . - I o . - I 1 r:J! z! ~I I ~i ~. J:;r;ll ll. o ~ lJ,., PROPOSED HEIGHT Average Slope = 52.6% ALLOWABLE -------~----------------------------------~----------------------------- Maximum height = 25' + 15' = 40 00011 01 NOVEMBER 0011 LOTS 8 10 12.dll'1 CJc::JCJCJ CJ c:=::J c:=::Jc::J CJc::Jc::JCJ CJCJCJCJ LOT 12 CROSS SECTION 0 BRITT ANY DRIVE 0 . I2l D<IXlXIXIXIXlXlXlX1XIXJXI)< ) I DUBLIN III C'LlFO', A --, -""""... M~1\llP,1lC. 50% line of lower floor , I I 64eDO "'2 RICHARD C. HAND LEN, AlA EDI ARCHITECTURE. INC. 450 SANSOME. SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310 T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.6767 ~I S2! bi I 0-, .. 9 9' MAXIMUM HEIGHT above natural grade l&10l_ folc __ 1130_____A eo.-d.CA_O BRITT ANY DRIVE TRACT 5073 DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA SCALE:1":20' AU QUST, 2000 .... N RMR Design Groull. PI'.....r.. Ea......'., ".nd..ap. .Arohlt..t. ~ Z P c;;j, .......--...- ~ CJ1 ~t ~(,: , p 11..... -' fiE1iSA(1:) /JRi4IN4/b! INter F Ph GATES & ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITE.CTURE LAND PLANNINC' URBAN OESICN 2440 TASSAJARA LANE OANYILJCI:. CALIFORNIA 9'526 ............ .............. .:~'GATES:: .................... ..::-::.. ::-:: ::-:: BRITTANY DRIVE TRACT 5073 QUBLlN, CALIFORNIA <:r.AI 1='1";~/l\' AUGUST 9. 2000 1C~ If ~ s OJ p .... .., ~~.. iI' iiii ~ ~ ~ ~ t' tiJ ~ [oH m Cl" ~ un f flUI fHif i .:Rl[ 1 l-qi i UEli . &" D r II i i' i {t F 1 -.~ll '. J . im l? ~f~ ~911~ ~ te: ,. i of IfH I f ~. " ~ ~ii f f' ! ;P;;o;;o;;;; ~~~~~~~ ~~~ PO. p ~m H~~~ :~::~::~ ;; ;~; -:!1:!1 l?a~ -"" ~. ~.~.~. n~ t! '11 r"-fh ~i t:{ [H[w .u~[ if~ ~ir ~i~~~ ~~~ ~~i~~~~ [ErnHI . l'~"~\'~h J~ i ~ f ~~ir~H Hil~tr .. - ~ ~ff . w~ ,[j]> .'Uj q! IIIllUII i iIIil!l! . id ~!rilih ~ tUftiil "I f i.1 if ~ ~ 1;- s r~-; 1l .. t.. i.l C===== \ \\ \1 \1 \ \ '\1 \ \ II II II \ \ \ \ \ GNV RECEIVED ! \ \ \ ! l \ \ 1 r~---C~ _-----. ~~O? O\{ :J ~f If __ __."_-- ,_,,_-'-' f i) ~ . ,,-<:,'.:;;c._.._..~.-rt I - ~ \ \ "- ~ ~ ~ ~ 00011 02 JANUARY 2001 .econd oOli a/p2.d"l PAGE 1 3 BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT . a i 1 :4 II '.!::.i \:;::,: ! 4 i i I , i [ '\>; /0'/ ./' . /. / . . .' /.' / ! -"rv---.., . .. .. ,/ ~ I' '-., ,/ / / . \ L. )" I (: .) . / ,/ .' I '-;0.......-.7-..-..-..-.. .._.._.._____;_. :_:.. . ../ /. ./ I ../ '-.j- fXI$T1N6 ORAl . ..- , .... . .. ' ./" < .v~ . ".--"._..-..-.._.~ -. . /' ,.! . ~_.- i ./., ..,,"" fA5EMfNr - ----..-..-, 'f' - "-'0 -.-..-...../ / I ~)(,'.....-.,.--_._~._.~.. : ..". .." ,...-..-..-..-..-. -..-..-..-.._....9 . .../.' ~ r r.r-r ._.._..--- '- r "." ../.. Cl "-"_.'_" ~".._.._"-"-' . ,/ ,..,. N __._ t;>--" __~ \ ___ ___----------- -- ---------------- -------- L-.._..~.. ..-..'] { 20" 30" 0 . -- o LOT 1 AL TERNA TE SITE PLAN 0 BRITTANY DRIVE 0 . ~ F , I I , DUBLIN FoR N A -........ ~=1I!i2 RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA EDI ARCHITECTURE, INC. 450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310 Ifgr ~ )Y5 RESOLUTION NO. 01 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 12,2000, . APPROVING P A 00-009 BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR SEVEN SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ON EXISTING LOTS ON BRITT ANY 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 Review is available and on file in the Dublin Planning Department; and WHEREAS, The environmental impacts of this project were addressed under the Negative Declaration prepared for the P A 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 "I", 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 1 00 feet of a structure if the public agency having fire protection responsibility for the area has determined that 1 00 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 1 00 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 P A 85-035.3, Hatfield Development Corporation Investec, Inc.; and WHEREAS, the project is consistent in all respects with the Heritage Tree Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the project is consistent in all respects with Dublin General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the project is consistent in all respects with the conditions of approval of City Council Resolution 82-85; and WHEREAS, the project is consistent in all respects with the Heritage Tree Ordinance; and 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 ArrACHMENT ~ '-19 ~ )~:5 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 WHEREAS, on December 12,2000, the Planning Commission did by a vote of 3 - 0 - 2 approve PA 00- 009. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding said proposed Site Development Review: A. The approval of this application (P A 00-009) is consistent with the intent/purpose of Section 8.104 (Site Development Review) of the Zoning Ordinance. B. The approval of this application, as conditioned, complies with the policies of the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, the Heritage Tree Ordinance and City Council Resolution 82-85. C. The approval will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare because all applicable regulations will have been met. D. Impacts to views have been addressed by sensitive design and siting ofthe proposed single- family residences. E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed in the project through the use of pier and grade beams and by minimal grading to site the homes and front yards. F. The approval of this application, as conditioned, is in conformance with regional transportation and growth management plans. G. The approval ofthis 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 arid implements the requirements of the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, the Heritage Tree Ordinance and City Council Resolution 82-85. H. The proposed physical site development, including the intensity of development, site layout, grading, vehicular access, circulation and parking, setbacks, height, walls, public safety and similar elements, as conditioned, has been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development. 1. 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. J. Landscape considerations, including the locations, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant materials, provisions and similar elements have been considered to insure visual relief and an 2 504 )~j attractive environment for the public. NOW, THEREFORE HE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does hereby find that: A. 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 Dublin Zoning Ordinance. D. 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 maj ority 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 padded exterior living areas are proposed in the front yards and in raised deck areas. Therefore the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of single-family residential development proposed. E. The environmental impacts of this project were addressed under the Negative Declaration prepared for the P A 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 "I", 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 1 00 feet of a structure if the public agency having fire protection responsibility for the area has determined that 1 00 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 1 00 feet of fuel clearance for this project. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby affirm the decision of the Planning Commission on P A 00-009 on December 12, 2000, and hereby conditionally approves the Site Development Review Application for P A 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 December 4, 2000", the Heritage Tree Protection Plan for this project stamped "received December 4,2000", the Site Development Plan by RMR Design Group dated "received December 4,2000", the Colors and Materials Boards submitted by EDI Architecture dated "received June 12,2000", and a revised Lot 1 Site Plan submitted by EDI Architecture dated "Received January 3, 200 I "by the Department of Community Development, unless modified by the Conditions 3 ;5/ ~ ;.~j of Approval contained below. CONDITIONS OF APPROV AL Unless otherwise stated. all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to final occupancy of anv 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: rPL 1 Planning, [B] Building, [POl Police, rpW] Public Works, rADMl Administration/City Attorney, rFINl Finance, rpCSl Parks and Community Services, [F] Alameda County Fire Dept.. [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District, rCO] Alameda County Flood Control and water Conservation District Zone 7. The bolded words at the beginning or each condition of approval identify the general topic of the condition of approval or constitute the condition if not followed by explanatory text. GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. 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 2. 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 3. 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 4. Fees. Applicant/Developer 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 rc;calculation and assessment of the fair share of the new or revised fees. Responsible Agency: Various When Required: Various times, but no later than Issuance of Building Permits 5. Revocation. The SDR will be revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8.96.020.1 of the Dublin Zoning Ordina..">}ce. Any violation of the terms or conditions of this approval shall be subject to citation. Responsible Agency: PL 4 5~ ~ )~5 Required By: On-going 6. Required Permits. ApplicantlDeveloper 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 7. Building Codes and Ordinances. All project construction shall conform to all building codes and ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. Responsible Agency: Bldg. When Required: Through Completion 8. Compliance. ApplicantlDeveloper shall comply with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance, City Council Resolution 82-85, 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 9. Conditions of Approval. In submitting subsequent plans for review and approval, each set of plans shall have attached an annotated copy ofthese 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 10. Solid Waste/Recycling. Applicant/Developer shall comply with the City's solid waste management and recycling requirements. Responsible Agency: ADM, When Required: On-going 11. Refuse Collection. The refuse collection service provider shall be consulted to ensure that adequate space is provided to accommodate collection and sorting of petrucib1e 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 12. Water Quality Requirements. All development shall meet the water quality requirements of the City of Dublin's NPDES permit and the Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program. Responsible Agency: PW, PL Required By: Issuance of Grading Permit 13. 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 5 5:3 ~ ;.Yj 14. Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental Assessment Studies. Applicant/Developer shall supply the Director of Community Development and Public Works Department with a copy of the Developer's Phase 1 and Phase 2 (only as required by Phase 1 ) environmental assessment studies. All remediation required by those studies shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works prior to Improvement Plan approval. Responsible Agency: PL, PW Required By: Issuance of Grading Permit 15. Rodenticides and Herbicides. The use of roden tic ides and herbicides within the project area 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 16. Dust Control/Cleanup. Applicant/Developer 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 of Public 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 clean-up and charging the costs of such clean-up to Applicant/Developer. 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 17. Hold Harmless/Indemnification. Applicant/Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board, Planning Commission, City Council, Director of Community Development, 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 DRAINAGE/GRADING 18. 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 19. Compliance. The Applicant/Property Owner shall comply with the. City of Dublin Public Works Department grading permit process and Plan Check-List. An information packet outlining the grading 6 :5'1 ~ )~? permit process and Plan Check List is attached. Responsible Agency: PW Required By: Grading Permit 20. Undocumented fill. 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. 21. 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 sub drains 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 swales shall discharge in a concentrated manner over and across the natural 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 present to people. Other surface boulders that may be discovered on the existing slopes shall be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer to determine whether a hazard potential will exist if left in place. The Director of Public Works shall concur with the recommendations of the geotechnical 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 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 allow 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 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 ofthe easement and the associated drainage facilities. Responsible Agency: PW When required: Prior to issuance of Building Permits. DEDICATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS 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 Management 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 7 ;5"S ~ ;i5 25. Mitigation Measures/Drainage Impacts. Applicant/Developer shall demonstrate to the 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. All drainage improvements shall be constructed to the satisfaction to of the Director of Public Works. Responsible Agency: PW Required By: Occupancy of any Building 26. 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/UndergroundinglUtility Plans. Applicant/Developer shall construct all joint utility trenches (such as electric, telephone, cable TV, and gas) in accordance with the appropriate utility jurisdiction. All 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. 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 per 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 not exceed 12%. Responsible Agency: PW When required: Prior to issuance of Building Permits. 29. 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 geotechnical engineer shall certify on the building plans that all proposed grading, site development, and foundation work conforms to the recommendations contained in the geotechnical 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 will 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. 8 s~ ~ J.~j 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 the 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 Prot:ram/Construction ImDact 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 construction impacts: Responsible Agency: PL Required By: During any construction a. Off-site truck traffic shall be routed as directly as practical to and from the freeway (1-580) 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. b. 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. c. Construction equipment shall not be left idling while not in use. d. All construction equipment shall be fitted with noise muffling devises. e. Erosion control measures shall be implemented during wet weather to assure that sedimentation and erosion do not occur. f. Mud and dust carried onto street surfaces by construction vehicles shall be cleaned-up on a daily basis. g. Excavation haul trucks shall use tarpaulins or other effective covers. h. Upon completion of construction, measures shall be taken to reduce wind erosion. Replanting and repaving should be completed as soon as possible. 9 5? ~;2-~5 1. Houses will be constructed in phases such that most of the construction traffic can be routed into the subdivision without traveling in front of existing homes that are occupied. J. After grading is completed, fugitive dust on exposed soil surfaces shall be controlled using the following methods: k. Inactive portions of the construction site should be seeded and watered until grass growth is evident. I. Require that all portions of the site be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. m. On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 mph. n. Use of petroleum-based palliatives shall meet the road oil requirements of the Air Quality District. Non-petroleum based tackifiers may be required by the Director of Public Works. o. 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. p. Construction interference with regional non-project traffic shall be minimized by: q. Scheduling receipt of construction materials to non-peak travel periods. r. Routing construction traffic through areas ofleast impact sensitivity. s. Routing construction traffic to minimize construction interference with regional non-project traffic movement. t. Limiting lane closures and detours to off-peak travel periods. u. Providing ride-share incentives for contractor and subcontractor personnel. v. Emissions control of on-site equipment shall be minimized through a routine mandatory program of low-emissions tune-ups. w. Radios and loudspeakers shall not be used outside of the residences. during all phases of construction. x. 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. y. No double-parking shall be allowed along Brittany Lane. z. Fencing of construction site shall be to the satisfaction of the Building Official. 10 Sgab :L~5 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 amounts and at the times set forth in any resolution revising the amount of the Public Facilities Fee. Responsible Agency: PCS Required By: As indicated in Condition of Approval ARCHITECTURE 36. 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 37. 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 38. 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 slopes higher than ten feet, and/or fences of rear yards with a high visibility from adjoining down slope 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 levations. All residences shall be built at the pad elevations shown on the project plans by EDI Architects dated received December 4,2000. 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 that originally approved by the City is prohibited. LANDSCAPING 41. Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan. Applicant/Developer shall submit a Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan, conforming to the requirements of Section 8.72.030 of the Zoning Ordinance (unless otherwise required by this Resolution), stamped and approved by the Director of Public Works and the Director of Community Development. The plan should generally conform to the landscaping plan and must reflect any revised project design shown on the Site Development Review with a later date. Responsible Agency: PL Required By: Prior to building permit 11 S9 ~ )Y5 42. Wildfire Management Plan. The Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan shall be in accordance with the City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan. Responsible Agency: F Required By: Prior to building permit 43. 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 44. Installation. Prior to final occupancy approval, all required landscaping and irrigation, shall be installed. Responsible Agency: PL, B Required By: Prior to occupancy 45. 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. DamagelRepairs. 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. 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 48. 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 FIRE PROTECTION 49. Applicable regulations and requirements. The Applicant/Property Owner shall comply with all applicable regulations and requirements ofthe Alameda County Fire Department (ACFD), including payment of all appropriate fees. Responsible Agency: F Required By: Ongoing 50. Fireground operation area. The rear yard shall have a minimum 10 foot offireground operation area. Responsible Agency: F Required By: Ongoing 12 /;, D 06 ).'15 51. Rear yard accessibility. The rear yard shall be accessible from both sides of the structure. Responsible Agency: F Required By: Ongoing 52. 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 53. Wildfire Management Plan. Site development shall be in accordance with the City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan. Responsible Agency: F Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits 54. Water supply. Water supply shall be adequate to support required fire flow. Responsible Agency: F Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits 55. 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 56. 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 ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, ZONE 7 57. 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, filed with Zone 7, are 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 58. Salt Mitigation. Recycled water projects must meet any applicable salt mitigation requirements of Zone 7. Responsible Agency: Zone 7, PW Required by On-going 59. Requirements and Fees. Applicant/Developer shall comply with all 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 13 6/ e( ;tV' DSRSD . 60. Requirements and regulations. The ApplicantlProperty Owner shall comply with all applicable requirements and regulations of the Dublin San Ramon Services District. Responsible Agency: DSRSD. Required By: Ongoing 61. 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 62. Sewers. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity flow to DSRSD's existing sanitary sewer system. Pumping of sewerage is discouraged and may only be allowed under extreme circumstances following a case by case review with DSRSD staff. Any pumping station will require specific review and approval by DSRSD of preliminary design reports, design criteria, and final plans and specifications. The DSRSD reserves the right to require payment of present worth 20 year maintenance costs as well as other conditions within a separate agreement with the applicant for any project that requires a pumping station. Responsible Agency: DSRSD. Required By: Ongoing 63. Fees. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, all utility connection fees, plan check fees, inspection fees, permit fees and fees associated with a wastewater discharge permit shall be paid to DSRSD in accordance with the rates and schedules established in the DSRSD Code. Responsible Agency: DSRSD. Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits 64. 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 of the sanitary sewer or water facilities shown. Prior to approval by the District Engineer, the Applicant shall pay all required DSRSD fees, and provide an engineer's estimate of construction costs for the sewer and water systems, a performance bond, a one- year maintenance bond, and a comprehensive general liability insurance policy in the amounts and forms that ~e 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 65. 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. Responsible Agency: DSRSD. Required By: Ongoing 66. Hold Harmless. The ApplicantlProperty Owner shall hold DSRSD, its Board of Directors, commissions, employees, and agents of DSRSD harmless and indemnify and defend the same from any litigation, claims, or fines resulting from completion ofthe project. Responsible Agency: DSRSD. Required By: Ongoing 67. 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 14 b~ ~ J~? 68. Construction by Applicant/Developer. All onsite potable and recycled water and wastewater pipelines and facilities shall be constructed by the Applicant/Developer in accordance with all DSRSD master plans, standards, specifications and requirements. Responsible Agency: DSRSD. Required By: Completion of Improvements 69. DSRSD Water Facilities. Water facilities must be connected to the DSRSD or other approved water system, and must be installed at the expense of Applicant/Developer in accordance with District Standards and Specifications. All material and workmanship for water mains and appurtenances thereto must conform with all of the requirements of the officially adopted Water Code of the District and shall be subject to field inspection by the District. Responsible Agency: DSRSD. Required By: Completion of Improvements 70. 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 . 71. 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 requirements. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits or the installation of any improvements related to this project, the Applicant shall supply written documentation from each such agency or department to the Community Development Department, indicating that all applicable conditions required have been or will be met. Responsible Agency: B, PL. Required By: Ongoing 72. Compliance. The Applicant/Property Owner shall comply with all applicable regulations and requirements ofthe Uniform Building Code and the Building Inspection Department. Responsible Agency: B Required By: Ongoing 73. Building permits for the proposed project shall 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 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. [B, PL] 74. Building permits. To apply for building permits, the Applicant shall submit thirteen (13) sets of full construction plans for plan check. Each set of plans shall have attached an annotated copy of these Conditions of Approval, including any attached Special Conditions. The notations shall clearly indicate how all Conditions of Approval will be complied with. Construction plans will not be accepted without the annotated conditions attached to each set of plans. The Applicant will be responsible for compliance with all Conditions of Approval specified and obtaining the approvals of all participating non-City agencies prior to the issuance of building or grading permits. Responsible Agency: B, PL, PW. Required By: Prior to issuance of building permits 15 ~3 ~ ;~5 75. Construction plans. Construction plans shall be fully dimensioned (including building elevations) accurately drawn (depicting all existing and proposed conditions on site), and prepared and signed by an appropriately design professional. The site plan, landscape plan and details shall be consistent with each other. . Responsible Agency: B, PL, PW. Required By: Prior to issuance of building permits 76. Hours of operation. All construction shall be.limited to take place between the hours of 7:30 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 77. Compliance. The Applicant/Property 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 78. Postal authorities. The developer shall confer with the local postal authorities to determine the type of . mail receptacles necessary and provide a letter stating their satisfaction with the type of mail service to be provided. Specific locations for such units shall be to the satisfaction of the Postal Service. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit. HERITAGE TREES: 79. Tree Protection Zone. A Tree Protection Zone shall be established 30 feet north of trees #340 - 342, and at the driplines of trees #335,345 - 346,353 - 354. No grading, excavation, construction or storage of materials shall occur within this zone. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit. 80. 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. 81. Rock outcropping. The rock outcropping within 30 feet of trees #335 and 342 shall be retained. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 82. Underground services. No underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer lines shall be placed in the Tree Protection Zone. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 83. 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 84. Irrigation systems. Irrigation systems must be designed so that no trenching will occur within the Tree Protection Zone. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit. 16 ~ Lj ~ ;~? 85. 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 86. Foundations, footings and pavement. Foundations, footings and pavement on expansive soils near the Heritage Trees should be designed to withstand differential displacement due to expansion and shrinking of the soil. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit. 87. Pruning. Heritage Trees shall be pruned in conformance with the 1998 California Fire Code. All pruning shall be completed by a Certified Arborist 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. 88. 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 arborist. Fences are to remain until all grading and construction is completed. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit. 89. 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. 90. Grading, construction, demolition or other work within the Tree Protection Zone. No grading, construction, demolition or other work shall occur within the Tree Protection Zone. Any modifications must be approved and monitored by the consulting arborist. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit. 91. 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. 17 • 92. 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 93. 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 94. Additional pruning. Any additional pruning needed for clearance during construction must be performed by a certified arborist with the approval by the City's arborist and not by construction personnel. Responsible.Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 95. Tree Pruning Guidelines. All pruning shall be in accordance with the Tree Pruning Guidelines • (International Society of Arboriculture) and adhere to the most recent editions of the American National Standard for Tree Care Operations (Z133.1) and Pruning (A300). Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 96. Pruning: Where possible, pruning shall be confined to small diameter wood at the ends of branches. Interior branches shall not be stripped out. • Responsible,Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing . • 97. Pruning. All trees shall be pruned to provide a minimum of 6 feet of clearance between the ground surface and foliage, to remove dead branches to a minimum of 2 inches in diameter, and to reduce end weight on heavy,horizontal branches by selectively removing small diameter branches,no greater than 2 to 3 inches, near the ends of the scaffolds. Responsible Agency: PL - When Required: Prior t issuance of Building Permit. 98. Aerial inspection. While in the tree,the arborist shall perform an aerial inspection to identify defects that require treatment. Any additional work needed'shall be reported to the Project Arborist. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 99. 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 clear of mulch. Wood shall be hauled off the site. , Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 18 • t,t l7f5 ;~? 100. Trees shall not be climbed with spurs. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 101. Thinning cuts are to be employed rather than heading cuts, Trees shall not be topped or headed back. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 102. 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 equipment or vehicles. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 103. 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 104. 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 Heritage Trees in this project. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 105. 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 ofthis Guide shall be provided to each purchaser. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to occupancy 106. Cash bond or other security deposit. 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 oftime 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 107. 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 19 o tJ ~ ;45 108. 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 removed only with the approval of the Director of Community Development, City Engineer, Police Chief, Fire Chief or their designee. The Fire Marshall has indicated the Heritage Trees conform with the Wildfire Management Plan and that no Heritage Tree on the project site will be removed pursuant to the Wildfire Management Plan. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 109. 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 110. Major scaffold on Tree 340. The major scaffold on Tree 340 pointing north toward the proposed residence on Lot 8 shall only be trimmed 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 so much foliage had to be trimmed that, in the opinion of the consulting arborist and the City's arborist, it was necessary. If said major scaffold projects to within 5 feet ofthe residence, the residence shall be modified to move it until it is at least five feet from the furthest extent of foliage of said limb. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit. 111. Heritage Trees on Lot 1. The foliage ofthe 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. If, 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 five feet from the furthest extent of foliage of said trees. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit. 112. Cuts on Tree 340. All cuts on Tree 340 shall be as marked in yellow on that tree and as agreed upon with the City of Dublin. Any changes to the pruning of the tree can only occur with the concurrence of the arborist and the City's arborist and the City of Dublin. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit, 113. 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 114. Perpetuation of Oak Grove/planting of additional oak trees. Landscape improvements for this project shall include the planting of additional oak trees. 20 b tz at ;~5 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 16th day of January, 2001. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST City Clerk G:paOO-009/cc reso sdr 21 I of6 12/21/00 Notice of Appeal ofPA 00-009 b1 ~ ~~~ December 21, 2000 To: City of Dublin c/o Dublin City Clerk RECEIVED DEe 2 1 2000 CiTY OF DUBLIN Re: Notice of Appeal pursuant to City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance Section 8.136.050 et. Seq. P A 00-009 Black Mountain Development Site Development Review. We the undersigned Appellants, are notifying the City of Dublin of our intent to appeal Item 8.4, PA 00-009, Black Mountain Development Site Development Review on the December 12,2000 Regular Meeting of the Dublin Planning Commission held in the City of Dublin Council Chambers, 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, California 94568. We note that there is no established filing fee and no specific information required by the Director of Community Development for this Appeal. We request and are hereby appealing the entire Public Hearing Item 8.4, P A 00-009 on the following grounds and issues as set forth below and as incorporated by reference in the attached documents that are submitted with this Notice of Appeal. Ground for Appeall. Unequal enforcement of 1997 Dublin Zoning Ordinance and Condition 6 of Resolution 82-85. Issue: Natural Grade and conformity with Condition 6: lE4e.Ol>~1) l-\ Proposed housing on Brittany Lane lots 1 and 7-12 of Block 1 of Tract Map 5073 located at 11299 Rolling Hills Drive and 11151, 11159, 11167, 11175 11183 and 11191 Brittany Lane (hereinafter "Custom Lots") should be lowered from the current proposed siting to reflect a siting on "Natural Grade" as defined in Section 8.08.020G.aI of the 1997 Dublin Zoning Ordinance and Condition 62 ofthe Dublin City Council Resolution 82-85, 1 8.08,020.G Definitions states: Grade. The term Grade shall mean the vertical location of the ground surface, as follows: a. Existing or natural grade: "The contour of the ground surface before grading."(Emphasis added) b. Rough grade: "The stage at which the grade approximately conforms to an approved grading plan." c. Finish grade: "The rmal terrain contour of a site that conforms to an approved grading plan.".. .. 2 Resolution 82-85 Condition 6: "The height of custom or modified homes shall not exceed twenty-five (25) feet as measured perpendicularly from natural erade. Skirt heights screening undeveloped, non-living I A1TACHMENT 3 2 of 612121/00 Notice of Appeal ofPA 00-009 10 ~ ).~? ~ru>U;.J .t 1-7- REceIVED The Dublin Planning Commission (hereinafter D "Commission") and Dublin Planning Department (hereinafter "Staff') have E C 2 1 2000 without proper authority created a heretofore-unknown definition of "New DUBUN PLAN Ground Surface" to replace natural grade in both the 1997 Dublin Zoning NING Ordinance and Condition 6 of Resolution 82-85 (page 3, Staffreport3). This constitutes an impermissible revision or amendment of both the 1997 Ordinance and Resolution 82-85 and is beyond allowed reasonable deviation and/or refmement in Condition 6, resulting in an increase in the heights of homes developed on these Custom Lots. No evidence of an established or measurable Dublin City Standard for such a revision was introduced iri.to the record at the December 12, 2000 hearing and therefore is an unequal enforcement as applied to this development.4 G {2t::.vJVb 2-\ Ground for Appeal 2. The heightlimit on these custom or modified homes should not exceed 25 feetifthe impacts to the views are to be properly minimized. Issue: Section 8,36.1l0.C.2 of the 1997 Dublin Zoning Ordinance is being applied to this Site Development Review resulting in unequal enforcement, ~~}...)\) 2.-A Staff and Commission state in paragraph page 3 of the Agenda Statement that impacts to views are being minimized because these homes could be 35 and 40 feet high, This creates the possi1>i1ity and potential that this developer or his successors, or future owners could assert a right to space for custom or modified homes (measured from natural grade to finished floor elevations) shall not exceed a maximum of nine (9) feet. Deviation and/or refinement of these standards may be considered as part of the site Development Review process covering these lots. (Emphasis added) Agenda Statement 12-12-00, Page 3 "Common engineering practice is to define the ground surface before grading as ground that has never been graded or ground that has been graded pursuant to an approved grading permit so that there is a 'new' ground surface." The fact is that common engineering practice is to define this "new" ground surface as the rough grade. Proof of this is seen in the 1986 engineering reports and current Peer Review for this development. See Kleinfe1der letter to City of Dublin, dated October 13, 2000 page 2, paragraph 4: "The January 9, 1986 (ENGEO Inc) report provides documentation concerning the general geote'chnical observations and compaction testing performed during the rouJ!h f!radine performed in 1985..." (Emphasis added) see Attachment #1. The phrase "rough grading" is used repeatedly by the civil engineers demonstrating that "rough grade" is the accePted standard. Additionally, adopting a standard of "new" ground surface via approved grading, could be used to redefine the height limitations of Condition 6 on a repeated basis, rendering the height limitation impossible to establish because you would modify it with each new grading permit. For example, will the height limits be changed again based on the new gr,ading being allowed by proposed development P A 00- 009? This is why the height must be measured from the Natural Grade, otherwise the height limits in Conditiori 6 are meaningless. 4 See attached letter dated December 12,2000 from the Residents of Brittany Lane, paragraph I and paragraph IT as Attachment #2. It should be noted that Resolution 82-85 was passed before any approved grading permits were issued for this development. Subsequent grading therefore will not change the wording of Resolution 82-85 Condition 6. The grading has resulted in an increase in the elevation of the ground surface by over ten feet on some of the Custom Lots; which will result in an increase in the height of the homes if used as a "new" ground surface standard. 2 3 of6 12/21/00 ~ now).oJ)) 2-3 6\Zo'-> }..1 '\:) 2.. -If b(k.u)J~ <:1..-5 Notice of Appeal ofP A 00-009 'll ~ )-~5 ReCeIVED DEe 212000 OUBLlN PLANNING increase the height of these homes.1The'height limit should be 25 feet from natural grade according to Resolution 82-85 condition 6.6 Staff assertion that Section 8.36,llO.C.2 of the 1997 Dublin Zoning Ordinance applies to this Site Development Review is incorrect. This Ordinance states in simple and direct language that it is not to be applied to other existing regulations or ordinances such as Resolution: 82-85 ifthere is a conflict, If a conflict exists between the 1997 Dublin Zoning Ordinance and other regulations then the most restrictive shall apply. Resolution 82-85 is more restrictive because is allows for only 25 feet height whereas the 1997 Dublin Zoning Ordinance Section 8.36.110.C.2 allows for heights up t040 feet on the Custom Lots7. Section: 8.04.0608 and Section 8.04.060.D,19 clearly show that the 1997 Dublin Zoning Ordinance was never intended to rewrite and supersede Resolution 82"'85.J The Dublin City Council went into specific detail to require severe height limitations for only 1210ts (the Custom Lots) in a development of over 200 homes.} Staff does not challenge Condition 6 of the 1985. Resolution but instead incorrectly applies the 1997 Ordinance. This constitutes an impermissible revision of both the 1997 Ordinance and Resolution 82-85 and is beyond reasonable deviation and/or refmement in Condition 6, resulting in an increase in the heights of homes developed on the Custom Lots and a potentiall()ss of protected views for the current ..residentsof,BrittanY.bane;....'.This-Council...should-rulethatthe.homeson..the Custom Lots cannot go any higher than 25 feet as mandated in Condition 6. &t l'li>v "" \? "'5-1 . ~;d2V(/~ 17 '3-?-... Ground for Appeal 3. Staff and Commission failed to preserve tree 340 as required by Condition 1610 of Resolution 82-85, August 12, 1985tand Section 5.60.40(b) of the Heritage Tree Ordinance 29-99, December 21, 199911 (hereinafter the "Heritage Tree Ordinance") and 5 See General Condition 2: 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." 6 See footnote 2 supra. 7 See Staffreport Agenda Statement page 3 "Deviation and/or refinemenf' chart showing 15 feet can be added to the height of a home on a slope over 30 percent. s Section 8.04.060 "Interpretation." of City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 1997 provides the rules for resolving questions about the meaning or applicability of any part of Ordinance. Definitions and the meaning of words and phrases are set out in this section. For example, Section 8.04.060A.3 states: " 'Shall, May, and Should.' 'Shall' is always mandatory and not discretionary. 'May' is permissive and discretionary. 'Should' is advisory and not mandatory." 9 Section 8.04.060.D.l states: Conflicting Requirements. 1. Other Municipal Code Provisions. "If conflicts occur between requirements of this Ordinance, or between this Ordinance and other regulations of the City, the most restrictive shall aDDlv." (Emphasis added) . 10 Resolution 82-85 Condition 16: "Project grading performed within 25 feet of the drip line of existing onsite or offsite trees shall be addressed by a horticultural report and the recommendations and findings of that report Incorporated into the grading and improvement plans of this project." (Emphasis added) 11 Section 5360.40(b) Heritage Tree Ordinance Deftnition states: "A tree required to be preserved as part of an approved development plan, zoning permit, use permit, site development review or subdivision map." (Emphasis added). . " 3 1J. ~ )4? Staff is of the opinion that the project has been designed in compliance with Condition 6. The heights of the residences are being measured from the proper elevation, The deviation and/or refmement of the standards is appropriate. The project is well designed, well sited and minimizes impacts to the views of neighbors on the north side of Brittany Lane. . Point 2-5. ~ the response to Point 2-3 above, With regard to the words "a potential loss of protected views" within Point 2-5, it should be pointed out that it was always intended that lots approved pursuant to Tract Map 5073, that were not built upon, would be built upon eventually with the potential that views would be modified. /' Ground for Appeal 3. G 3 \\ Staff and Commission failed topreserve tree 340 as required by Condition 1610 of Resolution 82- \2{)vVP .- 85, August 12, 198:{aiiQSection 5.60.40(b) ofthe Heritage Tree Ordinance 29-99, December 21, 1999II (hereinafter the "Heritage Tree Ordinance")land Section 8.04.020(F) for the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance12, September 1997 for the health and welfare ofthe citizens of Dublin. All three of these ordinances taken together require preservation of tree 340. Ii ,,/ / Issue: Staffand Commission failed to address and enforce Condition 16 of Resolution 82-85, Section 5.60.40(b) of the Dublin Heritage Tree Ordinance, and Section 8.04.020(F) of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Under these sections, Staff and Commission were required to establish a tree preservation plan instead of a tree protection plan. Appellants contend that preservation is defmed as follows: 2. a keeping of something unchanged: maintenance of something, especially something of historic value, in an unchanged condition13. Tree protection plans are more suitable for Heritage Trees defined under Section 5.60.40(a) Heritage Tree Ordinance, which addresses trees ofa certain size but does not mention any requirement of preservation. Tree 340, was not preserved by proposed Resolution approving P A 00-009 and no effort was made to investigate tree preservation which is the spirit of the Heritage Tree Ordinance as stated in Section 5.60.20 Purpose and Intent. For example, housing could be sited a sufficient distance from the trees to prevent unnecessary and severe pruning14, No investigation was made to determine if the ground surface could be removed1S under the tree limbs to prevent their removal creating larger wounds to the tree than preferred. 16 Establishment of a one-year bond1? for the protection ofthe Heritage Trees where there is major surgery is not adequate and the reasonableness of a longer time period needs to be addressed. Another issue that needs to be addressed is what time of the year is best for pruning18. Furthermore, building structures should not be allowed within the drip lines of any Heritage Trees. Footnote 10 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: Resolution 82-85 Condition 16: "Project grading performed within 25 feet of the drip line of existing onsite or offsite trees shall be addressed by a horticultural report and the recommendations and fmdings of that report incorporated into the grading and improvement plans of the project." (Emphasis added) ~ /}& 01 ?-~7 Footnote 11 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: Section 5.60.40(b) Heritage Tree Ordinance states: "A tree required to be preserved as part of an approved development plan, zoning permit, use permit, site development review or subdivision map." (Emphasis added) Footnote 12 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: Section 8.04.020(F) Purpose: "Protect and preserve the natural environment of the City of Dublin." (Emphasis added). "To promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort, convenience and general welfare and to preserve and enhance the aesthetic quality of the City..." Footnote 13 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: Encarta@ World English Dictionary @ & (P) 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Pic. Footnote 14 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: See letter from Jeffrey Gamboni, December 6, 2000 paragraph 1.6: "Potential negative impacts resulting from pruning: the pruning of tree # 340 is major su~ery requiring the removal ofa 27 inch trunk from a 40 inch diameter trunk. .." (Emphasis added) Footnote 15 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: Staff noted on page 6, paragraph 1 ofthe 12-12-00 Agenda Statement, that removal of existing soil to natural grade could potentially destabilize Brittany Lane. Appellants contacted Dr. Robert Pyke, B.E., PhD, to look at the Custom Lots to assess if the current grading is necessary for the geological stability for Brittany Lane, Dr. Pyke is an expert in the area of geotechnical analysis and has extensive experience with landslide problems in the East Bay and other regions of California. He told us that any notion that the grading ofthese Custom Lots is necessary to support the stability of Brittany Lane is "poppycock". We have attached his resume and recent work experience as Attachment #3 for reference. Footnote 16 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: See HortScience Inc., Heritage Tree Protection Plan, T. 5073 page 7 paragraph 3. "This pruning will create larger wounds than preferred. . ..." ~o>.w~ ~3-1. <\~ Staff and the Planning Commission have preserved 340 as required by Condition 16 of City Council Resolution 82-85. Condition 16 requires t~at project grading performed within 25 feet of the drip line of existing onsite or offsite tre~e addressed by a horticultural report and the recW1!:.endations and fmdings of that repo~~corporated into the grading and improvement plans of~roject. A horticultural report dated July 5,1985, was preE!!fed by Douglas Hamilton for Tracts 5072, 5073 and 5074. A Tree Protection Plan (AttachmenP#) dated received December 4, 2000, was prepared by Nelda Matheny ofHortScience for this project, The project was designed pursuant to the Tree Protection Plan. Conditions of approval of the SDR will ensure that the requirements of the Tree Protection Plan are imp1emented)including the preservation of Tree 340. A subsidiary trunk of Tree 340 will be removed as part of the pruning of all trees within 100 feet of proposed structures to a height of6 feet above the ground. The requirements of the Tree Protection Plan have been included as conditions of approval ofthis ~t..s17i2... Point 3-2. Staff and the Planning Commission have preserved Tree 340 as required by Section 5.60.40(b) of the Heritage Tree Ordinance. That Section defines a Heritage Tree as a tree required to be preserved as part of an approved development plan, zoning permit, use permit, site development 9 ?'I,cr6 ). V5 4 of 6 12/21/00 Notice of Appeal ofPA 00,,:009 RECEIlIED DEe 2 1 2000 DUBLIN Pi "1\. IJi'wN1NG t;eov"iD 3-3 Section 8.04.020(F) for the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance12, September 1997 for the health and welfare of the citizens of Dublin. All three of these ordinances taken together require preservation of tree 340. Issue: Staff and Commission failed to address and enforce Condition 16 of Resolution 82-85, Section 5,60.40(b) of the Dublin Heritage Tree Ordinance, and Section 8.04,020(F) of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. E>iAJUtJY 3- Y Under these sections, Staff and Commission were required to establish a tree preservation plan instead of a tree protection plan, Appellants contend that preservation is defined as follows: 2. a keeping of something unChanged: maintenance of something, especially something of historic value, in an unchanged condition 13 . Tree protection plans are more. suitable for Heritage Trees defined under Section 5.60.40(a) Heritage Tree Ordinance, which addresses trees of a certain size but does not mention any requirement of preservation. G f20\.) l\.J 1) 3-5 &t Qoo )..) '\) ~-~ <Cl fZov J'.l'\) ?; ~ 7 (;zQo~ 1VD 3-- e Tree 340, was not preserved by proposed Resolution approving P A 00-009 and no effort was made to investigate tree preservation which is the spirit of the Heritage Tree Ordinance as stated in Section 5,60.20 Purpose and Intent. ( For example, housing could be sited a sufficient distance from the trees to prevent unnecessary and severe pruning14. No investigation was made to etermine if the ground surface could be removed15 under the tree limbs to prevent their removal creating larl1er wounds to the tree than preferred. 16 I Establishment of a one-year bond for the protection of Heritage Trees where there is major surgery is not adequate and the reasonableness of a longer time period needs to be addressed.l Another 12 Section 8.04.020(F) Purpose: "Protect and preserve the natural environment of the City of Dublin." (Emphasis added). "To promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort, convenience and general welfare and to preserve and enhance the aesthetic quality of the City..." 13Encarta@ World English Dictionary @ & (P) 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Pic. 14 See letter :from Jeffrey Gamboni, December 6,2000 paragraph 1.6: "Potential negative impacts resulting :from pruning: the pruning of tree #340 is major surgery requiring the removal of a 27 inch trunk :from a 40 inch diameter trunk..." (Emphasis added). IS Staff noted on page 6, paragraph 1 of the 12-12-00 Agenda Statement, that removal of existing soil to natural grade could potentially destabilize Brittany Lane. Appellants contacted Dr. Robert Pyke, B.E., PhD, to look at the Custom Lots to assess if the current grading is necessary for the geological stability for Brittany Lane. Dr. Pyke is an expert in the area of geotechnical analysis and has extensive experience with landslide problems in the East Bay and other regions of California. He told us that any notion that the grading of these Custom Lots is necessary to support the stability of Brittany Lane is "poppycock". We have attached. his resume and recent work experience as Attachment #3 for reference. 16 See HortScience Inc., Heritage Tree Protection Plan, T. 5073 page 7 paragraph 3. "This pruning will create larger wounds than preferred..." 17 General Condition 103. 4 fvavl.n.>\) 3-4 IJ 5 ~ .,2'/5 5 of6 12/21/00 Notice of Appeal ofPA 00-009 ReceIveD DEe 2 1 2000 DUBLIN PLANNING Ground for Appeal 4. City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan Resolution 84-96, July 9, 1996 was not fully considered, resulting in a denial of Due Process. issue that needs to be addressed is what time of the year is best for pruning18 , Furthermore, building structures should not be allowed within the drip lines of any Heritage Trees. ~ (Zol> l0j) 4-} Issue: Staff and Commission failed to consider the necessity of two roads and proper fire access19 to the proposed Custom Lots adjacent to open space and/or undeveloped land outside the current Dublin Urban Limit Line. 6 Dbu"-'\:) .. 4- '"2- Issue: Staff and Commission failed to consider the proper construction requirements20 for buildings on lots adjacent to undeveloped land. 6 6.2-bU JV 't:> Lf-3 These issues were not allowed to be discussed or addressed before the Dublin Planning Commission by verbal order of the Chairman of the Planning Commission. This is a denial of Due Process and therefore, is a proper issue in appeal for the Health, Safety and Welfare of the residents of the City of Dublin in this appeal. Tree 340 as it sits today before development, is not in violation of the Wildfire Management Plan. Only if housing is placed within 100 feet of the tree do the provisions requiring tree trimming apply. We are not aware of any Development Agreement mandating the particulars of this proposed development. Confusion exists as to what standard is being. used to determine what grade or ground level is being applied to determine the height of tree limbs. It is unclear if Staff and the Commission are using "natural grade" or "rough grade" or undocumented fill to apply the Standards For Vegetation Establishment And Maintenance21. Gl lli/ll\.l9 .5- \ Ground for AppealS. Denial of Due Process22 b&?coJ....lt> 5-2- Issue: Appellants were not allowed to present Issues and Points for Review of the Agenda Statement. 23 18 We noted that development adjacent to San Ramon Road in San Ramon, included fencing beyond the miD lines of the existing oak trees. Consulting Arborist Stephen Batchelder, recommended pruning for heavy lateral branches be performed during the months of August or September. See letter dated May 5, 2000 to City of San Ramon as Attachment #4. See also photos of protected trees in Dublin as Attachment#7 19 See page 9 Dublin Wildfire Management Plan: "OPEN SPACE ACCESS". 20 See page 5 Dublin Wildfire Management Plan: "CONSTRUCTIONREQUIRElvffiNTS FOR BUILDINGS ON LOTS OR PARCELS ADJACENT TO OPEN SPACE AND UNDEVELOPED LAND". 21 See page 8 Dublin WildfIre Management Plan: Vegetation Establishment Guidelines 10% to 20% Slope. 22 See Letter to the Mayor Guy S. Houston dated December 17,2000 by Richard and Christina Bond as Attachment # 5. 23 See attached Issues and Points for Review sections 1 through 9, and exhibits referenced therein (Pages 1 though 8) Attachment #6. 5 6 of 6 12/20/00 Notice of Appeal of P A 00-009 1)6 ~ l-~5 The issues and points contained in the attached Issues and Points for Review are hereby incorporated by reference. kr. \l..ov r->j) b-\ Ground for Appeal 6. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING P A 00-009 BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR SEVEN SINGLE-F AMIL Y HOMES ON EXISTING LOTS ON BRITTANY LANE IS NOT CONSISTENT IN ALL RESPECTS WITH: ReceiVED DEe 2 1 2000 DUBLIN PLANNING A. The Heritage Tree Ordinance B. The Dublin General Plan and Zoning Ord~ce C. The City Council Resolution 82-85 D. City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan Resolution 84-96 Appellants respectfully request that the above grounds and issues be considered and that appropriate changes be made to proposed Resolution for P A 00-009 or that the P A 00-009 be denied and sent back for further review and refinement. Signann:,es of residents/appellant A- I ~,/ ! /,... ./ /' I ....,,' Ji / .?:?-c'f"-- ; ~/" I' , r II ')0 f?t^t~,~ L0 lduh Cp reef- q47{;f ~/ ',':d-, ", . ~.., - --- - """'&.- w# ' ;; /513 ~t:.77/JjV'7L.v /Ji/b, L/1'-",' / tt'"fi, " };9%':s~ 1\, f/ /-111 . ._~//,,,j)/) " \ / .~~ PP"1\~/ If{:,--a~~~ ~(ler:f1d 6 ;JIp~, ! ) / 'l:J--, f:,h'+f~ 4- m{j~ Y\ c; c.; S(p 'l Ru4~ . rJll.PlP !3y;tt ,- L ~)hl;fVl CA ?~JCY '~~. III (00 bflffctuy Lau.a Dd!ln{ C4 91-f5G8 --C~~ I;; 7'1 8R...17Tjj,IV)/ ~tJ6 vugL/A.!/ G, ?51->r?6' Rece~ved: 10/13/2000 . 10/13/QO lS: S1 FAX IS :2ISPM; ->C:l.1:Y 01' cub:!.:l.n PW/F:l.re; *415; Page 2 71'1f ;.1-)5 1aI0021005 .. A rrA~h~E~T - .4.. (QA)E) 1ft KlEINFELDER Art fllnpl"YH ownmf i;'onlQ.lny October 13,2000 Klcinfelder File No. 10-3008-181009 City of Dublin Finance Control No. S24 City of Dublin Department ofBnginccring 100 Civic Plaza P.O, Box 2340 Dublin, California 94568 REceiVED DEe 2 1 2000 DUBLIN PLANNING Attention: Michael Stella. P .E. Associate Civil Engineer Subject: Supplemental Review of Geotechnieal Engineering Reports for Brittany Loe and RollingHiDs Estates by Blaek Moantain Development, Tract 5073, Lot 1 and Lots 7 throagh 11 of Block 1, in Dublin, California Dear Mr, Stella: Introdu.ction As requested in your letter dated September 27, 2000, we have reviewed three additional geotechnical engineering reports pertaining to the subject proposed residential development. Review of these additional reports was suggested in our August 31, 2000 letter to you, which presented results of our review of geotechnical-related documents submitted at that time to the City of Dublin Public Works Department ("City") by Black Mountajn Development, in support . of its permit applications for the project, The documents that we reviewed initially are listed in our August 31 letter. Based on the results of that review, we recommended in our August 31 letter that ENGEO Inc. ('''ENGEO''), the Geotechnical Engineer of Record to Black Mountain Development for the project. should provide further documentation concerning two geotechnical aspects of the s1rip of fill that is located along the south side of Brittany Lane on the upper portions of Lots 7 through 12: 1) Based on the subsurface exploratory soil probes performed along the :till strip by ENOEO, as presented in its April 6, 2000 Foundation Exploration report, it appeats that some preexisting, undocumented fill may have been present along the strip prior to the grading that was performed in 1985; (the fill could have been placed during grading for Old Farm Road, wbich is now Brittany Lane). Also, ENGEO's April 6, 2000 geotechnical report does not provide documentation of the placement and compaction of this strip of fin. 10-0008-181009 (lOlOI;..902YJb Page 1 of4 Od'ober 13, 2000 @ 2000 Kleiafelder, me. K L EI N FEr. D ER 7133 KolI Center Parkway, Suite 100, Ple;sanlon, CA 9"156&-3101 ('325) 464-1700 ('325) 484-.:iR38 fax ~eceived: 10/13/2000 5:28PM; ->City o~ Oub~in PW/Fire; *415; Page 3 ,?g- ~ ).1/5 IlJOO:l/005 ..10/1:1/00 15: 51 FAX RECEIVED DEe 212000 DUBLIN PLANNING ".As stated in Comment No.2 on page 4 of our August 31, 2000 letter: .....there are three additional reports by ENGED Inc, that should provide' further documentation concerning the condition of the strip of fill located along the south side of Brittany Lane on the upper portions of the subject lots. The typi.cal section shown for the fill withkeywayand subdrain at Lots 9) 10 and 11, on Sheet 9 of Wilsey & Ham's June 26, 1990 as-built drawing, S"'.lggests that all or most of the preexisting fin on those lots may have been removed and replaced with compacted fill during the 1985 grading. This should be verified by ENGBO Inc.... 2) ENGEO's April 6, 2000 geotcchnical report for the proposed project does not address the static stability of the .filled slope and provides only a brie~ generic discussion of stability under seismic conditions. As stated in Comment No.4 on page 4 of our August 31, 2000 letter: "Presumably, ENGEO Inc.' s additional reports listed above, will discuss the stability of the subj ect hillside . lots with the existing .fill, under static and seismic conditions. This should be verified by ENOEO Inc. 0'. Supplemental Review CommeDts The three earlier ENGEO reports that were refenmced in ENGEO's April 6, 2000 report and provided to us by the City for this review are the following: 1) ENGEO Inc.; Report on Soil Exploration, Neilson Ranch; Project No. 0756~B5; April 14, 1981. 2) ENGBO Inc.; Report on Testing and Observation Services During Grading, Progress Report No.1; Project No. N6-0756-Bll; January 9, 1986. 3) ENGEO Inc.; Review of Current Lot Conditio1lS, Tract 5073, Lots 6 through 12, Brittany Lane, Dublin, California; Project No. 0756-E24; January 25, 1993. We have reviewed these three reports for information pertinent to the two geotechnical questions discussed above. The January 9, 1986 report provides documentation concerning the general geotechnical observations and compaction testing perfonned during the rough grading performed in 1985 for a total of 82 residential lots in Subdivisions 5072 and 5073, including the subject Lots 1 and 7 through 12 of Block 1 of Subdivision 5073. While the report does not specifically address either of the two questions discussed above, the report does state that (page 2 of 3): "Based upon the results of our testing and observations through January 3, 1986, it is our opinion that the rough grading at Bordeax Estates in Dublin, California, is proceeding in accordance with the recommendations and specifications included in the referenced report." (Note that the ""referenced report" is ENGEO's April 14, 1981 report, which contains geotechnical gradilJg recommendations for an approximately 50-acre property that includes the subject Lots 1 and 7 through 12 of Block 1, Subdi.vision 5073.) 10-0008-181009 (1010L902)/Jb Pag<<::.2 of4 October 13.2000 @ 2000 T<lcinfeJder. Inc. KL EI N F ElO ER 7133 KolI Ce-nter Parkway, SuitE:' 100, Pleasanton, CA 94566-3101 (9.25) 464-1700 (925) 484-5638 fax Received: '0/'3/2000 5:26PM; ->Ci~y o~ oub1in PW/Fire; H4'5; PBPrECEIVEO Ut"C 212008 DUBLIN PLANNJNG 17 ~ ;J-~5 tal 0041005 . lO/u/on 15: 51 FAX Based on our review of these three additional reports, we have found no :further SCOteclmical documentation. concerning our two questions discussed above. Therefore, we recommend that ENGBO should be contacted to provide its opinions and recommendations concerning these questions. Additionally, BNGEO's January 25, 1993 report identifies two additional geotechnical conditions that should be addressed for the proposed development of Lots 1 and 7 through 12: 1) ~ page 1 of the report, ENGBO states: "At the time oftbe site visit on January 22, clusters of boulders filled a ravine on Lot 9. Some settlement of the boulders and soil had occurred on the lot. The thickness and extent of the boulders on the lot in the ravine is uIucnown. The clustered boulders beneath portions of the building pad could impact the development of the lot.n Concerning this condition. ENGEO recommends on page 8 of its April 6, 2000 report: "The clusters of boulders at Lots 8 and 9 will have to be removed to allow for construction on the existing slope and eliminate the hazard they may present to people". 2) On page 1 of the January 25, 1993 report. ENGEO states: "A cursory check of the south facing slope found some hummocky and irregular terrain. Subsurface exploration of the slope is recommended.". This condition does not appear to have been evaluated in ENGEO's subsequent Apri16J 2000 report, and we recommend that ENGEO should be contacted to provide its evaluation and recommendations, as appropriate. Limitations and Closure This review has been performed at the request of request of the City of Dublin. Our role has been to provide technical advice to assist the City in its discretionary pe:rmit decisions. Our services have been limited to the review of the documents identified in this letter. We have employed accepted geologic and geotechnical engineering procedures, and our professional opini.ons and conclusions are made in accordance with generally accepted geologic and geoteclmical engineering principles and practices that exist in the San Francisco Bay Area at the time this letter was written. No other wmanty is expressed or implied.. Our review did not include any field explorations or analysis, other than a cursory site reconnaissance. Also. our review did not include checking of the documents for conformance with state or local governmental codes or client requirements. This review does not relieve the geotechnical engineer for this project from his sole responsibility as Geotechnical Engineer-of-Record for the project. ] 0-0008-181009 (1010L902)fjb Page 3 of 4 October 13.2000 @ 2000 Kleinfclder, Inc. KLEl N F El D!: ~ 7133 KolI Center Parkway. Suite 100. PleasiUllon, CA 94566.3101 (915) 484-t700 (925) 484-563& fiX R.ce:Lved: 10,/13/2000 5:28PM. ->C:L1:y 01' OubJ.:Ln PW/F:Lre; ##4115; Page 15 go ~ ;;.."1::; IaJ 005/005 '19YUt/(f0 lS : 51 FAX We tru.st that the information provided. above will assist you in your on-going evaluations of the . proposed project. Please call us at (925) 484-1700 if you have questions concerning this letter our associated services. It is a pleasure to be of continuing consulting engineering service to the City of Dublin. Sincerely. RECEIVED DEe 2 1 2000 KLEINFELDER, INC. ~q)1,,~cq';< /J. Lawrence R. Houps. C,:e,. G.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer DUBliN PLANNING cc: Donald Bruggers. C,E., G.E. J ENGEO, Ine, LHljb 1 ().()()os-t 81009 (101 OL902)1jb Page 4 of 4 October 13. 2000 . 0 2000 KlciDfc:ldu. Inc. KL El N F E '- 0 ER 71 JJ Koll CenTer Parkway, Suite. 100, Pleasanlon, CA 94566-3101 (92.5) 484-1700 (925) 484-5838 fax December 12, 2000 To: The Dublin Planning Commission From: The residents of Brittany Lane RE: PA 00-009 BlackMountain Site Development Review for seven single- family residences on existing lots on Brittany Lane, Request for postponement and reconsideration. .. A 17ACh.MEi'ff Z - RECEIVED g I .crf ). (5 DEe 2 1 2000 DUBLIN PLANNING Condition 6, 82-85 has not been met. Tree preservation has not been addressed and only given a one-year guarantee by placement of a one-year bond. We recommend that this SDR application P A 00-009 be referred back to council for'reconsideration for the following reasons: l The thrust of the Staff Report is that the Conditions of Resolution 82-85 have been properly addressed. This properly places the Conditions in 82-85 as the controlling standards for development of these custom lots as envisioned and set in place in 1985 when the zoning creating these custom residential lots was created by the Dublin City Council. The 1997 Dublin Zoning ordinance known as Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is not applicable where the Conditions in Resolution 82-85 are more restrictive. It is inappropriate to apply Section 8.36.110.C.2 of the 1997 Zoning Ordinance to this SDR which would allow these homes to be 35 and 40 feet high where the conflicting requirement in Condition 6 setting heights to 25 feet perpendicular to natural grade is more restrictive and shall apply as set forth in Section 8.04,060.D.1. To change this rule now would be changing the rules in middle of the game. These conditions were known to the developer at the time of purchase and run with the land. These conditions also created view shed rights to the Dublin Citizens and the neighboring community. There are no valid reasons for stating that these rules should not be followed and Dublin Citizens should not be deprived of their benefit. More effort should be made to address these conditions without modification and determine development under the existing standards, Section 8,04.060.D.1 of the 1997 Dublin Zoning Ordinance states: 1 Request to postpone Dublin Planning Commission Hearing on P A 00~009 December 12, 2000 to allow the City Council to reconsider the Heritage Tree Ordinance 1. Other Municipal code provisions. If conflicts occur between requirements of this Ordinance, or between this Ordinance andDUBLlN PLANNiNG other regulations of the City, the most restrictive shall apply. (emhasis added) $:!- ~ ).~5 RECEIVED DEG 2 1 2000 II. There are no definitions or mention of "Common Engineering Practice" in the 1997 Ordinance or Resolution 82-85 that modify or defme Natural Grade and therefore the 1997 Ordinance definition of Natural Grade in Section 8.08.020 applies because there are no other standards that are more restrictive. The definitions clearly state the current grade on these . custom lots today, is the Rough Grade a~ defmed in Section 8.08.020.G.b and not the natural grade as defined in Section 8.08.020.G.a. But Condition 6 clearly requires that height measurements be made from the natural grade. . Section 8,08.020.G.a of the 1997 Dublin Zoning Ordinance states: a. Existing or natural grade: The contour of the ground surface before grading. (emphasis added) b, Rough grade: The stage at which the grade approximately conforms to an approved grading plan. ITI. The Heritage Tree Ordinance 29-99 has not been properly addressed to consider tree preservation. Instead, tree protection has been addressed. There is no attempt to address tree preservation plan under this ordinance, The Staff report is incorrect because: Staff has applied the incorrect definition to these Heritage Trees by applying Section 5,60.40(a) when they should apply Section 5.60.40(b) of the Heritage Tree Ordinance 29-99, It should be noted that staff has designated all 19 trees as Heritage Trees by a condition of approval of this SDR even though only 12 trees are over 24 inches in diameter 4 feet 6 inches above natural grade. This is appropriate and we agree with Staff because all 19 trees are "protected" trees under definition "b" of a Heritage Tree. Staff is in error however, when they state that these are Heritage Trees under definition "a". 2 Request to postpone Dublin Planning Commission Hearing on P A 00-009 December 12,2000 to allow the City Council to reconsider the Heritage Tree Ordinance Section 5.60.40-Defmitions states: . DUBLIN PLANNING "Heritage Tree" means anv of the following: (emphasis added) (a) Any Oak, Bay, Cypress, Maple, Redwood, Buckeye and Sycamore tree having a trunk or main stem of24 inches or more in diameter measured at 4 feet 6 inches above natural grade; (b) A tree required to be vreserved as part of an approved development plan, zoning permit, use permit, site development review or subdivision map; (emphasis added) (c) A tree required to be vlanted as a replacement for an unlawfully removed tree. (emphasis added) %:3 % JL/5 RECEIVED DEe 2 1 2000 All nineteen trees on these custom lots are "preserved Herita2e Trees" due to Condition 16 in Resolution 82-85 which states "Project grading performed within 25 feet of the drip line of existing onsite or offsite trees shall be addressed by a horticultural report and the recommendations and fmdings of that report incorporated into the grading and improvement plans of this project." (emphasis added) Condition 16 clearly requires that these trees were to be preserved in 1985. (See Douglas Hamilton letter dated 7-5-85, tract 5073, tree group 4 "The blue and live oaks are magnificent specimens, worth preserving.") Therefore definition "b" is the appropriate definition, which requires that these trees be preserved. Because there is no section in the Heritage Tree Ordinance 29- 99 that properly address a tree preservation plan but only a tree protection plan which is appropriate for a Heritage Tree under definition "a" there is a need for the Dublin City Council to further consider tree preservation under definition "b" and make refinements of this ordinance including further definitions and requirements for tree preservation before the Dublin Planning Commission adopt any proposed Resolutions on this matter. General Condition 1 06 (page 18) of proposed General Conditions correctly notes that all of the trees are subject Section 5.60.40.b Heritage Tree Definition but omits any reference to tree preservation. Tree preservation is required by this section, tree protection applies to 5.60.40.a. 3 Request to postpone Dublin Planning Commission Hearing on P A 00-009 December 12,2000 to allow the City Council to reconsider the Heritage Tree Ordinance yet ~ J~5 RECEIVED DEe 2 1 2000 We request that this matter be postponed and sent back to the Dub..... ~ City Council for further refinements and direction on the Heritage Tree Ordinance before any decisions or rulings are made by the Dublin Planning Commission. In our opinion a ruling ignoring Heritage Tree preservation would destroy the stated intent of the Dublin City Council and the Dublin Planning Department, and the entire Ordinance. Therefore is urgent and appropriate that this matter be sent back to the Dublin Council to define and refine the. Heritage Tree Ordinance 29-99 consistent with their stated intent before applying it to this Site Development Review P A 00-009. 1.:1..../:.- .,0 ~ 1;;'/1'100 ~ ~y~ 1').../ ('" t:rD '... (l!Jl M) ...f..-t3~ - Iz-I.z/rre- -.. '-~~sr . 10~/~o ~ ~ I'J./''J./OD. 4 Request to postpone Dublin Planning Commission Hearing on P A 00-009 December 12, 2000 to allow the City Council to reconsider the Heritage Tree Ordinance .. Robert Pyke, Consulting Engineer RESUME A1TA4~,,~) .3 %5 ~ ?-~5 RECEiVED DEe 2 1 2000 DUBUN PLANNING EDUCATION B.E. in Civil Engineering, University of Sydney, 1963 Ph.D. in Civil Engineering, University of California, 1973 [major in geotechnical engineering; minors in rock mechanics and environmental planning] EXPERIENCE Australian Department of Works. 1964 to 1968 Staff Engineer engaged in investigations, design and construction of a major earth-and- rockfilldam and trunk water supply pipelines. University of California, Berkeley - 1969 to 1973 .. Teaching and Research Assistant; conducted research for Ph.D. thesis on settlement and liquefaction of sands during earthquakes. Dames & Moore, San Francisco - 1973 to 1976 Project and Senior Engineer on a variety of projects involving the behavior of foundations and earth structures subjected to wave and earthquake loadings including nuclear power plants, earth dams, pipelines, harbor facilities and offshore platforms. Self Employed - 1977 to present Individual consultant on special geotechnical problems. REGISTRATIONS Civil Engineer, California, 1976 Geotechnical Engineer, California, 1987 PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES American Society of Civil Engineers Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Seismological Society of America United States Committee on Large Dams Structural Engineers Association of Northern California 1076 Carol Lane, Suite 136, Lafayette, CA 94549 Telephone 925/283-6765 Fax 925/283-7614 e-mail bobpyke@attg10bal.net 0 g6 d ).1? RECEIVED DEe 21 2000 DUBLIN PLANNING SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE AT, Ac.J\ M f.NT ..3 . 11 ~)..~, RECEIVED DEe 2 1 looa DUBLIN PLANNING SLOPE STABILITY PROBLEMS Various Foster City Levees - Static and seismic slope stability analyses for Dames and Moore and TransPacific Geotechnical Consultants. Blackhawk Country Club - Review of causes of past landsliding and recommendations for improved practice, for Blackhawk Corporation. Memorial Hospital, San Leandro - Review of proposed and final landslide repairs of slope adjacent to the Hayward fault which had failed during a previous repair, for Harlan- Miller- Tait. Abalone Cove Landslide, Palos Verdes Peninsula - Consultant to R. T. Frankian and Associates on methods of analysis for large, natural. landslides. Bollinger Canyon, Moraga - Consultant on interim repair of access road to Lawrence residence. The Geysers Power Plant No. 21 - Analyses of seismic stability of reinforced earth berm, for Cooper Engineers and Pacific Gas & Electric Company. Candelaria Landslide, Central Andes, Peru - Consultant to Ing Jose Luis Velarde on repair of landslide threatening hydro-power plant. West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill and Hazardous Waste Management Facility- direction of consolidation and stability analyses for landfills and levees overlying Bay Mud. Sky Valley Country Club, Vallejo - Consultant on design analyses and remedial construction for utility corridor crossing large active landslides. Calabasas and Puente Hills Landfills, County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County - In association with Herzog Associates, analyses of static and seismic stability of lined landfills. Sunol Quarry - Consultant on evaluation of static and seismic stabilty of gravel pits adjacent to the Calaveras fault. Anderson Ranch Subdivision, Danville - Third party review of dispute regarding possible ancient landslide. Expert witness in litigation resulting from subsequent landslide. Supervision of ultimate repair. Investigation of separate cut-slope failure. Proposed Portola Valley Estates Subdivision - Member of four person review panel evaluating opposing opinions on feasibility of constructing parts of subdivision over ancient landslides. Proposed Quarry Hills Subdivision, Los Altos Hills - Review of differences regarding occurrence and mitigation of debris flows. RECE,vf! ~,-4 DEe 2 1 2000 Strawberry Vista Subdivision, Tiburon - With Phoenix Geotechnical, geotechnical DUBLIN PLANNING engineer for grading recommendations in area of 1andsliding upslope from proposed development. TerraBay Subdivision, South San Francisco - Conduct of slope stability analyses of alternatives for long term stabilization of Landslide D which had failed during a previous repair, for. GeolResource Consultants~ Avalon Subdivision, Fremont - Consultant on long-term stabilization of deep-seated landslide partially activated by grading, for Earth Systems Consultants. Santa Lucia Preserve, Monterey County - Consultant on evaluation of static and seismic stability of ancient landslides, for Cleary Consultants. The Greens Condominiums, Simi Valley, California - Expert witness regarding opposing views regarding evaluation of slope stability. Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant - Consultant to Harding-Lawson Associates and Pacific Gas & Electric Company on slope stability analyses for ASW pipelines replacement. The Lido, Redwood Shores - Consultant on evaluation and repair of failure caused by temporary fill over Bay Mud, for Geo-Resource Consultants. Tasman Light Rail Project, Santa Clara County - Consultant on evaluation of stability of new levee, for GeolResource Consultants. San Jose Highlands Area, City of San Jose - Participant in sub-regional geologic studies of three parcels for Gill Properties. Genoa Drive Landslide, San Diego - For Jeffrey A. Johnson and City of San Diego, consultant on evaluation of failure of a previously repaired slope. San Juan Capistrano, Orange County - For Eberhart & Stone and Western Pacific Housing, consultant on feasibility of development on ancient landslide. See major project experience for dams, landfills and harbor facilities for additional experience relative to the evaluation of slope stability. Additionally, Dr Pyke has supervised the development of the slope stability computer programs TSLOPE, TST AB, TSLOPE3 and TELSLOPE and serves as a consultant on their use. D Deborah Raines, AICP Senior Planner, City of San Ramon 2222 Camino Ramon San Ramon, California 94583 ;-. A1J~~ 4- _ %? ''If' ~tJj. Stephen Batchelder, Consulting Arborist 1534 Rose Street Crockett, California 94525 State Cont. lie. (C-27)<'533675 Phone (510) 787-3075 Fax (510) 787.3065 FlECEIVIE/J DEe 21 2000 DUSLlN PLANNING DATE: May 4, 2000 SUBJECT: Tree Protection Fencina Dear Ms. Raines, This letter is to eonfinn that the Henry Ranch tree protection guidelines have been followed thus 'ar. I was in attendance at the pre-clearing meeting with Ken Manning, Soli Enterprlse.lnc.. Also In attendance was Fred Romer, Senior Engineering Inspector with the City of San Ramon. ..... All at-risk trees have been encircled with orange, pla.tic coristroction fencing. Chain link fencing was used for the residence of Mr. Mrs. Philip Henry. I have been monitoring the demolition and clearing operation which is now in progresses. Up to this point. there has been no impact upon trees designated for pres.lVation and aU is going in accordance with plans and our last discussions. Photo et Iigh( $bows the c1Hring opfHBtiDn il progre$$, F.noed".. at Ie" II the E~ tAle being t~rIy kept due to neating birds. Trees t 34 & 35 These trees were impacted by exploratory excavation prior to the beginning of the Clearing operation. As a result, these trees will require supplemental watering and care to mitigate the Ioat roots. The disturbed area will require the application of RECEIVED DEe 2 1 2000 Henry Ranch, SIn Ramon WlUiIrILyon Homea.lnc. Tree ProtecUon Fencing DUBliN PLANNING . pi' ). 1-1<5 Batcheldet. Arborist f p llZJ 514100 , tWo inches of good quality compost, covered with lIIx Inches of the organic mulGh being generated by the clearing operation. Nitrogen fertilizer may also be required. Photo to Iif1ht shows ,,", 113<1 and <<J5 suTrOUltd<<l by protectNe fem:lng. 80th t,.." WBntlmp8ded by eatflr, un-monItontd. eKPkWtory aJtC8\18'ioII. These trees" AJqIIft extta C8I8 to ~ they do not dectfJe In he"" fIB a 18811I of any root IoIs they may bav.lUflenKI. G.n..... T.... Mitigation .....ur.. to begin with SU. Grading Due to the avallabHity of water and equipment, it is not practical to begin any tree mitigation measures until the grading begins. This Is expected in about two weeks. Mulchina - All larger oak trees on the site are to be mulched with six inches of the organic mulch being generated by the clearing opel1ltion, EarlY Root Prunina - Trees which wiHbe impacted from grading or other construction activities in cut slopes will require root pruning prior to grading. An root pruning II to be under the direct supervision of the arbot1st. At the time roots are pruned, additional mitigation measures wilt be pr:escribed based upon the amount of tree root loss. SUDDlemental Watering - Supplementa' water shal' be availabfe at the st. prior to any root pruning. If required, a tank (200 to 500 gaBons) can t)e put in place near the t.... impact areas. The tank will be ref1Jled as required by a water truck, Water can be applied by . sprinkler, 8 soaker hose, drip emitter, or any other method deemed practical under the circumstances and approved by the arboriat. Soil moisture i8 to be monitored by arborist throughout the summer months. Soil moisture information will be recorded and recommendations will be provided for the summer of 2001. Prunina - Little pruning Is required at this time. Valuable trees hiVing heavy lateral branches or poor structural stem attachments should be pruned during Auguet-September of 2000. Other necessary pruning is to provide necessary clearances. . This report is submitted by: .5,~.~~ . A5~/Ab Stephen Batchelder, Consulting Arborist Certified Amorist .226 2 ~ -. Mayor Guy S. Houston Dublin City Council 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94568 RECEIVED nE.e 2, 1 LOOO oua\..\N pl.ANN\NG AT I-A""~ b - 9~ ~)4:5 17 December. 2000. Sir. Planning Commission of 12th December 2000 We and many of our neighbors attended this commission to present our case regarding PA 00-009, a site review for homes proposed in Brittany Lane. Dennis Carrington produced an excellent and lengthy report for the City. covering many points at issue and also addressing many items we had raised with the Planning Department since this new development was first proposed. The commission, chaired by Mr. Johnson, sat through a full reading of this report and paid careful attention to its many details. This took some considerable time. The residents of Brittany Lane also prepared a very detailed report, addressing not only many points in the staff report, but also items in the COAs and the Resolution. This was a necessarily long report because it was very thorough, covered most of the items in Staff's lengthy report and more besides. This single report was produced through several meetings of all residents and agreed by all residents as representing a common view. Rather than have upwards of 12 people presenting random infonnation we chose to have two people present this single report, written carefully to follow the Staff Report. COAs and Resolution in order to make it easy to follow for all present. . We were initially denied the right to present the report this way. Eventually we were allowed to commence our presentation; however fairly early on we were told we had three minutes and then we were told five minutes to finish the whole thing. Significant comments regarding construction fire codes, tree preservation issues and the construction period itself were never heard. Serious concerns regarding drainage issues and fire access, raised by other local residents, were heard but were ignored and ridiculed respectively. Subsequently the resolution was passed without addressing these important issues. This public hearing was held to hear details and comments regarding a construction project that affects the safety, the quality of life, the finances and the environment of concerned residents of Dublin. It turns out that much more time and discussion were allocated to the review of a freeway auto-mall sign. We witnessed commissioners debating on the basis of hearsay and conjecture; experts being used to browbeat non-skilled residents rather help unravel technically difficult material; decisions being made on the basis of opinion rather than fact; and a chairman behaving in a rude and dismissive manner throughout. We, the residents of Dublin, elected you to appoint balanced, effective, polite commissioners who will act in the best interests of Dublin; we the tax payers pay for the commissions with same expectation. We expect and deserve significantly better service and respect when participating in a public hearing. Although we have authored this letter, you can be assured that every resident we spoke with after the hearing felt the same way. Sincerely, i~1 ~~ -~\~ Richard and Christina Bond 11182 Brittany Lane Dublin CA 94568. cc. Vice Mayor Janet Lockhart, Council Member Tony Oravetz, Council Member Claudia McCormick. Council Member George Zika. . < w.. .-- _ ATTAQA,ME.Nr ~ f:j 2; ~ J.~ 5 REceivED OEe 2 11.000 DUBUN PLANNiNG Issues and Points for Review at the Public Hearing held by City of Dublin Planning Commission regarding Proposed Development Planning Commission Agenda Statement Public Hearing Item 8.4 PA 00 - 009 Black Mountain Development Site Development Review 12th December 2000 prepared by RESIDENTS OF BRITTANY LANE ~' - ~ " CONTENTS RECEIVED DEe 2 1 2.000 1 Preamble 2 Staff Report PA 00-009 2.1 Conformity with resolution 82-85 2.2 Condition 3 2.3 Condition 6 2.3.1 Natural Grade 2.3.2 Grading done properly 2.3.3 Flexibility 2.3.4 Deviation & RefInement 2.3.5 Bryce Davies Home 2.3.6 Impacts to views 2.3.7 Condition 6 Complied With 2.4 Condition 12 2.5 Condition 16 2.6 Views/Height Limits re-iterated 2.7 Natural Grade re-iterated 2.8 Shall v. May 2.9 Improper placement of soil. 2.10 Soil Placed Within Drip Lines of Heritage Trees 2.11 Heritage Tree Ordinance 2.12 Tree Protection Report 2.13 Tree 340 2.14 Cash Bond 2.15 Project Design 3 COAs 4 Proposal Resolution 5 Land Values 5 .1.1 Valuation 5.1.2 Purchase Price 6 Silvergates Homeowners Association 6.1.1 Membership 6.1.2 Compliance with requirements 6.1.3 Fire Hydrant Lot12 and 9 7 The Construction Period 8 Future Issues 8.1 Compliance 8.2 Lot 6 8.3 Vehicles 8.4 Signs 9 Conclusion DUBLIN PLANNING 2 9'111 )'/5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 RECEIVED DEe 2 1 2000 DUBLIN PLANNING IJ I J5 1 Preambler 5 ~ ~ '7 Establish that all regulations are established to provide benefIts and duty [burden]. In this review, the benefIciaries are the residents ofDublinlBrittany Lane/HomeOwners association, the burden is on developers in Dublin. Weare here primarily here to discuss preservations of our views; would not be here unless we were already provided with protection. 2 Staff Report PA 00-009 2.1 Conformity with resolution 82-85 It is explicitly stated that 82-85 condition 6 "exists and has been complied with....all of its conditions" <page 5> this can only mean that condition 6 is the controlling regulation this development 82-85 has 23 separate conditions or the entire development over 200 homes; of that 200 only 12 lots are subject to special restrictive conditions and seven of these lots are covered the subject of this review and seven of these lots are on Brittany Lane. Thus they are mandated to be treated differently than any others in the city. Only conditions 3, 4,6,7, 12, 16, 19 are covered in Staff's report. 2.2 Condition 3 Observation shows that this condition for side yard set back allows houses to be placed closer together than our homes. 2.3 Condition 6 Condition 6 is more restrictive than the 1997 ordinance that allows a maximum height of 40 feet on steep slope developments. Staff agrees that condition 6 applies. BUT they do not follow condition 6. Staffs interpretation and application of condition 6 uses such severe "deviation and refInement" that it is being changed beyond reasonable limit 2.3.1 Natural Grade Staff is using common engineering practice to defIne natural grade; natural grade is defmed by the law not by engineers. exhibit 2.3.1: viewgraph definition natural grade The legal defmition is provided in the 1997 ordinance - there is no defmition or reference for "common engineering practice grade" or for "new ground surface" in the 82-85 Resolution or in the 1997 Ordinance. 2.3.2 Grading done properly Residents have previously seen a large color photograph of the area taken some time after grading was originally commenced at the site. This photograph cannot be produced as evidence because it has since been lost. This photograph showed: . Rocks placed at the base of the ravine to shore up more rocks used to fIll the ravine; rocks were NOT meant to be left on site at all. Some rocks were dumped against trees. Today it is easy to see: . Note steel drain duct in the gully that either should be in the keying or was dumped as superfluous . Many rocks in the stream [note only near the ravine - there are NO natural rocks in this stream] exhibit 2.3.2a & b: show drawings of original grading plan and existing grade - major differences The grading was not performed in conformance with the plans. Conclusion - this grading was NOT done properly, and should not be the starting point for further development planning. 3 Note that the depths given in the report are average and in places the fIll is 18 feet. Why do we say that? exhibit 2.3.2c: show spreadsheet calculations from pre-grade drawing datum exhibit 2.3.2d: show grade graph spreadsheet The soil test engineers told us some of the depths measured were 18 feet. Other potential buyers backed out because of soil condition and slope. 2.3.3 Flexibility Agree deviation/refInement is reasonable, BUT cannot use 1997 zoning ordinance to deviate because that ordinance specifically says only the more restrictive shall apply. The clear intent of condition 6 is to preserve views for residents by severely restricting the heights of the houses; this condition allows for small changes; staff incorrectly uses 8.36.110.C.2 because that ordinance specifIcally states that more restrictive provisions shall apply. Staff is using vertical measurements and the controlling ordinance requires perpendicular measurement from natural grade. Not a deviation, not a refInement simply, changing the rule. . Staff's statement that usable homes cannot be constructed within condition 6 rules is pure opinion with absolutely no supporting. 2.3.4 Deviation & Refinement Applying the 40 foot rule is not an appropriate deviation; condition 6 is more restrictive. This is improper interpretation of the 1997 ordinance... exhibit 2.3.4: vieWgraph 1997 ordinance RECEIVED DEe 2 1 2000 DUBLIN PLANNING 9rf:, ~ i-~:3 2.3.5 Bryce Davies Home "There were no appeals of the staff approval" exhibit 2.3.5: show letter We did this with a firm understanding that every SDR is dealt with independently and other reviews do not create any binding precedent. 2.3.6 Impacts to views "impacts to views minimized" - this is not a minimized impact relative to the rules of 82-85, only with respect to the 1997 ordinance. !!! !! "could be 35 and 40 feet high" allows future owner and lor successor developer to request height increases. !!!! Beware of setting precedent for future developments - this major deviation will be used for just seven homes and it will come back and bite elsewhere on much more signifIcant developments. Impact on view as described is opinion. The opinion that matters is that of the residents (not staff) OR make it objective by having a computer simulation of the loss of view taken from each residence, before and after. The provided simulated view from across the canyon does not reflect the future views from the eye of the beholder. It is from the back of the homes and it is taken from above eye line giving a false impression of view in the reciprocal direction. Where is a simulated view from the reciprocal direction i.e. street level, north side of Brittany Lane? exhibit 2.3.6: show drawing The FACT is that the developer gave drawings to the residents on two occasions prior to the hearing; at every one of the several meetings with the developer, he strongly recommended to residents that they agree the development on the basis of these drawings. These drawings show homes between 8 and 2 feet lower than the plans presented in the report. This therefore shows that it IS POSSIBLE to build homes that have LESS IMPACT ON VIEWS than the homes proposed. 2.3.7 Condition 6 Complied With We contend that there are substantial reasons why condition 6 is not complied with. Staff is using "deviation and refmement", ignoring "perpendicular measurement" and re-defIning natural grade to rewrite condition 6 without citing any bona fIde authority. 4 RECEiveD DEe 2 1 2000 2.4 Condition 12 DUBLIN PLANNING States that these ARE custom lots, subject to individual/grouped SDR; thus Bryce Davies SDR does not set a .~ _ / rJ:5 precedent to this review. Please note that there are only 12 custom lots in the entire housing project and that they q "J PlJ ). 7 have specifIc detailed development restrictions, the validity of which, is not disputed by the staff report. 2.5 Condition 16 Condition 16 mandates that the trees must be saved and this is the basis for ''tree preservation" rather than "tree retention" - heritage tree ordinance to be discussed later. exhibit 2.5a: viewgraph of oak tree root protection zone RPZ Note: drip line is a visible guideline for the RPZ which is generally taken as 50% greater than the drip line. It is the RPZ which is the determining parameter in tree preservation NOT drip line; altering original drip line does NOT alter the original RPz. exhibit 2.5b: viewgraphs rocks on trees 2.6 Views/Height Limits re-iterated Condition 6 not met. Views not minimized - computerized view simulation from Brittany Lane side requested Vertical height replacing perpendicular Ignored natural grade and substituted rough grade 1997 ordinance used instead of resolution 82-85 Staff says that these homes could be 35 to 40 feet high in line with current ordinance- how can this possibly be in- line with the intent of condition 6 of 82-85 that is controlling here? 2.7 Natural Grade re-iterated Natural grade is defmed in 1997 ordinance 8-11; what exists today is "rough grade". exhibit 2. 7: Robert Pike Viewgraph Any idea that removal of the soil would destabilize this ground is quote "popycock" Staff agrees that adherence to condition 6 and natural grade WILL lower some of the homes and must therefore further "minimize" impact on views. 2.8 Shall v. May exhibit 2.8: viewgraph shall v. may definition Staff INCORRECTLY states our position that "shall" precludes deviation and refmement. We agree that deviation and refInement is allowed in the ordinance BUT Staffis suggesting major deviations that do not preserve the intent of the ordinance - Le. maintaining views. 2.9 Improper placement of soil. The protected trees most likely have root systems in the buried rocks used for fIll. What will be the effect of removing the rocks? 2.10 Soil Placed Within Drip Lines of Heritage Trees It is possible that soil was not placed within the drip lines; however it is not possible that soil was not placed over the RPZ which is the factor of importance to the oak trees. 2.11 Heritage Tree Ordinance exhibit 2.11.a: viewgraph of heritage tree ordinance Staff incorrectly uses 5.60.40 (a); they should use subsection (b) that is not addressed in this report and should be sent back to the council for further defmition and instructions as to what procedures are to be taken for a tree to be preserved under subsection (b). Staff is not in compliance with the HTO because they have not addressed a tree preservation plan, instead they only addressed a tree protection plan. 5 exhibit 2.11.b: viewgraph Dublin Heritage Tree ordinance 1 & 2. This proposal does not follow the spirit of the Dublin Heritage Tree ordinance. RECBVED i[}iEC ! 1 BllDm 2.12 Tree .Protection Report exhibit 2.12. a: diagram of oak tree measurements for RPZ placement - California Oak Foundation Drip Line - is to indicate the root protection zone [RPZ] - typically drip line + 50% - and the rule of thumb for protection and preservation is to leave the RPZ undisturbed; arbitrary adjustment of drip line does NOT change the RPZ. All measurements and decisions must be relative to the natural RPZ. ~w~- 7r '71 ) q5 "The pruning required will create larger wounds than preferred, but is required by the fIre marshal" - only if something is built close enough to the tree to impede preservation! "A 30 foot root protection zone ..... is recommended" - this completely ignores all normal recommendations for California oak protection - 50% beyond natural drip line which in this case is close on 75 feet. Note: What kind of oak is this.? Evergreen oaks should be pruned in July/August. exhibit 2. 12.b: Photo San Ramon development RPZ This is tree preservation as administered by our neighbors in San Ramon exhibit 2. 12.c: Photo East Dublin development RPZ This is tree preservation as administered by Dublin City in East Dublin - but apparently not in Brittany Lane - is this a double standard? 2.13 Tree 340 exhibit 2. 13. a: Photo tree 340 This tree should be preserved; and the issue should referred back to council. exhibit 2.13.b Photo tree 342 and others Are other trees on the site that have the same topology to be similarly severely pruned? 2.14 Cash Bond 1 year not adequate to guaranty the survival of this tree - effects of development could be serious well after this time - we need a report to confIrm a suitable period e.g. croWn rot may cause slow decline over a period of years. No provision has been made to guaranty that future owners will protect/preserve these trees [other than an inspection which does not place an obligation]. Also the requirement of a one year bond means that the builder is not required to guarantee the survival of tree 340 beyond a one year period after severe pruning and construction in the root protection zone. When does the bond period start - after completion of construction? 2.15 Project Design Staff says that the average height is the average height is 13.16 and also says that it could be 35 - 40 feet high - this is not satisfactory for determining hard and fast COAs that could be closely adhered to throughout a development. If this is the accepted standard, then the future owners as well as the builder could apply for height increases based on the fact that they have not been allowed to build into the allowable height limit as established by the planning staff. 3 COAs #18 - Heritage trees shall be pruned in conformance with the WildfIre Management Plan - Staff report states that certain paragraphs of the WMP do not apply because this is not heavily wooded area; this confIrms that the WMP applies to this development. Therefore where are the other requirements of WMP covered i.e. construction requirements [sprinklers, eaves, exposed decks etc.], access roads etc. #19 - The dimension of the TPZ is not specifIed. In any event, a 30 foot RPZ for a 50 foot diameter tree is ridiculous. 6 RECE~VED DEG 2 1 2000 4 Proposal Resolution DUBUN PLANN!NG #38 Pad elevation should be checked BEFORE concrete is poured not 'prior to occupancy' - how can any practical . /15 recovery from a height error be made after concrete has been poured? 1'? ~ )- '1 5 Land Values 5.1.1 Valuation Strictness of implementation of the special provisions affects the valuation of our homes RefInance appraisal states that house has premium value because of view; what effect does height have on value? Get independent valuation to assess effect based on appropriate computer simulation. 5.1.2 Purchase Price Was low, because Woods said "it was a steal" [$138k ?]; of course it was low because of the well known and long established difficulties with the site. Other purchaser dropped out because the grades and soil condition were considered to require some signifIcant civil engineering to stabilize the ground for construction 6 Silvergates Homeowners Association 6.1.1 Membership 6.1.2 Compliance with requirements 6.1.3 Fire Hydrant Lot12 and 9 Is the location satisfactory? 7 The Construction Period The COAs should contain binding requirements regarding: . Days/times on which work will be allowed . Start and fInish dates - allowable duration . Noise abatement . Dust and trash abatement . Road cleaning . Damage repair [street, sidewalks, existing properties and frontages] . Storage of materials . Contractor Parking 8 Future Issues 8.1 Compliance How will the city insure compliance with the Planning Commissions Stipulations and Conditions? We were advised by staff that we, the residents had to check that pad heights etc. were conforming to the resolution and COAs. Surely that is not the residents responsibility? 8.2 Lot 6 What is happening? 7 9 Conclusion Exhibit 9: Letter to the Dublin Planning Commission to be handed over at the hearing. 8 RECEIVE~ DEe 2 1 2000 2 . I. 2. 0- /0/15Jt)1 California Oa~L'oundation 90912th Street, Suite 125, Sacramento, California 95814 (916) 448-9495 $1.00 Donation (ji) Care of California's Native Oaks A Word About Roots Our natiw oaks havl' developed survival adaptations to the lonH, dry summers of most of California. Primary to this survival is the dt..... velopment and characteristics of its root system. W11t?n an acorn first sprouts, thert? is rapid root devel- opment and wry little growth above ground. This initial ront is cl tap root ex- tending deep undel'J;round for de- pendable moisture. In fact, the trt'e's first few years an.' fl>cuseu on establishing a dl'Cp sustailling root system. On('e this has happened, gn'att>r foliage and above-ground growth takes place. As lhe l\ak grows, tht:' tap root is outgrown by ill' e~Jwiv~ laler~ .(9lJ,t,5~~~ thall'pre<llls horizon- tally out from the trunk to and well beyond the driplint..', sometimes as Nativt.! oaks, when young trees, are vt'ry tulerant of their envi- ronment ilnd make l'xccllent and adaptabl~' landscapl' m;sets. The mature native oak is an invaluable pilrt uf our cnviroOlnt'nt but dut's not tulerate mal'y chanAcs once established. ".; Architects, buildt..'rs, hnmt'own- \ ers, and others should l'ie very care- ful in fiUin~ their plans with thes~ ma~nificent gi.mts. Any substan- tial change in thl' matun;-()aK"si:n. vir()fim(\m~t,n1 ~ea1<~1f"m'1(i'l1"'an d~.k~ ~,,-c.n_~..~:~lfhyspedmcn. A Aood rult' of thumb is to kcwe ~~~~- thl' trec'~ rool protection zone (RPZ) undisturbt.'d. This area, which is half a~"in .\s large as the area from tilt.' trunk tn tht' driplinc (Sl.'e diagram bdmv), is the most critic,ll to tht' o.lk. Manv roblt~ms for oaks Gm bl' inHi..'tl. w istur -ing the roots with~ this Z;ll~l;!.- ...... much as 90 feet. For a Ill<'\ture oak, t i!:l horhwntal root S 5t m lS the" rimary suppt1rter of th ' or e res I sIte. It includes the Jl important fine roots, which absorb moisture and nutrients. Most of the root system lx-curs within the top thrt.'e f~t uf s(.lil. In shallower soils the root system is Cllnccn- trated in an ev~'n shallowt.!r zone, typically one hI two fl'Ct below the surface. As the oak m..\tur~s, particularly ill an.:oc,s naturally dry ill summer, deep-growing vcrtk.ll roots fl\rm off the lateral!i, usually within ten fc<.~t of the trunk. Thest... sinker roots exploit dt'cper soil moisture and add stability to an increasingly massive tree. By the time" mature oak has estctblishl.-d its l'laborate root systcm-S(l well dl"Si~n('d for its The ffiOSl cruclal arca u; wilhin six feel of t.h~ lrunk. 00 not irrigale, plant. or disturb the :.oil in lhis area. The drip line is an imaginary line on the Bround and directly below the.- outermost tips of the bl'2nches. II roughly inscribes a circle around the tree. :4- DRIP L1H!; ~~~-'''-2=:::-=-; ~.~_:.~ .... ,~. ...... ....... ~ "'-.;; .... -'~ ., . l- .......~..........._ .. . -...... ~ --- ~ :>--....~.....:f '" - '" I . TIlt! root protection zone (RPZ) is 1.5 times largcr than the arca from the Ironic to !he drip line. Minimizc disturbance, irriBalion, and planting in this area. , , 4--~- -.. ~VC1 p~~TtCrIOl"izoNt Ornr,.tIIg Ity N,,,,~y r'''L'Y J<<- 1- 2, RECEIVED DEe 2 1 2000 /05 1.5)"/7 RI!Ci1'VID A~j~) 2 1 1~98 DUaUN' PLANNING August 6, 1998 DUBLIN PLANN1NG Mr. Eddie Peabody, Jr. Community Development Director City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 It- 2,3r~ From: John Anderson and Diane White 11174 Brittany Lane, Dublin, CA 94568 David Bewley and Susan Bewley 11166 Brittany Lane, Dublin, CA 94568 Richard Bond and Christina Bond 11182 Brittany Lane, Dublin, CA 94568 Ronald Miklebost and Stephanie Leonard ] 1150 Brittany Lane, Dublin, CA 94568 Gerald Weiss and Kathleen Weiss 11158 Brittany Lane, Dublin, CA 94568 Manuel Marcos and Sharron Marcos 11275 Rolling Hills Drive, Dublin, CA 94568 Raymond Hunt and Robin Hunt 11281 Rolling Hills Drive, Dublin, CA 94568 Mark Saake and lannie Saake 11198 Brittany Lane, Dublin, CA 94568 Subject: Reauest for Notification of Proposed Development oranl' ortbe seven undevelooed custom lots on Brittanv Lane and one lot on RollinS! Hills Drive. Dublin California Dear Mr. Peabody, We, the undersigned would like to be notified when an application has been made for the development of any of the undeveloped lots on Brittany Lane and Rolling Hills Drive. We understand that these lots are defined as lots I through 6 Block # 1 (one) of tract 5073 having the following postal addresses: 11151, 11159, 11167, 11175, 11183, 11191 and 11197 Brittany Lane, Dublin, CA 94568 and the single lot on Rolling Hills with the postal address of 11299 Rolling HiUs Dr. Dublin, CA 94568. It is our understanding that these custom lots are zoned for residential use under planned development zoning and are part of the Silvergate Homeowners Association. Each of these custom lots has steep grades and some trees, and difficult settings that require a site development . review and your approval before any development of custom. homes is to be approved. Also, it is our understanding that each lot is to be a custom home, and each lot must be individually assessed as to site layout and architectural considerations with specific conditions of 1 /t)tj ~J1j approval and design criteria. The criteria include setbacks. heights. grading. horticultural reports and other health and safety considerations as set out in Resolution No. 82-85. dated August 12. 1985. We would like to be notified when an application to develop any of these lots has been filed. We would appreciate you or your staff infonning us ifthere are any requests to modify any the enumerated conditions of approval contained in Resolution 82-85. &nL Richard Bond ~~'ke~ H~~ ~i~~ RECElvt:D DEe 2 1 2000 DUBLIN PLANNING 2 '- (J. '" ~ -<- d,j ~ 2, J . 2. 1155' set back II 45' set back 035' set back II 25' set back 1115' set back II lot boundary II curb of road ... CD .! c o :s > CD 'i Topographic View of Brittany Lane Lots 7 through 11 ~ot boundary 660 590 650 640 630 620 610 600 .><: o III ..Q W VI CD ..... .><: o B 11 ~ .><: M ..Q W VI ~ Natural Grade Prior to Grading "" CIOM ~..Q 11 fB CIO CIO C") REtENED DEe 'l, 11.000 N p\..j').NN\NG oueu :.~~. 0 C") feet from datum [boundary lots ~ IJ'\ '='\ ~ -!:.... ~ f!. 13. J. d v d ......... ~ '.J ~ '\v -c.. ~ 11650-660 11640-650 .630-640 lEI 620-630 lEI 610-1 ~O., 90 ~ if & e- ;!j ~ i? (j ~ ~ J!I C\) J ~ :- ~ ;-; {Jj ~ 55' set back 35' set back set back curb of road 4 428 89 70 o 3.2 ~ 2 It 410 430 407.73 427.62 600 597.5 603 600 605 602 605 606.5 610 605.56 608 612 618 607.66 390 387.84 604 606 610 612.5 622 622.5 609.76 370 367.95 614 620 622.5 623 611.86 606 608 350 348.07 608 610.5 614 620 622.5 624 613.96 310 330 308.29 328.18 613 611 618 619 622 621.5 623 622.5 624 623.5 625 624 618.16 616.06 290 288.4 612 613 617 620 623 623.5 624.5 624.5 625625 625.5 626 622.36 620.26 270 268.51 250 248.62 613 620 624 625 625.5 626 624.46 230 228.73 622 617 624 617 625 612 625.5 617 626 621 626 626 628.66 626.56 210 208.84 190 188.95 624 626 626.5 627 627 627 630.76 170 169.06 622 626 627 628 628 628 632.86 150 149.17 626 628 628.5 629 62g 629 637.06 634.96 130 129.28 628 628.5 829 629 629 629 110 109.39 630 630 630 629.5 629.5 630 639.16 90 89.502 631 .5 .5 631.5 631.5 631 641.26 631 631 70 69.613 633 636 639.5 637 636 635 643.36 50 49.724 640 644 644 641 640 639.5 645.46 ine declination 10 30 29.834 642 646 647 645 644.5 644 647.56 9.9447 648 649 648 650 649 648 649.66 -0.105 o o 645 649 651 651 650 650 650.71 road grade Distance from datum slope of road Distance from datum horizontal 55' set back 45' set back 35' set back 25' set back 15' set back lot boundary curb of road o o "12/1 lot boundaries from datum slope of road from datum slope of horizontal 427.62 597.5 600 602 605 606.5 610 605.56 8 II "- ~;::;:! "'- ~ ~l \) f~8r~ ~ ~ it !~I ~ ~ "'<., \..f\ 407.73 600 603 605 608 612 618 607.66 367.95 387.84 606 604 608 606 610 612.5 622 622.5 609.76 614 620 622.5 623 .86 61 348.07 608 610.5 614 620 622.5 624 613.96 328.18 611 619 621.5 622.5 623.5 624 616.06 308.29 613 618 624 625 618.16 622 623 248.62 268.51 288.4 613 612 613 620 617 620 624 623 623.5 625 624.5 624.5 625.5 625 625 626 625.5 626 624.46 622.36 620.26 228.73 617 617 612 617 621 626 626.56 88.95 208.84 624 622 626 624 626.5 625 627 625.5 627 626 627 626 630.76 628.66 169.06 622 626 627 628 628 628 632.86 149.17 626 628 628.5 629 629 629 634.96 09.39 129.28 630 628 630 628.5 630 629 629.5 629 629.5 629 630 629 639.16 637.06 89.502 631 631.5 631.5 .5 .5 31 6 Z6 631 69.613 633 636 639.5 637 636 635 643.36 49.724 640 644 644 641 640 639.5 645.46 29.834 642 646 647 845 644.5 648 644 849.66 847.56 9.9447 648 649 648 650 849 o 645 649 651 651 650 650 650.71 Distance from datum horizontal 55' set back 45' set back 35' set back 25' set back 15' set back lot boundary curb of road '- 10 "'\) ~ ~ ~ 'J\ 5"1 A-z A 17 Ac.h ,., '€~ 7 IIT'~ ;2~:5 .--.- ,.. '," ~. -y - ~' ~ <9,e,~,/V~'- <!.,(/H>E PlAN ..... .... 2 ,3~ 1~. . - .',' to '.. . .~.2 Gt -' ~ R~t>1 N'~ ..". \. .~. PUN- -- \. :~'.. . I"~' . '.. ~ .. . . ~.': \'" '. ....'.:.... f\PffOY...IMAT6.L'i ~. FE~r . '. . . .' . ~ ': ~ \ , " .' .,. .FLAN~ I NG; RM\1}~w Cures 1-\6/01i1' 6ilZO, --- R?J;>fII1. s~cftfe Sttw-IN U.S B,y pr:9J/M CNU-ltJc. WN l/ (30/&0 ' lqlf/ot> Road f? Line of ;. nl!!CElVED DEe 2 1 2000 DUBliN PLANNING LOT 8 FRONT ELEVATION BRITTANY DRIVE 00011 ~ 5 JUNE 2000 orzw~ w 0011AFPl.dw& PAGE 2 BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT a:::::. ~ " ~ -t. \J\ o A R N o F L A c II -- rJIlMGlf1EG1\IIZ.1IC. N L B u o D RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA ED! ARCHITECTURE, INC. 450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310 T 415.362.2880 F 415,394.8767 () I () "l" 19/54 = 35% slope ALLOWABLE HEIGHT ------------------------------------------------------------------------ . . ~:ROPOSED l:IE~GHT ~ o[;i. I. ~ " N I , ,. "-:I L_JIDAD);~_90~T~~T _ . , i , :N ~ I ."-:1 6"'.0 ClI&D :r 2 50% line of lower floch. I. II If , ~ I abo~e . finisfued, ~rade of LO~ER FloOR: I . . I . M~D !POINT of NATU r------r~-----~--~-- ., . , ! 1 i .: ~ j ~'6' MAXIMUM HEIGHT ~ ALLOWABLE fot 50% 6O'fb . ".' i 9' MAXti'1UM HIGHTd0 above hatural. in grade f~ .If\ RECffJVEO DEe 2 1 2DOD Ol.lliSLiN PLANNiNG I I I \ill Z - .....:l :>< E-c p::; \il p.. o p::; p.. " ......... ~ ~ \..~ -t::.. \J\ ~ 01'2'9'4' e' PAGE 2 b BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT 2000 00011 5 JUNE 00l1AFP1.dwg This corn'er of the site is. the steepest therefore g,overns aU height requirements LOT 8 CROSS SECTION <) BRITTANY DRIVE. 0 _XIXIXJ: 8 JXIXIXIXIXlXlXlXlXlXlXlXl>< I DUB L N . CALIFO" A Arcbiltctun _..-- ~~nn.1NI:. RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA EDI ARCHITECTURE, INC. 450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310 T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.8767 r t. ,. !: . .. , . . rnrn ~ i I j RECEIVED OEC2 1 2000 [lUBLIN PLANNING "- .......... ~ ~ ~ ...s;:.. \J\ 00011 ~ 5 JUNE 2000 orz~. w OOllAFPI.dw. PAGE 2 BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT g LOT 8.. REAR ELEVATION 0 BRITTANY DRIVE 0 . 0 JXlXlXlXIXIXJXIX[XJXlXlXlx ) I DUBLIN .OALI"" A Arcbitetlure ~el.f'C'l'" RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA EDI ARCHITECTURE, INC. 450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94111-3310 T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.8767 .'f'ff.. . . '.'~' y ~ ORDINANCE NO. 29 - 99 1/5 ~ :;..~~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADDING CHAPTER 5.60 TO THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING A HERITAGE TREE ORDINANCE TEE CITY COUNCJL OF TIlE CITY OF DUBLllj DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 5.60 is added to the Dublin Municipal Code to read as follows: Section 5.60.10 - Title This Chapter shall be known as "the Heritage Tree Ordinance" Section 5.(JO.20 - Purpose and Intent . This Chapter is adopted because the city has many Heritage Trees,the preservation of which is beneficial to the health and welfare of the citizens of this city in order to enhance the scenic beauty, increase property values, encourage quality development, prevent soil erosio~ protect against flood hazards and the risk oflands1ides, counteract pollution in the air and ma.intain the climatic balance. within the city. For these reasons the City finds it is in the pubijc interest, convenience, necessity and welfare to establish regulations cOhtrolling the removal of and the presef'iTation of Heritage Trees within the City. In establishing these regulations, it is the City's intent to preserve as many Heritage Trees as possible consistent with the reasonal:>le use and enjoyment of private property. Section 5.60.30 - Applicability . This Chapter applies to all property within the City of Dublin, including private property, residential and non-residential zones, developed and undeveloped land. Section 5.60.40 - Definitions The following words and phrases, whenever used in this chapter, shall be as construed as defined in, this chapter: "City" means the City of Dublin. "Certified or consulting arbonst" means as arborist who is registered with the International Society of Arboriculture and approved by the Director. . "Development" means any improvement ofreaI property which requires the approval of zoning, subdivisio~ conditional use permit or site development review permits. . LDirector" means the Community Development Director or his/her designee, "Heritage Tree" means any of the following: . (a) Any Oak, Bay, Cypress, Maple. Redwood, Buckeye and Sycamore tree having a trunk . or main stem of24 inches or more in diameter measured at 4 feet 6 inches above natural grade; . (b) A tree required to be preserved as part of an ap~roved development ~oning permit, use permit, site development review'orsubdivision map; (c) A tree required to be planted as a replacement for an unlawfully removed .tree. 1 ~TfAC)HIIENT 1+ Section 5.60.50 - Tree Removal Permit Required /16 ~ ;.y5 (a) No person may destroy or remove or cause to be removed any Heritage Tree from any property within the City of Dublin without obtaining a permit from the Director. (b) Exceptions A permit is not required for the following: (1) If the condition of a Heritage Tree presents an immediate hazard to life or property, it may be removed with the approval of the Director, City Engineer, Police .chie~ Fire Chief or their designee. (2) A tree(s) whose removal was specifically approved as part of a City approved development plan, zoning permit, conditional use permit, site development review or subdivision map. (3) Normal maintenance pruning of Heritage Trees shaU.not require a permit but shall in all cases be in conformance with the guidelines of the International Society of Aboriculture, Tree Pruning Guidelines, current edition, on file in the Community Development Department. .. (c) Tree(s) removal requested as part of the dey~lopment ofaproperty subject to zoning, subdivision, use permit, or site development review application approval shal1be reviewed and approved by the body having final authority over the entitlement application. Section 5.60.60 - Tree Removal P~rmit Procedure . (a) Any person wishing to remove one or more Heritage Trees shall apply to the Director for a permit. The application fora permit shall be made on forms provided by the Community Development Department and shall include the following: . 1. A drawing showing all existing trees and the location, type and. size of all tree( s) proposed to be removed; 2. A brief statement of the reason for removal; 3. If the tree or trees are proposed for removal because of their conditio~ a certified. arborist's detennination ofthe state of health of the Heritage Trees may be . required; - 4. Written consent of the owner of record of the land on which the tree(s) are proposed to be removed; 5. A tree removal permit fee of twenty-five ($25.00) dollars to cover the cast of permit administration. An additional deposit may be required by the Director to retain a certified amorist to assist the City in assessing the condition of the trees; 6. Other pertinent information as required by the Director. (b) Tree(s) removal requested in conjunction with an application for other development entitlements shall provide to the Community Development Department a Landscaping Plan . specifying the precise location, size, species and drip-line of all existing trees on or in the vicinity of the property. The Landscape Plan shall alsO show existing and proposed grades and the location of proposed and existing structures. ( c) The Director shall inspect the property and evaluate each application. In deciding whether to issue a permit, the Director shall base the decision on the following criteria: 2 ,.. . . II? 4 ;..v, 1. The condition of the tree or trees with respect to health, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services or public works projects; 2. The necessity to remove the tree or trees for reasonable development of the property;" .. :3. The topography of the land and the effect of the removal ofllie tree on erosion, soil retention and diversion or increased flow of stream waters; 4. The number of trees existing in the neighborhood" and the effect the removal would have upon shade~ privacy impact~ scenic beauty and the general welfare of the City . as a whole. (d) The Director shall render a decision regarding the permit within ten (10) working days after the receipt of a complete application. (e). If an application to remove a Heritage Tree is being requested in conjunction with another development entitlemen~ than the decision on the tree removal permit shall be rendered . simultanegusly with the decision on:the development entitlement and shall be made by the body having final authority over the entitlement application. In deciding whether to H apPfQye a tree removal per,mit };1nder this su!,secticm, the.reviewing body shall consider the criteria set forth in Section 5.60.60 (c) of this chapter." . ~'. . . -...,.. (f) The Director may refer any application to any City Department for review and recommendation. (g) The Director or the revie'Wing body having final authority over the development may grant or deny the application or grant the application with conditions, inc1udin& the condition that one (1) or more replacement trees be planted of a designated species, size and location; Section 5.60.70 - Appeals (a) Any decision of the Director, pursuant to this chapter, may be, appealed to the City Council. Appeals shall be in vvritin& shall be signed by the applicant, shall state the reasons the appeal is made, and be filed with the City Clerk within fourteen (14) days of ~en notification of the decision by tl!e Director. .Any appeal shall be accompanied by an appeal fee in the amount established by resolution of the City Council. (b) The City Clerk shall place all such appeals on the agenda of the ne},.'t'regular Council meeting and shall give the appellant at least five (5) calendar days' notice of the time and place of said hearing. Appeals shall be co~ducted in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 1.04.050 of the Code. The decision of the City Council shall be final. Section 5.60.80 - Protection of Heritage Trees during construction. Heritage Trees required to be retained pursuant to this chapter or by an approved development plan, zoning permit, use permit, site development review or subdivision map shall be protected during demolition, grading and construCtion operations. 3 Section 5.60.90. ~ Protection plan required prior to issuance of permit lie. ~ ).~, (1) A plan to protect Heritage Trees as described in Section 5.60.80 above shall be subm~~ed . to the Director prior to the issuance of demolition, grading or building permits. The plan ,- shall be prepared and signed by a certified arborist and approved by the Director. The Director may refer to a city-selected arborist for review and recommendation. The cost of thi~'review shall be borne by the developer/applicant requesting said permit. . (2) The Director may require that a certified arborist be .present on the project site during grading or other construction . activity that may impact the health of the tree(s) to be preserved. (3) . Damage to any tree during construction shall be immediately reported to the Director so that proper treatment may be administered. The Di~ector may refer to a city-selected arborist to determine the appropriate method of repair for any damage. The cost of any treatment or repair shall be borne by the developer/applicant responsible for the . development of the project. Failure to do so may result in the issuance of a stop work . order. (4) The Director may waive the requirement for a tree protection plan if it is determined that the grading or construction activity is minor in natUre and that the proposed activity will not significantly modify the ground area within the drip-line or the area immediately surrounding the drip-line of the tree(s). Section 5.60.100 - Applicant to guarantee protection - security deposit (a) The applicant shall guarantee the protection of the existing tree(s) on the. site not approved for removal through placement of a cash bond or other security deposit in the amount based upon the valuation of the trees acceptable to the Director. The Director may refer to a city-selected arborist to estimate the value of the tree(s) in accordance with industry standards. . (b). The cash bond or other security shall be retained for a reasonable period oftime following the aoceptance of the public improvements for the development, not to exceed one year. The cash bond or security is to be released upon the satisfaction of the Director that the '.,." ,. "-'.,. tree(s) to be preserved have not been endangered. The cash bond or security deposit shall . be forfeited as a civil penalty for any unauthorized removal or destruction of a Heritage Tree. Section 5_60.110 - Public Utilities . .Any public utility installing or maintaining any overhead wires or underground pipes or conduits in the vicinity of a Heritage Tree shall obtain permission from the Director before performing any work, which may cause injury to the Heritage Tree. Section 5.60.120 - Violation - Penalty (a) Any person who unlawfully removes, destroys or damages a Heritage Tree shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of the appraised value of the tree. Ap. city-selected arborist shall estimate the replacement value of the loss tree(s) in accordance 4 , ' , ) , /17 ot';-Yj with industry standards. The fee for the appraisal shall be added to the penalty established , by the appraisal, (b) Any person violating any portion of this Chapter that results in the loss of a Heritage Tree, shall be required to replace said tree with a new tree and or additional plantings, of the same species, The Director shall determine the size and location of replacement tree(s). The Director may refer to the recommendation of a city-selected arborist. SECTION 2: ./l' Effective date and posting of Ordinance: The Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of . California. PASSED, APPROVED A.ND .ADOPTED this 21st day of December, 19,99 by'the following vote: AYES: NOES: . . ' Councilmember McCormick, Vice Mtryor Lockhart and Mayor Houston Councilmembers H award and Zika ABSENT: None ASTAlN: None ~ A- ftk~ ATTEST: . Mayor K2/G/12-21-99/ord-he G'99.045\ORDIN.A.NCE.DOC 5 -l ], " I I -j I '~ ,~ I , \ I ! i .J 1 . . . IN C_ HERITAGE TREE PROTECTION PLAN Brittany Drive Estates, Tract 5073 Dublin, CA PREPARED FOR Black Mountain Development 12 Crow Canyon Court, Suite 207 San Ramon, CA 94583 PREPARED BY HortScience, Inc. 4125 Mohr Ave., Suite F Pleasanton, CA 94566 November 2000 RECEIVED DEe 0 4 2000 DUBLIN PLANNING /~D ob ,2.'15 . , \. . . AlTACHMENT 5 j/</ ~ )Y5 Heritage Tree Protection Plan Brittany Drive Estates, Tract 5073 Dublin, CA Table of Contents ~ ~: Page i'. ,r:; Introduction and Overview Survey Methods Description of Trees 2 2 3 Suitability for Preservation 4 Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations for Preservation 6 Tree Preservation Guidelines 10 B \''.. List of Tables and Exhibits A Table 1. Condition ratings and frequency of occurrence for trees 3 Ii: r; ;: Table 2. Suitability for Preservation Exhibit A: Evaluation of Impacts to Tree #340,345 5 7 I' !, i.: Exhibit B: Evaluation of Impacts to Trees #335, 341, 342 Exhibit C: Evaluation of Impacts to Tree #346 'Att~chments 8 9 ii, Tree Pruning Specifications Tree Survey Map Tree Protection Fencing Plan Tree Survey Form I- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _ Heritage Tree Protection Plan, Brittany Drive, T. 4073, Dublin November 24, 2000 HortScience, Inc. Page 2 I ~.t ~) tj.J Introduction and Overview Black Mountain Development is proposing to develop six lots located on Brittany Drive and one lot on Rolling Hills Dr. in Dublin, CA. The project encompasses portions on the native oak woodland. The Tentative Tract map was approved by the City Council of Dublin in 1985 in Resolution No. 82-85. That document requires preparation of a horticultural report if project grading is performed within 25 feet of the dripline of trees. Since that time a Heritage Tree Ordinance (No. 29-99) has been enacted that requires preparation of a Heritage Tree Protection Plan. HortScience, Inc was asked to prepare that report. This report provides the following information: 1. A survey of trees within the project boundaries. 2. An assessment of the impacts of constructing the proposed project on the trees. 3. Guidelines for tree preservation and protection during the design, construction and maintenance phases of development. Survey Methods Trees were surveyed in July 2000. The survey included trees greater than 6" in diameter, located within the project boundaries. The survey procedure consisted of the following steps: 1. Identifying the tree as to species; Ii" 2. Tagging each tree with an identifying ,number; 3. Measuring the trunk diameter at a point 54" above grade. 4.' Evaluating the health and structural stability using a scale of 1-5: 5 - A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptoms of disease, with good structure and form typical of the, species. 4 - Tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig'cIieback, minor structural defects that could be corrected. 3 - Tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, thinning of crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defeqts that might be mitigated with regular care. ' 2- Tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback,of medium to large branches, significant structural defects that cannot be abated. ,1- Tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and/or trunk; most ,of foliage from epicormics; extensive structural defects that cannot be abated. o - Dead tree. , I I I I I I Heritage Tree Protection Plan, Brittany Drive, T. 4073, Dublin November 24, 2000 HortScience, Inc. Pag.e 3 /;;<~ ~ ;15 5. Rating the suitability for preservation as "good", "fair" or "poor". Suitability for preservation considers the health, age and structural condition of the tree, and its potential to remain an asset to the site for years to come. I I I I I I I I I I I Good: Trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site. Fair. Trees with somewhat declining health and/or structuraJ cjefects than can be abated with treatment The tree will require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life span than those in 'good' category. Poor. Tree in poor health or with significant structural defects that cannot be mitigated. Tree is expected to continue to decline, regardless of treatment. The species or individual may have characteristics that are undesirable for landscapes, and 'generally are unsuited for use areas. 6. Recording the tree's location on a map. Description of Trees _' Twenty (20) trees were evaluated. Descriptions of each tree are found~jn the Tree Survey (see Attachments). A summary is provided in Table 1. Tree locations are shown by tag number on the Tree Survey Map (~ee Attachments). The trees on the subject property are a portion of a small woodland associated with a drainage course south of Brittany Dr. Two oak species were present on the south-facing slope: . the evergreen coast live oak, which comprised 20% of the population and the dedduous valley oak with 80% of the population (Table 1). Two of the oaks were on a west-facing slope off Rolling Hills Dr. \ As is normal for native oak woodlands, a range of tree condition was present, from excellent to poor. Tree condition ranged from excellent to poor, 'althol!9h most (80%) were in the good to fair category. Most were large, mature indiv!duals. Tree size ranged, from 14" t061" diameter single-trunked trees. Average trunk diameter was 28". There were six multiple-trimked 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 Quercus agrifolia 1 1 2 4 (20%) Valley oak Quercus lobata 7 7 2 16 (80%) Total' 8 8 4 20 40% 40% 20% 100% I I J r (, I f I I Heritage Tree Protection Plan; Brittany Drive, T. 4073, Dublin November 24, 2,000 HortScience, Inc. Page -4 1:< tj .~ ;2 Y 5 Heritage Trees City of Dublin Ordinance No. 29-99 identifies "Heritage Trees" as being any of the following: ' 1. Any oak, bay, cypress, maple, redwood, buckeye and sycamore tree having a trunk of 24" or more in diameter measured 4.5' above natural grade. 2. A tree required to be preserved as part of an approved development plan, zoning permit, use permit, site development review or subdivision map. 3. A tree required to be planted as a replacement for an unlawfully removed tree. By definition #1,13 trees are Heritage. However, because the project was approved with the trees at the Tentative Tract Map stage, all trees are now designated as Heritage by definition #2. I Suitability for Preservation Before evaluating the impacts that will occur during development, it is important to consider the quality of the tree resource itself, and the potential for individual trees to function well over an extended length of time. Trees that are preserved on development sites must be carefUlly selected to make sure that they may survive development impacts, adapt to a new environment and perform well in the landscape. ~ I Our goa:l is to identify trees that have the l30tential for long-term health, structural stability and longevity. For trees growing in open fields, away from areas where people and - property are present, structural defects and/or poor health presents a low risk of damage or injury if they fail. However, we must be concerned, about safety in use areas. Therefore, where development encroaches into existing piantings, we must consider the potential for trees to grow and thrive in a new environment as well as their structural stability. Where development will not occur, the normal life cycles of decline, structural failure and death should be allowed to continue. i I I I I I Evaluation of suitability for preservation considers several fact9rs: . Tree health Healthy, vigorous trees are better able to tolerate impacts such as root injury, demolition of existing structures, changes in soil grade and moisture, and soil compaction than are non-vigorous trees. ' . Structural integrity Trees with significant-amounts of wood decay and other structural defects that cannot be corrected are likely to fail. Such trees should not be preserved in areas w~ere damage to people or property is likely. ' I I I I I, . Species response There is a wide variation in the response of individual species to construction impacts and changes in the environment. Coast live oak has good construction, while valley oak has moderate tolerance to impacts. . Tree age and longevity Old trees, while having significant emotional and aesthetic appeal" have limited. physiologic'al capacity to adjust to an altered environment. Young trees are better , able to generate new tissue and respond to change. Heritage Tree Protection Plan, Brittany Drive, T. 4073, Dublin November 24, 2000 r r t I J I I I I I I, I I I I I I HortScience, Inc. Page 5 ;)..:5' 1 ~~J Each tree was rated for suitability for preservation based upon its age, health, structural condition and ability to safely coexist within a development environment (see Tree Survey Form). A summary is provided in Table 2. ' Table 2: Suitability for Preservation of Trees in Tract 5073. Good These are trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity'at the site. . Eight (8) trees were rated as having good suitability for preservation. Tree No. Species Diameter ' (in.) 335 337 340 346 350 352 353 354 Valley oak Val1eyoak Coast live oak Valley oak ValleY oak Valley oak Valley oak Valley oaK 27,23,23 25, 16 40,26 31 31 28 19, '18,15,13 31 Moderate Trees in this category have fair health andlor structural defects that may be abated with treatment. Trees in this category require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter Iife- spans tha.n those in the "good" category. Eight (8) trees were rated as having moderate suitability for preservation. Tree No. Species Diameter (in.) 29 41 , 14, 13, 12, 11, 6 33 25' 17 61 17,13 338 342 343 344 347 348 ,349 351 Valley oak Coast live oak Valley'oak ' Valley -oak Valley oak Valley oak Valley oak Valley oak Low Trees in this category are in poor health or ha"e significa.nt defects in structure that cannot be abated with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline regardless of management. The species or individual tree may possess either characteristics that are undesirable in landscape settings or be unsuited for use areas. Four (4) trees were rated as having low suitability for preservation. Tree No. Species Diameter (in.) 20 22 j5 14 3,36 339 341 345 Valley oak Coast live oak ' Coast live oak Valley oak Heritage Tree Protection Plan, Brittany Drive, T. 4073, Dublin November 24, 2000 HortScience, Inc. Page 6 I~b c{ ,2'15 We.. cqgsider trees with good suitability for preservation to be the best candidates for preservation. We do not recommend retention of trees with low suitability for preservation ina.rea.s;where people or structures will be present. Retention of trees with moderate suitability for preservation depends upon the intensity of proposed site changes. Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations for Preservation Appropriate tree retention develops a practical match between the location and ,intensity of construction activities and the quality and health of trees. The Tree Survey Form was the reference point for tree condition and quality. Potential impacts from construction were evaluated using the Composite Site Plan (June 2000) and house layouts for lots 8 and 9 (June 5, 2000) prepared by RMR Design Group. Potential impacts from. construction were assessed for each tree. The project has been designed to r$tain 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 a.re downslope from the home areas, they can be retained. Only'trees along the north canopy edge will be impacted by construction. These include trees #335, 342,341, 340,345 and 346. Construction will occur within the driplines of . trees #:340 and 341. Impacts to those trees are described in Exhibits A and B. . Field staking of the house locations indicates that the homes will be approximately 34' from the trunk centerlinesof#340 and 342. Significant pruning will be required to create clearance under tree #340. The tree can be preserved with a protection zone of 30' from the trunk. Pruning to raise the canopies off the ground is recommended tor trees #342, 345 and 346'. ' Spef::ifications for pruning are provided in the Attachments. Roots of oaks typically extend for a long distance beyond the dripline. Construction of the home~ on lot$ 7, 8 and 9 will encroach into the root area. However, ~we consider the encroacnment to be within the tolerance level of the adjacent trees. We expeCt no observable reduction ih plant growth or health from the construction., Fill placed outside the driplines years ago when Brittany Diive was construction has had no observable effect. A tree protection zqne $P' from the trunks on the north side of #340-342, and at the dripline of #335, 345, 346, 353 and 354 are. adequate for their preservation. No impacts to the trees will occur doWnslope from the trunks. ' 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, T. 5073 November 24, 2000 Exhibit A: Evaluation of Impacts to Tree #340, Lot 8 r' ;,:':;',../,: ,;;;"c;:, HortScience, Inc. Page 7 I~ 71: tL/5 '''''f] ,: . :";,.~,~\t; n.";'?' . . :<::':1.'~~1@: . Tree #340 is a mature coast live oak with two trunks arising at approximately 2' that are 27" and 40" in diameter. These trunks divide again to form large scaffold branches at 3' and 5' : The 26" trunk bows to the northeast, touching the ground approxi- mately 25' from the trunk (photo 3). The tree has formed an up- per and lower crown (photos 1 & 2). It appears that fill soil was placed outside the dripline of the tree when Brittany Lane was 'graded years ago. The grade within the dripline appears to be natural. The fill does not appear to have had a significant negative impact on the tree. The tree is very vigorous and healthy as i~ evidenced by the dense, deep green canopy and numerous growth cracks along the trunk and scaf- fold branches. As is normal in mature native oaks, there are a number of dead branches throughout the canopy and several small branch failures. In all, it is a magnificent tree that has the potential to live for many more years. Photo 1: Upper crown of tree #340 viewed from Brittany Lane. ".'''"",;,,.,,,,,",,,~",< Upper crqwn Fire protection requirements dictate that tree canopies must be pruned to clear foliage within 6' of the ground surface. Fire man- agement treatments are required whether or not the property is developed. Creating the' necessary clearance will require re- . moval of the 27" diameter trunk and significant pruning of a 25" scaffold branch (photo 4). This pruning will create larger wounds than preferred, but is required by the Alameda Co. Fire Marshall to protect surrounding homes from fire danger. Photo 2 : Upper and lower crowns of #340 viewed from the east. Tree #346 is on left. Development plans are to construct a home on the existing grade (see plot plan below). Based on field staking of the structure layout, the back of the home will be 34' from #340, extending into the dripline approximately 14'. The structure placement will be adjusted slightly if needed following prun- ing for fire management so that the back of the structure is no closer than 5' from the canopy. Other trees on the lot will not be directly affected. Detail of lot 8 from RMR Design Group Detail.at left shows loca- tion of home relative to tree dripline and trunk. A 30' tree protection zone on the north side of the tree is recommended~ We consider this ade- quate because of the good vigor of this tree and the and construction tolerance of the species. Photo 4 (right): Pruning for fire safety will require removal of 27" trunk (orange arrow) and sig- nificant pruning of a 25" scaffold branch (blue ar- row). Photo 3: Scaffold from 27" trunk lying on ground. Stake (arrow) shows location of SE corner of the proposed home. Heritage Tree Protection Plan;T. 5073 Aua.2.2000 Exhibit B: Evaluation of Impacts to Trees #335.341 and 342, Lot 9 Three trees form the canopy edge on lot 9. Tree #335 is a valley oak with three trunks that is in good condition (photo 1). Trees #341 and 342 are two coast live oaks that are growing closely. #342, at 41" in diameter, is dominant, and has suppressed the small 15" diameter tree (#341). Uphill from the trees is a rock outcropping. There is no fill under the tree from the Brittany Lane construction years ago. Development plans are to construct a home uphill from the trees (see plot plan below). 'Based on field staking of the struc- ture layout, the back eastern comer of the hqme will be within the dripline fo tree #342 a few feet (Photo 3). Because the canopy touches the ground on the north, pruning Will be required to raise the canopytb provide clearance. Removal, of one 8'\ one 6" and several smaller than 4" diameter branches will be re- quired. This will have minimal effect on the tree. A tree protection zone 30' from the trunks of trees #335, 341 and 342 is recommended. Photo 3 (left): Stake for southeast corner of home (arrow) is located a few feet inside the dripline of #342. Pruning to raise the canopy off the ground is needed. ( i Photo 4 (right): Stake for southwest corner of home (arrow) is outside the . canopy of tree #335. i",,:,.. , }.~~ '/.'l. ,:,. , - }':,', ' Detail at left shows location of home and trees on lot 9. (Detail from RMR Design Group June 5, 2000). HortScience, Inc. Paae 8 I~g 1 ;.~j Photo 1: Valley dak#335 has 3 trunks. ,. Photo 2: Coast live oak #342 (right) is dominant and in moderate condition. #341 (left, arrow) is suppressed. Heritage Tree Protection Plan, T. 5073 November 24. 2000 ExhibitC: Evaluation of Impacts to Tree #346. Lot "7 HortScience, Inc. Paae 9 I~r ,~ J t/5 One tr~e$forms the n6rthern canopy edge on lot 7 Tree #346 is a 31" diameter valley oak with three trunks that is in good conqi'tlon (photo 1). Downslope on the lot are trees #347-350, which are also valley oaks in moderate to good condition. All trees will require minQ.r,pruning to provide adequate clearance for fire safety. De\fce1opment plans are to cpnstruct a home uphill from the trees (see plot plan below). The back of the home will be outside thedripline. The most significant impacts to trees will be pruning needed forfire safety. Home construction will have minimal impacts. A tree protection zorie at the dripline of the trees is recommended. _,_, '_n_ _, ___,__,~_~r~~t Photo 1: Valley oak #346 requires pruning to raise the canopy for fire safety (arrow). Home construction will be outside the dripline of the tree. Detail at left shows locatiOn of horne and trees on lot 7. (Detail from RMR Design Group June 5, 2000). Heritage Tree Protection Plan, Brittany Drive, T. 4073, Dublin November 24, 2000 HortScience, Inc. Page 10 j5z:> ~ )~5 Tree Preservation Guidelines ; The goal of tree preservation is not merely tree survival during development but maintenance of tree health and beauty for many years. Trees retained on sites that are either subject to extensive injury during construction or are inadequately maintained become a liability rather than an asset. The response of individual trees will depend on the amount of excavation and grading, the care with Which demolition is undElrtaken, and the construction methods. Coordinating any construction activity inside the Tree Protection Zone can minimize these impacts. The following recommendations will help reduce impacts to trees from development and maintain and-improve their health and ,vitality through the clearing, grading and construction phases. Design recommendations 1 . A TREE PROTECTION ZONE shall be established 30' north of tree #340-342, and at the driplines of #335, 345-346, 353-354. No grading, excavation, construction or storage of materials shall occur within that zone. 2. All site development plans shall be reviewed by the Project Arborist for evaluation of impacts to trees and recommendations for mitigation. 3. Retain the rock outcropping within 30' of trees #335 and 342. 4. No underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer shall be placed in the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. 5. Tree Preservation, Notes, prepared by the Consulting Arborist, should be in~IUdedon all construction plans. 6. Irrigation systems must be designed so that no trenching will occur within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. 7. No landscape improvements such as lighting, pavement, drainage or planting may occur which may negatively affect the health or structurar stability of the trees. 8. As trees withdraw water from the soil, expansive soils may shrink within the root area. Therefore, foundations, footings and pavements on expansive soils near trees should be designed to withstand diff.erential displacement." Pre-construction treatments and recommendations 1. Prune trees to be preserved to clean the. crown and to provide clearance. Canopies shall be raised for fire safety to eliminate foliage within 6' of the ground surface. All pruning shall be completed by a Certified Arborist or Tree Worker , and adhere to the Tree Pruning Guidelines of the International Society of Arboriculture. Specifications for pruning are provided in the Attachments. 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 on the north side of trees on lots 7,8 and 9, and on the south side of trees 353 and 354 prior to demolition, grubbing or grading as depicted in the attached Tree Heritage Tree Protection Plan. Brittany Drive, T, 4073, Dublin November 24, 2000 HortScience, Inc. Page 11 /j/ ~ J-~)5 Protection Fencing Plan (see Attachments). It is.not necessary to fence trees on the downhill side, away trom all construction. Fences shall be 6 ft. chain link or equivalent as approved by consulting arborist. Fences are to remain until all grading and construction is completed. . Recommendations for tree protection during construction 1 . Prior to beginning work, the contractor is required to meet with the consultant at the site to review all work procedures, access routes, storage areas and tree protection measures. ' 2. No grading, construction. demolition or other work shall occur within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Any modifications must be approved and monitored by the Consulting Arborist. Spoil trom trench, footing, utility or other excavation shall not be placed within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE, neither temporarily nor permanently.. If injury should occur to any tree during construction, it should be evaluated as soon as possible by the Consulting Arborist so that appropriate treatments can be applied. No excess soil, chemicals, debris. equipment or other materials shall be dumped or stored within the TREE ~ROTECTION ZONE. Any additional tree pruning needed for clearance during construction must be performed by a Certified Arborist and not by construction personnel. Maintenance of impacted trees Native oaks in proximity to homes require regular maintenance. It is recomme,nded 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. Nelda Matheny Certified Arborist #WC-0195 Pruning Specifications Brittany Lane Estates Qualifications ! . i I An 1.8.A. Certified Arborist or Tree Worker is to be present at all times during pruning. Arborist must have a State of Calif. Contractors, License for Tree Service (C61-D49) and provide proof of workman's compensation and general liability insurance. Pruning specifications 1. All pruning shall be in accordance with the Tree Pruning Guidelines (International Society of Arboriculture) and adhere to the most recent editions of the American National Standard for Tree Care Operations (Z133.1) and Pruning (A300). 2. Where possible, pruning shall be confined to small diameter wood at the ends of branches. Interior branches shall nor be stripped out. 3. All trees shall be pruned to provide a minimum of 6' clearance between the ground surface and foliage, to remove dead branches to a minimum of 2" diameter, and to reduce end weight on heavy, horizontal branches by selectively removing small diameter branches, no greater than 2-3", near the ends of the scaffolds. 4.- . While in the tree, the arborist shall perform an aerial inspection to identify defects that require treatment. Any additional work needed shall be reported to the Project Arborist. . ,,;.,:' 5. Brush shall be chipped and chips shall be spread underneath trees to a maximum depth of 6", leaving the trunk clear of mulch. Wood shall be hauled off site. 6. Trees shall not be climbed with spurs. 7.: Thinning cuts are to be employed rather than heading cuts. Trees shall not be topped or headed back. 8. 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 6-8" of wood chips before placing equipment or vehicles. 9. Equipment shall be serviced and fueled outside the tree canopy to avoid accidental spills in the root area. 10. Any questions regarding pruning should be directed to Nelda Matheny, HortScience,lnc., (925) 484-0211. /~~ 0( ;tl$ Tree Protection Fencing Plan Brittany Drive Tract 5073 Dublin, CA Prepared for: Black Mountain . Development San ~amon, CA November 2000 No Scale I " Notes: Base map provided by: RMR Design Group Concord. CA Driplines and numbered tree locallons are approxlmate- HoRTScIENCE ". P,O.80X754 PLEASANTONCA94S68 (925)484-0211 FAX.(925)_5096 , - - - ~ ~ . 'N. ~ Jf' Tree Survey Map Brittany Drive Tract 5073 Dublin, CA Prepared for: Black Mountain Development San Ramon, CA , July 2000 NoUo Scale " Notes: Base map provided by: RMR Design Group Concord, CA Driplines and numbered tree locations are approximate, HORfSCIENCE 10. P.o.8OX7$l Pl.l!ASAHfONCA94ti66 (~5) *4-Q2t 1 FAX(925)- - ~ """ ~ "No .-..:;.. \.1\. x x x x -,-..,.... }~ - -\~: ,-- - " ~,.. , -:~~ '\\>, - .. , . -" - . ... "\ -, ... .... x " - -- _: .~;:~-i "-- -- " - ~ "............" .:.......:..-,......:. ~.,.,~,~.. X ....- ..' -- ., -, x ":.~:.;- ~:. . '-" .. 0'" ~ "_.. ." _~ '\." . .-.~ ~.. -- "- ~.:. '. - -- - - ~ . . . .. ~ , ". . ~ - -,~, ~- .", -. ~ ------ ~--------- X -' '" .... ..... -, '" ',-- '\ . . ,-, ') .' " - -- ~. - . .- - - '- - - " ~ .. ~ '" ,,' - ~ _ -.. - - - ... _,,' ,L -. -. - -,. - -- '- .. -. ... ~-'~" .. ~, '\":"'"""...:.....~/<----- .X -' " : .- - . 0" . . r':.- I .. i '-. 1/ :_,t,., ." ...>--" ,- .. ; _"":",,,~.'~"lI'." -:-d'~. _ "" ': -~-,:. .... .' .:-.!- 0'.- X - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - . . . Black Mountain Development Brittany Lane Estates Dublin. GA July 2000 . TREE'SURVEY . . COMMENTS SUITABILITY for PRESERVATION CONDITION 1 =poor 5=excellent TRUNK DIAMETER (in inches) TREE SPECIES No. . Multiple stems over creek. Suppressed growth; little foliage; large necrotic area at base. 'tMultiple attachments @ 3'; slightly suppressed with crown to south; some deadwood. trunk leans south from base; good form; one 23' Good Poor Good 4 2 4 27.23,23 20 25. 16 VaJley oak Valley oak Valley oak 335 336 337 Suppressed growth; leaning to south-east; deadwood in crown. Suppressed by tree 340; major dieback in crown; decay fruiting bodies evident. Moderate Poor 3 2 29 22 Valley oak Coast live oak 338 339 Excellent large specimen; some deadwood; growth cracks along some scaffolds; scaffolds on north lying on ground. Good 4 40,26 Coast live oak 340 Suppressed by 342; poor form; heavy end weight. Good form; ~ome deadwood; codominant with included union at 3' Mul!iple trunks at ground leve.!; good form. Poor Moderate Moderate 2 3 3 15 41 13,12. Coast live oak Coast live. oak Valley oak 341 342 343 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' included bark. number of cavities in Moderate Poor Good Moderate Moderate Moderate 3 2 4 3 3 3 6 11 33 14 31 25 17 61 14. Valley oak Valley oak Valley oak Valley oak Valley oak Valley oak 344 345 346 347 348 349 - ~ ~ ~ ~ trunk; Oage 1 -------~----------- . . . .. . R _.ft.... 1'-.' TREE SURVEY' :~~:=:Vo:a:i~::~~opment , " <<' Dublin, CA ,:<~, ~ July 2000 --= -- -" . TREE SPECIES TRUNK CONDITION' SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER 1 =poor for (in inches) 5=excellent PRESERVATION 350 Valleyoak 31 5' Good MultipleattaGhments @ 7'; good form; low canopy on uphill side; moderate deadwood. 351 Valley oak 17, 13 3 Moderate Codominant @ 1'; trunk outside property; suppressed form. 352 Valley oak 28 4 Good Highly desirable; good form; minor deadwood. 353 Valley oak 19, 18, 15, 13 4 Good,~ Codominant trunks arising at ground level; one with multiple attachment at 2'; good overall form; minor deadwood. 354 Valley oak 31 4 Good Canopy one-sided; large scaffolds at right angles; low branches on downhill side. '- ~ Page 2 C\ ~ .....::. \J\ ~,. . jg1 ~ 'J-o/j . .Cjty..........Q_..........Dub'jn..... Wildfire Management Plan Developed by: The City of Dublin in cooperation \Mith the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority Adopted: duly 9, 1 996 Resolution No. 94-96 AtTACHMENT b ):3g- ~ 7- Vs \\"n.l)l'Il~E .\J..\,'\; ,\GE,\IE.:\T }lL\~ 1:\1 PI.E'-'I E\ L\ no~ GrlllEI.l!' ES JU:,...I'()'~lBl.r P,\I~ lll.~ . '1'1\11'(, ,\cru), -------.-....---......--...-.. --.-..:.'--.....---- ..........__...._-'--.~._..---...._~-----"'-----............:..._._.. . ...-.----.. "--- I - lriquiiiiAhoufFuture- . .. j Provide wildfifemanagefuerifguideliheto developer; City .Planning Development Developer Development Initiation . Developer makes proposal to city regarding the ownership of open lands (space). . Developer makes proposal to city regarding the source of maintenance for the open space. . Developer makes proposal to city regarding the funding source for open space maintenance. City Master Tentative Map or Tentative . City decides and records ownership of open space. .Planning Map, Approval . City decides and records maintenance source for . Fire open space. -Finance . City decides and records funding source for open space maintenance. . Certification that all fees are current. Developer Site Development Plan Submittal . Developer makes specific proposals for: - Design of the fire buffer zone. - Maintenance and irrigation plan for the fire buffer zone. , - Maintenance plan for open space. - Maintenance specifications. - Budget for the maintenance program, proposed. . Submits preliminary landscape plan for privately owned properties. . Submits a vicinity plan. City Building Plan Approval . Plans which meet the requirements of the Wildfrre -Planning .. Management Plan will be approved. -Fire . Certification that all fees are current. -Finance -Building City Final Construction Inspection and . Certification that all requirements are satisfied. -Fire Sign-Off . Certification that all fees are current. -Building -Finance Property Owner Transfer of Property . Notify purchaser of open space ownership, maintenance and funding responsibilities by recording on title. City Inspect Properties for Compliance . Inspection in conjunction with annual Weed . -Fire With Wildfrre Management Abatement Program. Requirements . Citizen complaint initiated inspections. - All permit applications generate inspections. City Evaluate Wildlife Habitat . Whenever a change is proposed by city or others, -Planning the impact on habitat will be reviewed. g: ladmin lchiejlwildfire. tab Page 1 J,. "jt/5 I !3 9 <:/0 CITY OF DUBLIN WILDFIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN PURPOSE . ,.".....--........,.""......................,..........,."".,.".....-........,......"'......."'......p......"....."'.............'.--.............."""",.....",."................."...-,..-.......".",. The purpose of this plan is to reduce the risk of open land wildfire to the lowest practical level consistent with reasonable protection of wildlife habitat and other open space values. AUTHORITY Adopted by the Dublin City Council Resolution Number 84-96 dated July 9. 1996. REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED This plan, when implemented, will create effects or satisfy requirements as follows: · Implementation of the Wildfire Management Plan is the responsibility of the City of Dublin. · Vegetation and habitat (in open space) will only change as a result of natural forces or other actions, since this plan does not impose requirements into open space. · This plan, when implemented, provides a Fire Buffer Zone between open space/undeveloped lands and developed properties; therefore, no additional brush control measures are required where this plan is utilized. Vegetation growth within areas affected by this plan will be monitored in two ways. First, all areas will be inspected in accordance with the Fire Department's Nuisance Abatement Program. Second, whenever any building, grading or other activity affects open space or Fire Buffers, it will be reevaluated. ' · Wildlife habitat will be evaluated by the City when any change is proposed in open space areas. APPLICABILITY This Wildfire Management Plan applies to all new development within the City of Dublin. DEFINITIONS Adiacent to Open Space - This refers to, commercial parcels and residential lots which have a point of contact with open space. Adiacent to Undeveloped land - This refers to, commercial parcels and residential lots which have a point of contact with undeveloped land. Fire Buffer Zone'" Areas A, B, C and D of the "Vegetation Establishment and Maintenance Guidelines" contained in this plan. City of Dublin Wildlfire Management Plan July 9, 1'996 Page 2 " J 'If) O{). Vj Irrigated - To supply water to the Fire Buffer Zone artificially by means of pipes, pumps, etc. landscape Plan - This plan specifies the plantings which are to be utilized in areas A, B, C and D of the Fire Buffer Zone. . Open Spa ce=}'OrpurpOsesof thIs-pian,'" openspac:els defrned as tf1oselands' whic:hareset asidel6 remain permanently undeveloped. Undeveloped land - For purposes of this plan, undeveloped land is that land which is available for development but no Tentative Map, Master Tentative Map or Development Agreement has been approved, and land designated for governmental use for which no development plan has been approved. Vicinity Plan - Areas within 300 feet of boundaries or property lines of subdivisions, commercial parcels and residential lots. Vicinity Plans include property lines, structures, slope, vegetation, fuel breaks, water supply systems and access roads. AL TERNA riVE METHODS An applicant wishing to use alternative methods shall ,submit their request to the Fire Chief in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code, Section 103 as amended. by the City or its designee. An applicant wishing to appeal a requirement placed upon them by the requirements of this plan shall .file their appeal in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code, Section 103 as amended by the City or its designee. OWNERSHIP AND FINANCING OF MAINTENANCE FOR OPEN SPACE The City requires that a responsible entity be selected or formed to be responsible for owning and maintaining open space. The City also requires that the owner of record and maintenance responsibilities to be disclosed to potential purchasers of property. Ownership of Open lands The City will evaluate each proposed project on a case by case basis to determine ownership_of open space affiliated with the project. A determinatron of ownership will be made in the Master Tentative Map development agreement, or in conjunction with tract map approval. Once ownership is determined, responsibility for maintenance will be assigned. City of Dublin Wildlfire Management Plan July 9, 1996 Possible Forms of Ownership The City will assign one or more forms of ownership to all open space as it is developed. City Owned - When the City determines that the needs will be best served by City ownership of the open space, the developer will be required to prepare the land according to all approved specifications and other requirements prior to transfer of ownership to the City. Page 3 Developer/Home Owner Association Owned - When the developer retains control of the open space, the City will require that the developer post a bond adequate to ensure Fire Buffer Zone . development. ... Thedevelopmenfagreement '01' site plan approval will specify performance standards for the developer to meet, regarding open space development. Other Governmental Agency Owned - Only with the City's approval can the ownership of open space be transferred to another governmental body. Possible Maintenance Sources Where not in conflict with other City policies maintenance of the open space will be the responsibility of one party. A determination of responsibility for maintenance will be made in conjunction with tract map approval or in the development agreement. City Provided - When the City elects to maintain open space, all associated expenses will be the responsibility of the City. Home Owner Association Provided - When the City requires a Home Owner Association to own open space, all maintenance will be in accordance with City specifications at the expense of the Home Owner Association. /'1/ ~'ivs Other Governmental Agency Provided - When the City approves ownership by a Governmental Agency, that Governmental Agency will provide maintenance. All maintenance will be in accordance with City specifications at the expense6fthatG6vefnmental Agency. Possible Funding Sources for Maintenance The City will determine which is the most appropriate method of funding open space maintenance on a case by case basis. Methods include: New Assessment District · Annex to Existing Assessment District · Privately Funded by a homeowner's association or similar body Other Funding Source Notice to Owners The developer will be responsible for disclosing to all purchasers of property the ownership and maintenance responsibilities and funding mechanism for open space which is affiliated with the purchaser's property. In addition to any notices required by law, this disclosure will be recorded on the title at time of sale of the property. PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Plans will be examined for compliance with the Wildfire Management Plan in accordance with the following schedule: Tentative Map Tentative map submittals will address the following issues: City of Dublin Wildlfire Management Plan July 9, 1996 Ownership of open space and Fire Buffer Zone · Maintenance of open space and Fire Buffer Zone Page 4 I" . Funding mechanism for maintenance of open space and Fire Buffer Zone. ... SitEl[)ElYElIc>prl1ElrltBElytElI,o\f , Plans submitted for site development review will address the following issues: Design of the Fire Buffer Zone · Maintenance and Irrigation Plan for the Fire Buffer Zone · Maintenance Plan for Open Space · Maintenance Specifications · Budget for the Maintenance Program Preliminary Landscape plan for privately owned properties · Vicinity Plan Building Plan Review Building plan submittals will address the following issues: 11/:< ~ ,J,tJ5 . Final Landscape plans Construction requirements for properties adjacent to open space and undeveloped lands . . Final ApprovafOfthe Completed ProiecfPrior to Occupancy All sites, tracts and buildings will be subject to a final inspection by each approving department. Departments will give final approval only after all conditions which have been placed on it by that department have been complied with. Fees All fees to all departments must be current before any of the following actions are taken: · Tentative Map Approval Site Development Review · Issuance of a Building Permit · Final inspection of a Completed Project prior to occupancy CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDINGS ON LOTS OR PARCELS ADJACENT TO OPEN SPACE AND UNDEVELOPED LAND Roof Covering Roof covering shall be Class A roof coverings. For roof coverings where the profile allows a space between the roof covering and roof decking, the space at the eve ends shall be fire stopped to preclude entry of flames or embers. Roof decking shall be solid. Space sheathing shall be prohibited. Protection of Eaves Eaves shall be protected on the exposed underside by materials approved for one- hour-rated fire-resistive construction. Fascias City of Dublin Wildlfire Management Plan July 9, 1996 are required and must be protected on the backside by materials approved for one-hour- rated fire-resistive construction or 2-inch (51 mm) nominal dimension lumber. Gutters and Downspouts Gutters and downspouts shall be constructed of noncombustible material. Exterior Waifs Exterior walls of buildings or structures shall be constructed with materials approved for one-hour-rated fire-resistive construction on Page 5 the exterior side or with noncombustible materials. Exception: Heavy timber construction. Such material shall extend from the top of the . fbUndation '. t6 theUndel'sideoftheroof . sheathing. Unenclosed Underfloor Protection Buildings or structures shall have all underfloor areas enclosed to the ground with exterior walls. Exception: Complete enclosures may be omitted where the underside of all exposed floors and all exposed structural columns, beams and supporting walls are protected as required for exterior one-hour-rated fire- resistive construction or heavy timber construction. Appendages and Projections Unenclosed accessory structures attached to buildings with habitable spaces and projections, such as decks, shall be of one- hour-rated fire-resistive construction, heavy timber construction or constructed with noncombustible materials. When the attached structure is located and constructed so that the structure or any portion thereof projects over a descending slope surface, the area below the structure shall have all underfloor areas enclosed to within 6 inches of the ground, with exterior walls. Windows Exterior windows, window walls and skylights shall be tempered glass or multilayered glazed panels. Exterior doors Exterior doors, other than vehicular access doors to garages, shall be non-combustible or solid core not less than 1-3/4" thick. When windows are within doors, they shall be of City of Dublin Wildlfire Management Plan July 9, 1996 /tjJ:~ Jitft tempered glass or multilayered glazed panels. Vents Attic.... ventilation op-enings;-foundation"'or- underfloor vents, or other ventilation openings in vertical exterior walls and vents through roofs shall not exceed 144 square inches each. Such vents shall be covered with noncumbustible corrosion-resistant mesh with openings not to exceed 1/4 inch. Attic ventilation openings shall not be located in soffits, in eave overhangs, between rafters at eaves, or in other overhang areas. Underfloor ventilation openings shall be located as close to grade as practical. Detached Accessory Structures and Fences Detached accessory structures located less than 50 feet from a building containing habitable space shall have exterior walls constructed with materials approved for one- hour fire-resistive construction, heavy timber construction or constructed with noncombustible materials on the exterior side. When the detached structure is located and constructed so that the structure or any portion thereof projects over a descending slope surface, the area below the structure shall have all underfloor areas enclosed to within 6 inches of the ground, with exterior walls. Fences shall be separated from the perimeter of buildings containing habitable space by connection to buildings as shown in Figure 1 when the fence is made of combustible material. Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems Automatic fire sprinkler systems shall be required in all buildings that are adjacent to open space or undeveloped land. The installation of the automatic fire sprinkler systems shall be in accordance with standards approved by the City. Page 6 6'-0' MIN. DEPTH OR REF"ER TO PROJE:CT SOILS REPORT. MASONRY Figure 1 City of Dublin Wildlfire Management Plan July 9.1996 1 24" L ~4' PLAN r 6L- 18' CISJ L24~ DIA. ELEVATION PILASTER I !If q{ ;..yj EXTERIOR BUILDING LINE 1/2' SPACE 4" EXTERIOR MINIMUM VENEER 4 - #5 MINIMUM 16' SQUARE CONCRETE BLOCK PILASTER EXTERIOR VENEER TO MATCH EXTERIOR FINISH (STUCCO, BRICK, STONE, ETC.) 24'X24'X18' CONCRETE GRADE BEAM NOTES' 1. FILL ALL CELLS 'WITH GROUT. 2. MORTAR ,SHALL BE GRADE 'N'. 3. CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 2500 psi. 4. REBAR SHALL BE GRADE 60. 5. NO SPECIAL INSPECTION. AT FENCE/BUILDING SCALE. 1'=1' Page 7 / f':5 15' ,2 V5 STANDARDS FOR VEGETATION ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE The City requires that all new development utilize the following standards for vegetation estabiishIDeni and maintenance. VEGETATION ESTABLISHMENT GUIDELINES VEGETATION ESTABLISHMENT GUIDELINES 0% TO 10% SLOPE 10% TO 20% SLOPE I ;~ i I I I I I ! I i ~! I I i I I I , A= The First 3 Feet Maintain an area of non combustible material - flowers, plants, concrete, gravel, soil, etc. B= 4 thru I3 feet Thin trees to 10 feet between crowns. Prune limbs of all remaining trees to 15 feet or one- third the total live crown height, whichever is less. B= c= 14 thru 30 feet Thin trees to 10 feet between crowns. Prune limbs of all remaining trees to 15 feet or one- third the total live crown height, whichever is less. c= D= City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan July 9, 1996 CCl'M<SI..OPE U>Sl.OPlO The shaded areas (upslope) of A, B, C and D remain a constant distance of30 feet combined. The shaded area begins from the midsection ofa structure_ The unshaded areas (downslope) ofB, C and D increase with slope as detailed below: A= The First 3 Feet Maintain an area ofnoncombustibJe material- flowers, plants, concrete, gravel, soil, etc. 4 thru 19 feet Thin trees to 10 feet between crowns. Prune limbs of all remaining trees to 15 feet or one- third the total Jive crown height, whichever is Jess. 20 thru 45 feet Thin trees to 1 0 feet between crowns. Prune limbs of all remaining trees to 15 feet or one- third the total live crown height, whichever is less. 46 thru 70 feet Thin trees to 10 feet between crowns. Prune limbs of all remaining trees to 15 feet or one- third the total live crown height, whichever is less. Page 8 VEGETATION ESTABLISHMENT GUIDELINES 20% TO 30% SLOPE DCMNSLOPE lJPSlOPE The shaded areas (upslope) ofB, e and D remain a constant distance oDD feet combined. The shaded area begins from the midsection of a structure. The unshaded areas (downslope) of B, e and D increase with slope as detailed below: A= The First 3 feet Maintain an area of noncombustible material- flowers, plants, concrete, gravel, soil, etc. B= 4 thru 24 feet Thin trees to 10 feet between crowns. Prune limbs of remaining trees to 15 feet or one-third the total live crown height, whichever is less. c= 25 thru 55 feet Thin trees to 10 feet between crowns. Prune limbs ofremaining trees to 15 feet or one-third the total live crown height, whichever is less. D= 56 thru 100 feet Thin trees to 10 feet between crowns. Prune limbs of all remaining trees to 15 feet or one- third the total live crown height, whichever is less, VEGETATION ESTABLISHMENT GUIDELINES GREATER THAN 30% SLOPE When developed, slopes of greater than 30% shall be evaluated on a case by case basis. City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan July 9, 1996 1'/6 06 ;,Y5 VEGETATION ESTABLISHMENT GUIDELINES IN OTHER OPEN SPACE 'Therearenorequirementsforvegetation reduction "Or modification in open space that is not affected by the guidelines for 0% to 10% Slope, 10% to 20% Slope, 20% to 30% Slope or Greater than 30% Slope. VEGETATION MAINTENANCE The city requires that a main~enance program be established for Fire Buffer Zone Areas A, B, C and D that will maintain plant species according to city approved specifications. Maintenance programs should specifically prevent the introduction of unapproved species and plan for removal ofbio mass, overgrowth and dead foliage. The maintenance program should also plan for the replacement of dead plants and plants which are beyond useful life. IRRIGATION Where required for the establishment and/or maintenance of plant species irrigation will be utilized. OPEN SPACE ACCESS All open space areas shall have two points of access suitable for wildland fire apparatus. Minimum unobstructed width of the access way must be 20 feet. Access points must be no more than 1500" from the furthest point of open space. Gates, when utilized, must meet the key control requirements of the rlIe department. ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF VEGETATION ON APPROVED LOTS 1. Plant species as shown for the area on the Plant Species List may be established or retained in the appropriate area. 2. Lawns and native grasses may be utilized in all areas, except Area A where native grass is prohibited, provided they are kept mowed to a height of three to four inches. When native grasses are utilized mowing will be limited to the months of May thru November. Page 9 /tJ1t:6 J~S ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF VEGETATION INTO PERMANENTLY DESIGNATED OPEN SPACE Where Fire Buffer Zones extend into designated open space the plantings established in the Fire Buffer Zone will include only native grasses and native trees shown on the Plant Species List. Grasses in the Open Space Fire Buffer Zone will be kept mowed to a height of three to four inches. Mowing will only occur from the months of May thru November. Where trees are established andlor maintained they will be estasblished and maintained in accordance with the appropriate zone. In Open Space where other than native grasses and native trees are utilized, plantings will be irrigated. ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF VEGETATION ON UNDEVELOPED LAND Where Fire Buffer Zones extend into undeveloped land the plantings established in the Fire Buffer Zone will include only native grasses and native trees shown on the Plan Species List. Grasses in the Undeveloped Land Fire Buffer Zone will be kept mowed to a height of three to four inches. Mowing will only occur from the months of May thru November. Where trees are established and maintained they will be established and maintained in accordance with the appropriate zone. In undeveloped land where other than native grasses and native trees are utilized, p-lantings will be irrigated. DISCING Discing is not permitted in any Fire Buffer Zone or Open Space for Fire Protection purposes. TREES Trees from the Plant Species List or trees with like characteristics may be utilized in any zone. City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan July 9, 1996 Page I 0 City of Dublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table Freeze Sensitive ,;,. Mineral Content " species appropriate for planting in conjunction with the "Standards for Vegetation Establishment and Maintenance Guidelines Name This table outlines plant High Moisture Content Characteristics Little Dead Matter Leaf (thick or large) Form (dense or low) Little Volume Form Common Name Species ~ Species Species - Latin Name AREA A ife. Irrigated flowers are the only suitable plant This area must contain non-combustible material yes yes yes yes no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no no - .... - AREA B '" ~ ~ ~ ~ 11 no Page no o o o o * * o o o o o o o * o o is suitable for all of the plant species shown for Area A above, and the following plant species. This area * * * * * sue Aeonium Aeonium arboreum- Atropurpureum '* * * * * sue Saucer Plant Aeonium undulatum * * * * * peren Lily of the Nile Agapanthus orientalis blue * * * * * peren Nile Dwarf Lily of the Agapanthus "Peter Pan' * * * o o sue Agave Agave americana "Alba Picata"* * * * o o suc Blue Agave Agave attenuata "Nova"* * * * * * sue Torch Aloe Aloe arborenseens * * * * * suc No Common Name Aloe "Johnson's Hybrid" * * * * * sue Aloe Aloe nobilis * * * * * sue Coral Aloe Aloe Striata * * * * '* sue Medicinal Aloe Aloe vera '* * * '* * sue Spider Aloe spinosissima Aloe X * '* '* o o tree Strawberry Tree Arbutus unedo o '* '* * '* gr cvr Capeweed Aretotheca calendua * '* '* * o o '* * '* '* gr cvr gr evr Sea Pink Sea Pink Almeria alliacea* Almeria maritma* City of Dublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table Freeze Sensitive - Mineral! High Moisture Content * Cha racteristics Little Dead Matter Leaf (thick or large) Form (dense or low) * Little Volume * Form Species Name Species - Common Name Speicies - Latin Name Content, * o gr cvr Sea Pink Annerica pseupaemeria (formosana) no o yes yes o o no o o yes yes o yes o yes o o yes o no yes o o yes yes yes o o no o o no no no '-" "I;;;:: "{\ '~ ~ ,.....:. 12 no Page no - o o o o * * peren No Common Name Dietes "Lemon Drop' * * peren YeHow Wild Iris Dietes bicolor * * peren White Fortnight Lily Dietes vegeta * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 7 * shrub Natal Plum Carissa grandiflora "Tutter" o * suc Fig Hottentot Carpobrofus edulis * * shrub Western Redbud Cercis occidentalis* * * suc Prostrate Mirror Plant Coprosoma kirkii "Verde Vista' * * suc No common name Cotyledon barbenyii * * suc No common name Cotyledon macrantha * * suc No common name Cotyledon orbiculata * * suc Silver Jade Plant Crassula arborescens * * sue Pin Jade Plant Crassula argentea "Pink Beauty' * * suc Crassula Crassula laetea * * sue Crassula Crassula lactea "Taylor's Patch' * * suc Crassula Crassula multicava * * sue Crassula Crassula tetragona * * sue White Trailing lee Plant Delospenna alba * * * * o * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * o * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * peren peren Ice Plant Ice Pant rosea Drosanthermum f10ribundum Drosanthermum hispidum City of Dublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table Mineral 1 Freeze COlltent i I Sen,m.. High Moisture Content '* Characteristics Little Dead Matter Leaf (thiel, or large) Form (dense or low) == * Little Volume * Form Common Name Name Species ~ Species Latin Name Speicies - no o o o no no no o no no o o no - o '* o no no no o no - o o o no no 7 o no o no oils 7 o no o yes o ......... ~ ~ ~ ~ 13 yes Page yes o o '* '* '* '* o o o o * '* '* * '* '* o * * * * * '* '* grd cvr Mock Strawberry Duchesnea indica '* * '* * grd cvr No Common Name Dymondia margaretae * * * * suc Echeveria Echeveria "Blue Wave' * * * * suc Echeveria Echeveria "Pinkie' * * * * sue Echeveria Echeveria "Topsy Turvy' 1 o ok ok peren Fleabane Erigeron "Moerheimii"* 7 o ok ok peren Santa Barbara Daisy Erigeron karvinskianus* * * o o shrub Pineapple Guava Fejoa sellowiana * o * * grd cvr Red Fescue Festuca ruba ereeping* * * * * grd evr Wild Strawberry Fragaria chileoensis* * o * * grd cvr Orange Gazania Gazania "Mitsuwa Orange' * o * * grd cvr Yellow Gazania Gazania "Mitsuwa Yellow' * '* * * peren Day Lily Hemerocallis (assorted) * * * * suc Red Yucca Hesperaloe parviflora * o o * vine Shiny Leaf Jasmine ligistifolium Jasminum o o * '* shrub Shore Juniper Juniperus conferta * * * * suc Kalanchoe Kalanchoe pumila o * * * pem Red Hot Poker Kniphofia uvaria * * * * suc Bush Gold Lampranthus aurantiacus * * * * * o * o sue tree Trailing Ice Plant Macademea Lampranthus speetabilis rosea Macademea "Dr. Beaumont' Freeze Sensitive yes yes no - Mineral Content o o o o City of Dublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table High Moisture Content '* o '* '* Characteristics Little Dead Matter '* Leaf (thick or large) '* Form (dense or low) Little Volume Form Species Name Species - Common Name Speicies - Latin Name '* '* suc Ice Plant Croeeum Malephora croeea * o * * grd cvr Myoporum Myoporum Parvifolium Prostrate * * * o * '* bulb Nerine Nerine masonorum no no no no no no no o o o o o o o * * o o o * * o o shrub Dwarf Pink Oleander "Mrs. Roeding" Nerium oleander * * o * o o shrub Dwarf Salmon Oleander Nerium oleander "Petite Salmon' * '* '* '* o o o '* * o peren Ivy Geranium Pelargonium peltatum o o peren New Zealand Flax Maiden' Phormium tenax "Maori o o peren New Zealand Flax Queen' tenax "Maori Phomium o o peren New Zealand Flax Sunset tenax "Maori Phormium o o shrub Dwarf Karo Pittosporum c. "Compacta' no no no no no "- (J', ...... ~ ~ '~ 4 no yes yes yes yes Page - o o o o o o o o o o o '* '* o * '* * '* '* '* * '* shrub Mock Orange tobira "Wheeler's Pittosporum Dwarf' '* o * o shrub Dwarf Pomegrante Punic a Granatum "Nana" * o * o tree Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia* o * * * o o o o shrub Evergreen Currant Ribes viburnifolium* * * grd cvr Fan Flower Seaevola "Mauve Clusters' o o tree California Pepper Schinus molIe * * * * sue Stonecrop Sedum acre * * * * sue Stonecrop Sedum album * '* * * * * * '* suc suc Stonecrop Stonecrop Sedum brevifolium Sedum confusum Arctostaphylos."Emerald Carpet"* Manzanita shrub * * o o Arctostaphylos 'Carmel Sur"* Manzanita shrub * * o o Ajuga reptans Carpet Bugle grd cvr * * o * Achillea taygetea Achillea tomentosa* Wooly Yarrow peren * * o * ;"Moonshine"* Achillea millefolium "Red Beauty"* Achillea millefolium white* Achillea millefolirm "Cerise Queen"* Red Yarrow peren * * o * is suitable for all of Pink Yarrow peren * * o * * * * * * * o o Yarrow White Yarrow * * * * * o * o Page 15 no no no no peren peren * * * * o o * * no no no no This area the plant species shown for Areas A and B above, and the following plant species. AREA C Yucca Whipplei* Yucca peren * o o * * * o o no Tulbaghia violacea "Silver Lace" Society Garlic peren o * o * * o * o no Trachelospermum jasminoides ; Thevetia peruvianja neriifolia Star Jasmine vine * * o o no Yellow Oleander shrub o o o * Senecia kleinia - 'Mandraliscae" No Common Name peren * * o * Senecio cinerea Dusty Miller peren * * o * Sedum spathulifoHum "Purpureum"* Stonecrop suc * * * * Sedum line are Sedum rosea Sedum rubrotinctUm Stonecrop Rose Root suc suc * * * * * * * * * * * o * o o o * o no yes no yes yes yes ~ ..,... " ~ ~ \ij ........ Stonecrop suc * Little Volume * Form (dense or low) * Leaf (thick or large) * Little Dead Matter * High Moisture Content o yes Speicies - Latin Name City of Dublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table Species - Species Name Common Name Form Characteristics Mineral Content Freeze Sensitive Eriogonum granui Eschscholzia ealiiorniea* Galvesia speeiosa* Iindheimerii * -'- Gaura Gaura peren Island Bush Snapdragon peren shrub California Poppy lora rubesens* Island Buckwheat shru b Eriogonum erOCll: 1* Coastal Wild Gum peren Elymus eondensnlll~ 'Canyon Prince"* No Common Name grd eve Diplaeus pueiceu~" Red Monkey Flower peren Diplaeus longifol .... Monkey Flower peren Coreopsis Ianeeo!i1la "Sun Ray" Coreopsis peren * * o o * * * * o * o o 7 * o Page no 6 o o * * o no * * * * o no * o o o o o o o o no * o o no * o o no o o o * o o o o o no o o o no * o * no Centranthus rubet "Albus" ---- Cheiranthus Erys 1m Cheiri Wallflower peren White Valerian peren Centranthus Centaurea gymnOl:.1I pa --- rubel Dusty Miller Red Valerian peren peren llneri* Atriplex semibael'al Australian Saltbrush shrub Atriplex muttalli g Saltbrush shrub Atriplex nuttalli CIIIIl:ata* Saltbrush shrub Artemisia pycnoccphala* No Common Name shrub Artemisia Cauca~ica Caucasian Sagebrush grd evr Artemisia "CanYlll i ray" * Silver Wormwood shrub ~ ~, '" ~ ~ \J) ....... Aretotheca ealen.! \\' oods Red"* .I Cape Weed grd evr 7 * o * * 7 7 * * * * * o * * * o * * o * * o * * o * * o * * o o no no no no * o * 7 o * 7 o * * o o * o o o o o o o o o * * * * * * * * yes yes yes yes no no * * * yes Arctostaphylos Manzanita shrub Little Volume 7 Form (dense or low) o Leaf (thick or large) o Little Dead Matter o High Moisture Content 7 Mineral Content no Freeze Sensitive Speicies - Latin City of Dublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table :'IiOlllle Species Species" Name Common Name Form Characteristics Page \l\ '":J-- ~ ~ ~ V\ ....... . , Species Name Cha racteristics Speicies - Latin Name Species - Common Name Form Little Form Leaf Little dead High Mineral Freeze Volume (dense (thick Matter Moisture Content Sensitive , or low) or large) Content Ganzania leucoleaha hybrids Trailing Yellow Gazania peren * * 0 * * 0 no Gazania regens leucolaena Trailing Gazania peren '* '* 0 '* '* 0 no , Geranium incanum Stork's Bill Geranium peren '* * 0 0 '* 0 no Geranium sanguuineum Geranium peren '* '* '* '* '* 0 no Helichrysum petio,latum "nana" Curry Plant annual '* '* 0 0 0 '* yes Heuchera maxima'" Coral Bells or Island Alum grd cvr '* '* '* '* 0 0 no I Root Iris "Pacific Coast Hybrids"* California Iris peren '* '* 0 '* '* 0 no Koeleria glauea* i Blue Hair Grass peren '* '* 0 '* 0 0 no Lantana motevidensis Lantana grd evr '* '* 0 0 '* 0 no Lavandula dentata French Lavender peren 0 0 0 0 '* '* no Lavandula stoeehas Spanish Lavender peren 0 0 0 0 '* '* no Limonium perezil' Statice peren '* '* '* '* '* '* yes ., ' Toad-Flax annual '* '* 0 0 '* 0 Lmana maroceana no Myoporum parvifollium "Prostratum" No Common Name grd evr '* '* '* '* '* 0 no Oenothera berlandieri Mexican Evening Primrose peren '* '* 0 * * 0 no Osteospemlum fntticosum African Daisy grd cvr '* '* 0 '* '* 0 no Pelargonium peltntum Ivy Geranium peren '* '* * '* '* 0 yes Penstemon "Fireb~rd"* Red Penstemon peren '* '* 0 '* '* 0 no Penstemon "Midnight"* Beard Tongue peren I '* '* 0 '* * 0 no Penstemon "Skyl~e"* Penstemon peren '* '* 0 '* '* 0 no City of Dublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table 17 Page Species Name Characteristics Speicies - Latin ~ame Species - Common Name Form Little Form Leaf Little High Mineral Freeze Volume (dense (thick Dead Moisture Content Sensitive or low) or large) Matter Content Penstemon heterophyllus* Penstemon peren * * 0 * * 0 no Perovskia atriplicifoIia Russian Sage peren 0 0 0 0 0 * no , Phyla nodi flora . Lippia grd cvr * * 0 * * * no i Rosmarinus officinaIis "Prostrata" Rosemary shrub * * 0 0 0 oils no Salvia "Allen Chickering"* Sage shrub ' 1 1 1 0 0 * no Salvia aurea Sage peren 0 0 * 0 0 * no . Salvia chamaedryoides Sage shrub * * 0 0 0 * no Salvia leucantha* Mexican Brush Sage shrub 0 0 0 0 0 * no Salvia leucopylIa* Purple Sage shrub 0 0 0 0 0 * no Salvia sonomensis "Dara's Choice"* Sage peren * * 0 0 0 * no SantoIin Chamaecyparissus Grey Lavender Cotton peren 0 * 0 0 0 * no Santolina virens Green Lavender Cotton peren 0 * 0 0 0 * no . Senecia "Vira- Vira" Dusty Miller shrub 0 0 0 * 0 * no Silene maritima No Common Name peren * * 0 * * * no Sisyrichium caIifomicum* Yellow-Eyed Grass peren * * 0 * * 0 no Stachysbyzantina Lamb Ears peren * * 0 * * 0 no Thyme praecox articus Thyme peren * * 0 * * oils no Thyme pseudolanuginosus Thyme peren * * 0 * * oils no Trichostema lanatum * Woody Blue Curls shrub 0 0 0 * 0 oils no Vinca major Periwinkle grd cvr * * 0 * * 0 no , Myrtle shrub 0 0 * * 0 Vinca minor . * no \i) ,~ N.' ~ \J) Iv-) ....... City of Dublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table 18 Page 19 "" ~ " ~ \Q Vl ......... Species Name Cha racteristics Speicies - Latin Name Species - Common Name Form Little Form Leaf Little High Mineral Freeze Volume (dense (thick Dead Moisture Content Sensitive or low) or large) Matter Content Yucca whipplei* Yucca peren * * * * * 0 1 AREA D This area is suitable for all ofthe plant species shown for Areas A, Band C above, and the following plant species. Alnus rhombif1oir~* White Alder tree 0 * 0 * * 0 no Arctostaphylos "Or. Hurd"* Manzanita shrub * * 0 7 0 0 no Arctostaphylos pajaroenses Pajaro Manzaita shrub 0 0 0 7 0 0 no "Paradise"* f Carpobrotus edulis lceplant Sea Fig sue * * * * 0 0 no Cercocarpus betulpides* Mt. Mahogany shrub 0 0 0 * 0 0 no Ceanothus "Anchc;>r Bay"* Mountain Lilac shrub * * 0 0 * 0 no Ceanothus "Frosty Blue"* Mountain Lilac shrub 0 0 0 1 * 0 no Ceanthothus "Joy~e Coulter"* Mountain Lilac shrub 0 0 0 0 * 0 no Ceanothus "Ray ijartman"* Mountain Lilac shrub 0 0 * 7 * 0 no Ceanothus "Snow! Flurry"* Mountain Lilac shrub 0 0 * 1 * 0 no Ceanothus "Wheeler Canyon"* Mountain Lilac shrub 7 7 7 7 * 0 no Ceanothus "Y ank~e Point"* Mountain Lilac shrub * *' 0 * * 0 no Ceanothus "Point Reyes" * Mountian Lilac shrub * * 0 0 * 0 no Ceanothus griseus horizontalis* Mountain Lilac shrub * * 0 0 * 0 no Heteromeles arbuUfolia* Toyon shrub 0 0 * * * 0 no Prunus lyonil* , Catalina Cherry shrub 0 0 * * * 0 no ; Quercus agrifolia. Coffee Berry shrub 0 0 * * * 0 no City of Dublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table Page 20 , Species Name Characteristics Speicies - Latin Name Species - Common Name Form Little Form Leaf Little High Mineral Freeze Volume (dense (thick Dead Moisture Content Sensitive , or low) or large) Matter Content Rhamnus crocea~ Redberry shrub 0 0 * * * 0 no Romneya coulterj* Matilija Poppy peren 0 0 * * * 0 no GRASSES Bromus carinatus California brome grass * 0 0 0 * 0 no Calamagrosti fol~()sa LeafY reed grass Calamagrostis nutkaensis Sand reed grass Danthonia californica California oat grass grass * 0 0 0 * 0 no Deschampsia caespitosa holcifonnis no common name grass * 0 0 0 * 0 no Elymus californicus California bottlebrush grass . Blue wildrye * 0 0 0 * 0 Elymus glaucus grass no Elymus triticoides Creeping wildrye grass * 0 0 0 * 0 no Elymus virescens Coastal wildrye grass * 0 0 0 * 0 no Festuca californica California fescue grass * 0 0 0 * 0 no Fescue californida California fescue grass * 0 0 0 * 0 no Fescue idahoensis 'Tomales Bay' Idaho fescue grass * 0 0 0 * 0 no Festuca rubra , Red fescue grass * 0 0 0 * 0 no ! Festuca rubra "Jana's Blue" Red fescue grass * 0 0 0 * 0 no Koeleria macrantha no common name i grass * 0 0 0 * 0 no Melica californica Western melic grass grass * 0 0 0 * 0 no Melka imperfecta Small flower melic grass grass * 0 0 0 * 0 no ~ ~ ~ "'-: VI , City of .publin Plant Species and Area of Use Table } Page 2 Sequoia sempervirens Coast Redwood Salix (free fonn)*;* Willows (tree fonn) Robiniana ambigua** Locust Hybrids Pyrus (deciduous) Pears Prunus (deciduous) Populus. Plums/Apples/Peaches Poplar/Cottonwood Note: Other trees that have the same characteristics as the Approval will be granted on a case by case bases. may be utilized. Pistachia chinensis Persimmon - Pistachio Persimmon Little dead wood in the tree canopy. accumulate dead wood. trees shown on this ist Liquidamber Sweet Gum . High moisture content of the foliage. content. The listed trees generally do not hold onto or Fraxinus (deciduous) Ash . Usually deciduous trees l1ave a higher moisture Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree - Aesculus califomiCa* Citrus (many) Orange, lemon, lime Buckeye . Leaf shape, and size whiCh make Growth structure which naturally provides for adequate separation between the tree canopy and ground (Citrus and Sequioa trees are exceptions). t less ikely to ignite. Generally leaves are big or thick. Acer (many)** Maple . Speices - Latin Name The following Species - is a list of trees that have a combination of characteristics which make Common Name Characteristics them less flammable and as such ate permitted in Areas B, C and D. 'LREES - "''\ -::>- <<. \c ~ ........ Stipa sps. Needlegrass grass * Little Volume o Form (dense or low) o Leaf (thick or large) o Little Dead Matter * High Moisture Content o Mineral Content no Freeze Sensitive Speicies - Latin Name Species - Common Name Form - City of Dublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table Species Name Characteristics sue Ground Cover Succulent Page 22 grd cvr peren Perennial SOIpe of this particular species are Native ** * Native '* o Ha? the Property Does Not Have the Property ().- \i\ Lege~d: "- 1 Unknown Property \~ '~ \) City of Dublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table r, ',',' ','--." If' '\'~" I \ t~\ f:~'- () ('l>. /60 ~ J~j Alameda ,county Fire Department Fire Prevention Division REMOVAL REQUIREMENTS Weed, Rubbish, and Litter Abatement Ordinance The following are the minimum reauirements for removal of weeds, rubbish, and litter. Please read the entire list as more than .one category may apply to your property. :Burnina is not allowed. except in agricultural applications and then by permit only. RUBBISH, LITTER AND DEBRIS o All Areas: Remove any rubbish, garbage, litter, junk , old building materials, or other items completely from the property and appropriately dispose of them. Keep maintained throughout the year. WEEDS AND OVERGROWN VEGETATION ~ All Areas: Prune any overgrown plants, shrubs or trees; remove cuttings and dead tree limbs. Keep maintained throughout the year. ~ Urban: Abate all exterior fire hazards; complete abatement may' include a combination of discing, mowing, and spraying. Remove from the property all dead trees and maintain weeds and other vegetation at a height 'Of no more than four inches (4"L Native shrubbery should be cleared to a distance of at least fifteen feet (15') from the structure. Maintain trees within one hundred feet (100') of any building, structure, or within ten feet (10') from any roadway, hIghway, street, alley, or driveway, so that no leafy foliage, twigs, or branches are with,in six feet (S') of the ground. Remove any portion of a tree that extends, within ten feet (10') of the outlet of a chimney or stovepipe. Keep all trees, shrubs, and other vegetation, or portions thereof adjacent to or overhanging any building or structure, free from dead limbs, branches, arid other combustible materials. Maintain 'five feet (5') of vertical clearance between roof surface and portions of trees overhanging any building or structure. Maintain roof of building or structure free of leaves, needles, twigs, or other combustible Utter. o Rural: Parcels, one acre or less, shall reqUire complete abatement of all exterior fire hazards. Parcels greater than one acre should provide a minimum twelve foot (12') firebreak. Firebreaks are to follow as closely as practical, the property line, along one side of fence lines, ditches, and on' top of ridges, or surrounding structures. Trees may be left within the firebreak and shall have low limbs trimmed up to a height of six feet (S'). All buildings and structures which are upon or adjoining hazardous fire areas, shall be maintained with, an effective firebreak by removing and clearing away. flammable vegetation and combustible growth from within thirty feet (30') of such buildings or structures. A firebreak of one hundred feet (100') may be required due to terrain, topographY, or fueL Where practical, prOVide twelve foot (i2') firebreaks from inside fence line along all public roadways. Combustible storage, such as usable lumber, cord fire wood, hay or straw, shall be neatly stacked an all combustible growth shall be removed from within fifteen feet (is') of the stored materials. ATTACHMENT 7 THE OFFICE OF ]EFFREYF. GAMBONI LANDSCAPEARCHITECr2702 CERTIFIED ARBoRlsT WC-520, 27 SEPTEMBER 2000 I~ L ?5)~j, Dennis Carrington Senior Planner ' City of Dublin P.O. Box 2340 DublinCA 94568 SUBJECT: Heritage Tree Protection Plan for Brittany Dmre Estates, Tract 5073 Mr. Carrington: Since we visited the site together on 21 September, I understmd that the Fire Marshall has returned to indicate with marking paint the minimum height at which branches must be cut to t;educe the fire danger. We discussed this issue during our visit and I am aware of the pruning cuts that will be required to achieve the clearances required by the Fire Marshall. We understood that au limbs must be removed that at7e within 6t -0" of the existing grade ,and I'm sure you'll agree that such pruning is necess2q to protect the health, safety and welfare of your residents. Your Heritage Tree Ordinance #29-99 specifically addresses this issue in section 5.60.50 under section (b )E:x:ceptions, paragraph (3): Normal rruUntenance proning of Heritage Trees shall not require a permit but shall in all cases be in CGnformance with the guidelines of the International Society of Aboriculture, Tree Pruriing Guidelines, current edition, on file in the community Development Department. This fire safety pruning, if exec;uted per the Guidelines noted, will not adversely affect the health of these Heritsge Tr.ees. We understand that the fire safety' pruning is separate from any other issues associated with these trees and that this fire safety pruning is required even if th,ese lots are not developed. I will conta:ct you after I visit the site on 27' September to review the painting marks. ~~ Landscape Architect ') Certified Arborist 3102 PACIFIC AVENUE STOCK:rON, CA 95204 TEL 209'.948.8335 FAX 209.465.2603 EMAIL GAMBONI@GOTNET.N.ET ATrACHMENT 8 Dec,06-00 09\20P Jeffrey Gamban; ..---- PA01 IbJ. ~ ;L~5 ft..n4,''bF~:i'(:Ed}o- jEFf"'Rgy F. GI\MBONI 1 ~A~tJS(5\ Pr<: AaC::1H'l'HCrl' 2702 . ,. -:.", '"-' .. ",-,,(, :HRTTFlED A.RBORISl" WC~520 . .;.' , ," - .: " :.. '.' , -'" ,~.;-..,::", ", ,.. .".".,. ".-'> ;'. ;. ." () Ui:!.tiEMBI'mZOOQ M.r. Eddie.: Peabody (:il1' ofJ)ublin P.O. nox 2J40 Dublill~C^ 9456H SUI~J Eel'; 'j Icntage"l'ie6 'Pr<.,fc<:tlt>li: Pfa11 for:nrilt.anynrivc"'Esr.atc"~ 'I'fact 5073, Pn.:parcd by I r ortScience and 1Cv1."led for Nm'embt:r 2000 1. 1 have revicMFcd'tJle r~\"iscd 'I'reel'f't)tcct1oQ.P!ilnnotedl1h()\,cand agnx: with rJ1C r<;visi()t~!; indicated. .p , 1.1 1 had prcviously r~4uested 11 !ilit~: plan irlClicaring the location of the b~nic, l"1,:11ceS around the tree." which hall now been provided. '1.2 I had a,;kcd that foliage rt.>mo'....m be restricted to m...'Cessary pruning with~)utalso rerm 1v111g t()liagc just [(') allow "lews through the canoptr.:s. This adr.litionalphiiling h<lsbccil eliminated. RChrarding the issueli (>f follil.b7f: loss.. it is imperative that tllt: R.>liage los:-; be " minimiif.~d rather than maximized to f't..'tain the vigor.of this specirJ'\(..'fl. Foliag(~rcmo\'aljhst t<.) open vkws is ,opt app!:'oi.:cd as an acceptable motive. fi't)liaf,~ remoyal at this time is apprn\'c:<1 only [00 l'latisfyfiu! r.equlr<.:rm::nts of the Fire Marshall and the pnttr.:ction of the public's health, ::;afcty ::tnti wclfl:lrc. 1.3 We a~rrcc with the removal of the secondary. (27") t1iJnk nftrce #340 Oil LOI 8 ~) the bal"C of the tn,'C. tJpon in~pcctioll we felt Lhat the secondary t~flh: W-as pt'(,bal?lyo11~~a ~cf.:ond tn:<..' that had {,l'tOW into the main t.ree as dl(.' trees d~:vd{)petl }UlG rhlll ihe rem~)",ttl'()f the scr;ondary tnI11k could be l~ccOltiplished Iv satisfy the detru~nds o( the Fire Marshall without t1ignificand}' affecting the remtlmmg troc bec,lu::;e <,>f l,hr..~ compa'Ct'll:lt:'nt~d1~at:i6n between the scctl11dary and primary trunk. ' 1.4 We had askt:d that the l:.lt'~'C (25'') scaffnld on lrcc.: #340 hcadinp; tov".ard Hritulny Lane not br..~ t"emnveu undf.~r any cirCumstatlCC~, especially since the KCCOlldllry (27') tnmk was being removed. This change i.~ noted in the ncw report. 1.5 Wl~ ft.~HlIesl that 'the tree pnmlng be JiTccteul)}' ft Ccrtifi~ A t:b()nst ,Ulcl adhere to the 'rrc~~ Yruni!"\~ (7ui~eJiIlc~ of thclllLernatirmai Society of Arborit:ulture and ANSI ^300., 1.() Potenlial neglltive impacls resulting from ptuning: the pnming of tree #340 is majOT surgct)' rC"luiring the n:mov~ll of a <<27~' trunkn from a 4()'1 d1amct('~1. trLln k. h( IWC\'cr we ngtt:<.: 30t2 P..\ClFrCAVHNuE S'!OCT<.."1'ONCA 95204 'l'w.209.94S.8335 flAX 2U9.465.2603 J ':lI.{,AU. G ,'L\1HONJ@<XJ'l'NTl:l'.Nl':1' ID)CITY OF DUBLIN A'ffACHMENT g DEC-06-2000 08:52PM TEL) PAGE: 001 R=99" ~', /:1: 20P Jeffrey Gamban;' P~02 /63 ~~ij Rr~Vll~\V: HERrr:\c:n'l'RgE PR(rmcrrON PU..N l~R.ITIAl'\Y ] JA"lE RnVIsr::n NOVEMlmn 2000 PA(~F, ZtJr2 G DECEMBER 2000 thal the live oak's vigorous condition bodes well fi')t" its abilit.y to compart.ll'lCnt-Alizr.: the wound and evt.'tlt W'l.lly ~eal over the pruning cuts. 1.7 ,Wc.~ -rcc..lueslco t,(pccifu:: t:,ruiJclines for tht: maintenat'l.{,:'~ of these trcct'. which have.: bCc..l1 prov'ided. Wf.~ have. 111,,0 l-ll:tggested ~i~ditiona:l mit.ig'tl.bm'] to perpr.:tuarc the oak gr/JVt~ wnu[J indude th.e: planting of }~dd1ti()tlal oak trees allht:l5c;: home sit.c... as part. nf thf.: future landscape improvcmt.:11ts. 1 believe this woulu need robe tn:atcd a.~ a condition of app'foval. In Cl mdu~i(m Wl: hclieve Ih~lt th(.~ :repnrl has now addr(:ssed our concerns ~lrId i:-: a balanct:d apprnllch fi)t" the ma1ntell211C'c of these I k-ritage '!'rc(:::;. ' ~' 3012 PACIFIC AV.f:i.NUE STOCKTO~ CA 95204 1'RL209.94A.8335 ,.',\X 209.465.2603 EMAU. GIlMBONI@GOTNJJ.'!'.:\1H'I' DEC-06-2000 08:52PM TEl) ID)CITY OF DUBLIN PAGE:002 R=99~ I'-Y ~ JJ~ TO: File t2f FROM: Eddie Peabody Jr., Community Development Director DATE: December 7,2000 SUBJECT: Tree Protection Plan for PAOO-009, Blue Mountain SDR The City's Arborist has reviewed and approved the Tree Protection Plan for the project. I have' reviewed the Tree Protection Plan and hereby approve it. g:\correspo\rd\ep\tree protection plan ATTACHMENT \ 0 IbS otf I- ~j AGENDA STATEMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: December 12, 2000 SUBJECT: ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2_ 3_ 9. RECOMMENDATION: 1. 2. 3. 4_ 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PUBLIC HEARING: P A 00-009, Black Mountain Development Site Development Review for seven single-family residences on existing lots on Brittany Lane (Report Prepared by: Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner/Zoning Administrator) 4_ 5. 6. 7. 8. Project plans Resolution of Approval Horticultural report dated July 5, 1985, prepared by Douglas Hamilton Tree Protection Plan Heritage Tree Ordinance Letter by Jeffrey Gamboni approving the Tree Protection Plan Alameda County Fire Department - Removal Requirements Letter September 27,2000, from Jeffrey Gamboni in support offire safety pruning Letter to File from Director approving the Tree Protection Plan Open public hearing Receive staff presentation and public testimony Question staff, applicant and the public Close public hearing Adopt Resolution (Attachment 2) approving the Site Development Review, subject to conditions Construction of seven single-family homes on seven existing lots created as lots 1 and 7 - 12 of Block 1 of Tract Map 5073. The lots are located at 11299 Rolling Hills Drive and 11151, 11159, 11167, 11175, 11183 and 11191 Brittany Lane. BACKGROUND: History: 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 1 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 ofthis project. City Council Resolution 82 - 85 set forth the conditions of approval COPIES TO: P A File Applicant Mailing list ATTACHMENT 'I ITEM NO. /~b ~ )~5 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. ' General Plan. The proposed residences are located on existing single family lots that were created in conformity with the Single Family Residential plan designation of the Dublin General Plan. Zoning, The proposed residences are located on existing single family lots that were created in conformity with the R-l Zoning District. MAJOR ISSUES The major issues Staffhas identified for this project are listed below. Each issue also has numbered sub- issues which will be addressed within the major issues' section: . Conformity of project with City Council Resolution 82-85 . Views/Height Limits . Grading . Heritage Trees/Tree Protection Plan . Project design CONFORMITY OF PROJECT WITH CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 82 - 85 The City Council adopted Resolution 82-85 on August 12, 1985 approving Tract Maps 5072,5073 and 5074. This project must comply with the conditions of approval of Resolution 82-85. The conditions that specifically apply to this project are listed below with statements regarding project conformity with them: Condition 3. This condition establishes the development regulations for this development. The regulations are: . Front yard setback is 20 feet. . Side yard setback is 5 feet minimum and 15 feet aggregate, . Street side yard setback is 15 feet. . Lots are subject to guidelines of the R-1 zoning district. . Lots must be 7,000 square feet in size and 70 feet in width. The proposed residences comply with all of these requirements and with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance adopted in 1997. Condition 4. Site grading aggregating in excess of fifty cubic yards and/or placement of ancillary detached structures aggregating in excess of 100 square feet in size located in excess of thirty-five feet from the principle residence established on the following lots shall not occur until a Site Development Review (SDR) application is processed according to Section 8.95.0 (now section 8.104) of the Zoning Ordinance (Site Development Review). Tract 5072, Block 1, Lots 1 & 4-6 Block 2, Lots 7-9 Tract 5073, Block 1, Lots 1,3,4 & 6-12 Block 2, Lots 1, 2, 12, 13 & 16-21 Tract 5074, Block 1, Lots 2-10 & 14-19 2 /t.1 ~"l/5 Block 3, Lots 1-16 & 18-22 Site grading of the lots in this project will exceed fifty cubic yards and therefore a Site Development Review is required for the residences. Condition 6, "The height of custom or modified homes shall not exceed twenty-five (25) feet as measured perpendicularly from natural grade. Skirt heights screening undeveloped, non-living space for custom or modified homes (measured from natural grade to finished floor elevations) shall not exceed a maximum of nine 9 feet. Deviation and/or refinement of these standards may be .considered as part of the Site Development Review process covering these lots." Natural Grade. This condition applies a 25-foot height limit with a maximum skirt height of9 feet as measured from natural grade. Natural Grade is defined by the Zoning Ordinance as the contour of the ground surface before grading. Common engineering practice is to define the ground surface before grading as ground that has never been graded or ground that has been graded pursuant to an approved grading permit so that there is a "new" ground surface. This new ground surface can then be used to determine Natural Grade. Grading. The site was graded between 1981 and 1985. ENGEO Incorporated is the geotechnical engineering, company that prepared the geotechnical engineering reports for the Hatfie1d- Investec subdivision including the subject Rolling Hills Drive lot and Brittany Lane Lots, The City retains Kleinfelder, Inc, to perform peer reviews of geotechnical engineering reports. That firm determined that the grading of the subject lots was done properly and meets current standard of engineering practice in the Bay Area. A field evaluation of the lots on Brittany Lane indicated that moderate amounts of fill were placed on the lots in 1985. Fill is estimated to be as follows: Lot Line Amount ofFill On average 6/7 2 feet 7/8 4 feet 8/9 8 feet 9/10 10 feet 10/11 1 feet 11/12 3 feet The fill is relatively shallow adjacent the sidewalk and increases with distance from the sidewalk. The fill terminates in a lip and then falls rapidly down to the original ungraded surface of the ground. There may have been some undocumented placement offill since 1985 by persons unknown. A condition of approval requires that any undocumented fill be removed during the grading for this project. This will result in the re-creation of the 1985 ground surface that was approved by the grading permit at that time. As such Natural Grade would be as determined in 1985. The cross sections for each lot in the bound project plans show the 1985 ground level. A condition of approval requires that the houses be built at the elevations shown on the project plans. 3 !bg- 4 ;.L{> Flexibility of Condition 6 is appropriate. Condition 4 of this resolution identifies 64 lots for which a Site Development Review will be required. An analysis of these 64 lots reveals that 55 of them have either flat pad or stepped pad foundations. The other 9 lots (six of which are included in this project) are lots characterized by no or minimal building pads and steep slopes. A typical two- story residence on a flat or stepped pad foundation can easily conform to the 25-foot height limit. A residence on a steeply sloping lot would only conform to the 25-foot limit if it resembled a stairway with shallow treads and had rooms that were not very usable. In Staff's view Condition 6 anticipated this situation and provided for deviation and/or refinement of its standards pursuant to Site Development Review. Staff feels the deviation or refinement of the twenty-five foot limit is appropriate for steep slope situations and that it was the intent of the condition to allow for deviation or refinement of this standard to allow construction of residences with usable floor plans on sloping lots, Deviation and/or refinement. Condition 6 allows the deviation and/or refinement of its standards to be considered as part of the Site Development Review (SDR) process covering these lots. Staff is recommending that Section 8.36,ll0.C.2 of the Zoning Ordinance be applied to this SDR. The section, "Residential exception - Sloping Lots" allows the maximum height for any dwelling to be increased when the average natural slope of a proposed building envelope is 15 percent or more, as follows: Bryce Davies home. Staff used Section 8.36.110,C.2 to approve a Site Development Review to permit a single-family residence at 11197 Brittany Lane (Lot 6 of Block 1 of Tract Map 5073), which is adjacent to Lot 7 of this project. That residence was similar in height, design and size to the proposed residences. It is located on a lot with slopes in excess of30% like the subject lots. The Bryce Davies residence, when built, will have the presence on the Brittany Lane frontage of a single story home. StafIapplied Section 8.36.110.C.2 in light of Condition 6 of City Council Resolution 82 - 85 and approved the project on January 15, 1999. Staff discussed the Bryce Davies home proposal with most of the nearby residents before approving the project. There were no appeals of the staff approval. , Impacts to views minimized. Statfworked with the applicant/developer to site the residences as low on the lots as possible in order to preserve views. Even though the residences are proposed to be located according to the existing natural grade of the lots, impacts to views will be minimized. This project contains 2 lots with slopes exceeding 22,5 % and Slots exceeding 30%. These homes could be 35 and 40 feet high. The Zoning Ordinance permits the proposed homes on these lots pursuant to the height exception. It should be pointed out that the seven homes have roof peaks that average 13.6 feet below the height allowed with the height exception because the building pads are located down slope from Brittany Lane. The residences are designed to appear from the street as single story homes. They average 13.16 feet high when viewed from the sidewalk on Brittany Lane and 15.4 feet high at the front porch. Hip roofs are incorporated into the design of the homes to provide minimum interference with views. The project plans provide profiles for each proposed 4 Ib1 ~ )Y1 residence to show impacts to the views of the homes on the opposite side of Brittany Lane, Staff feels that the project minimizes impact to views of residences on Brittany Lane. .. Condition 6 complied with. Staff feels that the project has been designed in compliance with Condition 6. The deviation and/or refinement of the standards is appropriate. The project is well designed, well sited and minimizes impacts to the views of neighbors on the north side of Brittany Lane. Condition 7. 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 ofthe developer. Fencing installed by the developer at the bottom or top of slopes higher than ten feet, and/or fences of rear yards with a high visibility from adjoining down slope 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. A condition of approval of this SDR will address this issue. Condition 12. The twelve custom lots proposed for development within this project are subject to individual, or grouped Site Development Review applications pursuant to Section 8.95.0 (now 8.104) of the Zoning Ordinance. Grading ,for these lots shall be minimized to the greatest extent possible while creating reasonably sized, functional exterior living areas (padded yard areas and/or raised deck areas). A Site Development Review is being required for this project. Grading will be limited to the placement of the residences and driveways on the lots. 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. This will minimize grading impacts to the lots. Functional padded exterior living areas are proposed in the front yards and in raised deck areas. Condition 16. Project grading performed within 25 feet ofthe drip line of existing onsite or offsite trees shall be addressed by a horticultural report and the recommendations and findings of that report incorporated into the grading and improvement plans of this project. A horticultural report dated July 5, 1985, was prepared by Douglas Hamilton (Attachment 3) for Tracts 5072, 5073 and 5074. A Tree Protection Plan (Attachment 4) dated received December 4,2000, was prepared by Nelda Matheny ofHortScience for this project. The project was designed pursuant to the Tree Protection Plan. Conditions of approval of the SDR will ensure that the requirements of the Tree Protection Plan are implemented. Condition ,19. 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. A condition of approval of this SDR will address this issue. 5 /?D ~ )L/j Views/Height Limits Residents across the street from the Brittany Lane lots have expressed concern that the proposed residences will impact views from their homes. As stated above, Staff has worked with the developer to design and site the proposed homes to minimize impacts to views and to conform to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and any conditions of approval of earlier permits that apply to this project Residents of Brittany Lane have raised two interrelated concerns relating to this issue. 1. Natural Grade is defined as ground surface that has never been graded. Neighbors have met with Staff and stated that they feel the heights of structures should be measured up from the ground surface which has never been graded. They have stated that ground surface before grading means ground surface before any grading. Staff has related to the neighbors, as stated above, that a new ground surface can be created pursuant to a valid grading permit which is what occurred in 1985 when these lots were created. As such the heights ofthe residences should be measured from the new natural grade. It should be pointed out that if soil were removed to build the homes at the grade that existed before any grading,' the houses would not be lowered a great deal in many cases and that the removal of the soil could potentially destabilize Brittany Lane. Soil was placed in a keyway on the subject parcels to provide support for the newly created Brittany Lane and the lots facing it. 2. The implications of the terms "Shall" and "May" in Condition of Approval Number 6. "Shall" vs. "May". The current Zoning Ordinance states that the term "Shall" is mandatory and that the term "May" is permissive and discretionary. Residents opposite the proposed project have spoken to Staff and have said that they interpret these words to say that that the twenty-five foot height limit is required by the word "Shall" and is therefore mandatory. They believe the use of the word ''May'' allowing a deviation is permissive and discretionary. They say that the mandatory "Shall" has precedence over the discretionary "May" and therefore that no deviation or refinement of these standards should be considered as. part of the SDR process. As stated above, Stafffeels the intent of Condition 6 was to provide flexibility in steep slope situations when application of the 25 foot height standard would make construction of a residence impractical. As such, Staff is of the opinion that the discretionary term "May", as applied in this condition, does apply and is not superceded by the term "Shall". Hence, a deviation can be applied via Site Development Review. Grading. Two concerns about grading have been related to Staffby residents of Brittany Lane: 1. Concerns about improper placement of soil. Concerns have been raised that soil was improperly placed on the six Brittany lane lots when they were graded in the past. ENGEO Incorporated is the geotechnical engineering company that prepared the geotechnical engineering reports for the Hatfield-Investec subdivision including the subject Rolling Hills Drive lot and Brittany Lane Lots. The City retains Kleinfelder, Inc. to perform peer reviews of geotechnical engineering reports. That firm determined that the grading ofthe subject lots was done properly and meets current standard of engineering practice in the Bay Area. Kleinfelder does recommend that supplemental grading be undertaken to remove the area of boulders on Lots 8 and 9 and to re-grade the area prior to commencing of construction on these lots. This recommendation is a condition of approval of the Site Development Review. 6 /11 4 ;.~7 2. Concern about soil being placed within driplines of Heritage Trees. Concerns have also been raised that soil was placed within the driplines of Heritage Trees on this project. A review of the 1985 grading plans and the grading plans for this project by Public Works and Planning staff and a field trip by Planning staff have determined that no soil was placed within the driplines of any Heritage Trees on this project site. Heritage Trees/Tree Protection Plan Concerns of residents. Residents of Brittany Lane have expressed concerns to staff that pruning of the Heritage Trees on the project site will harm the trees. Staffhas worked closely with the Applicant/Developer; the Applicant'sarborist, the City's arborist and the Fire Marshall to ensure that any pruning of the Heritage Trees will not harm them. A Tree Protection Plan was submitted to the City and reviewed by the City's arborist. The arborist had several concerns with the original draft of the Plan and requested changes. A revised Tree Protection Plan was submitted to the City's arborist for review. The City's arborist submitted a letter (Attachment 6) dated December 6,2000, stating that he believes the Plan has now addressed his concerns and is a balanced approach for the maintenance of the Heritage Trees. A separate letter (Attachment 8) from the City's arborist dated September 27,2000, stated that the proposed fire safety pruning, if executed per the Guidelines noted (of the Tree Protection Plan), will not adversely affect the health of these Heritage Trees. Heritage Tree Ordinance. The City Council adopted the Heritage Tree Ordinance (Attachment 5), Ordinance 29 - 99, on December 21, 1999. The ordinance was adopted because "the city has many Heritage Trees, the preservation of which is beneficial to the health and welfare of the citizens of this city in order to enhance the scenic beauty, increase property values, encourage quality development, prevent soil erosion, protect against flood hazards and the risk of landslides, counteract pollution in the air and maintain the climatic balance within the City." The sections of the Heritage Tree Ordinance that are pertinent to this project are as follows. Please refer to these sections in the Ordinance (Attachment 5). The report will address how each section is complied with by the Tree Protection Plan: . Section 5.60.40 - Definitions. Heritage Tree . Section 5.60.50 - Tree Removal Permit Required . Section 5.60.80 - Protection of Heritage Trees during construction. . Section 5.60.90 - Protection plan required prior to issuance of permit . Section 5.60.100 - Applicant to guarantee protection - security deposit Compliance with Section 5.60.40 - Definitions. Heritage Tree. Nineteen oak trees are identified by the Tree Protection Plan within this project. Twelve ofthose trees are Oaks are over 24 inches in diameter measured 4 feet 6 inches above natural grade and therefore meet the definition "a" of a Heritage Tree. All nineteen trees will be designated as Heritage Trees by a condition of approval of this Site Development Review. Compliance with Section 5.60.50 - Tree Removal Permit Required. The Heritage Trees on site will not be removed as part ofthis project but, if the project is approved, must be pruned in order to meet the requirements of the 1997 Fire Code. A portion of Tree 340 will be removed pursuant to the Fire Code and to Section 5.60.50,b.1 of the Heritage Tree Ordinance. It is technically a separate trunk from the main trunk of Tree 340. The trunk to be removed and the remainder of Tree 340 are treated as one tree in the 7 I?~ o(}Q5 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 trunk is permitted by the Director as part of this Site Development Review pursuant to Section 5.60.50.b.l of the Heritage Tree Ordinance that allows removal of a Heritage Tree if it presents an immediate hazard to life or property. Compliance with Section 5.60.80. Heritage Trees required to be retained pursuant to this Site Development Review will be protected during demolition, grading, and construction operations. The Tree Preservation Guidelines of the Tree Protection Plan have been incorporated as conditions of approval to ensure that the Heritage Trees are protected during demolition, grading, and construction operations. Compliance with Section 5.60.90. A Tree Protection Plan (Attachment 4) was prepared for this project by Nelda Matheny, a certified arborist and submitted on December4, 2000. The plan was peer-reviewed for the City by Jeffrey Gamboni, a Certified Arborist. His letter approving the Tree Protection Plan is attached to this report as Attachment 6. Mr. Gamboni has reviewed and accepted the Tree Protection Plan. The Director of Community Development has approved that Plan (Attachment 9). The cost of the review was paid for by the applicant/developer. A condition of approval requires that Heritage Trees shall be pruned in conformance with the Wildfire Management Plan. All pruning shall be completed by a Certified Arborist 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. A condition of approval requires that if damage should occur to any tree during construction it shall be immediately reported to the Director of Community Development so that proper treatment may be administered. The Director will refer to the City Arborist to determine the appropriate method of repair of any damage. The cost of any treatment or repair shall be borne by the developer/applicant responsible for the development ofthe project. Failure to do so may result in the issuance of a stop work order. Compliance with Section 5.60.100. A condition of approval of this Site Development Review requires that the applicant/developer shall guarantee the protection of the Heritage Trees on the project site through placement ofa 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. Uniform Fire Code. The City adopted the 1997 Uniform Fire Code (Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 5.08) in November 1999. The Fire Code authorizes the Fire Chiefto require removal of combustible vegetation or to create fuel breaks. Pursuant to this authority, the Fire Marshall has established Removal Requirements (1997 Uniform Fire Code section 1103 .2.4)(Attachment 7). The Removal Requirements require weeds within 100 feet of a structure to be cut to 4 inches and trees within 100 feet of any structure to be pruned to remove any branches within 6 feet of the ground. This requirement ofthe Fire Code is intended to counteract the "Ladder Effect" of fires. The ladder exists when litter on the ground, grasses and low-hanging foliage of trees provide a path for fire to the crown of the tree. A fire in the litter will catch the grass on fire and then the grass will ignite the foliage of the tree. When the crown catches fire, 8 ! 1:3 ~ I}Vj the fire can spread to crowns of other trees. Cutting weeds to a height of 4 inches and removing any branches within 6 feet of the ground prevents the ladder effect and saves the tree and nearby structures from burning. This provision of the 1997 Uniform Fire Code is meant to protect structures but it also benefits the tree in the long run. Wildfire Management Program. The City adopted the Wildfire Management Plan by Resolution 84-96. The Wildfire Management Program contains a r~quirement that trees be thinned to 10 feet between crowns and that limbs or remaining trees be pruned to 15 feet or one-third the total live crown height, whichever is less. The Fire Marshall has told Staff that this standard is only used in areas that are heavily forested and not in urban areas such as where this project is located. This standard will not be applied to this project. Tree 340. Staff met with the Applicant/Developer, a Certified Arborist from HortScience representing the developer, Jeff Gamboni and the Fire Marshall at the project site to discuss impacts to Tree 340 which is the largest tree in close proximity to a proposed residence. The Certified Arborist sprayed Tree 340 in locations where pruning should occur. It was agreed at that time that the following conditions of approval would be included in the Resolution of Approval: 1. The major scaffold on Tree 340 pointing north toward the proposed residence on Lot 8 shall only be trimmed 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 so much foliage had to be trimmed that, in the opinion of the consulting arborist and the City's arborist, it was necessary. If said major scaffold projects to within 5 feet of the residence, the residence shall be modified to move it until it is at least five feet from the furthest extent offoliage of said limb. 2. All cuts on Tree 340 shall be as marked in yellow on that tree and as agreed upon with the City of Dublin. Any changes to the pruning of the tree can only occur with the concurrence of the arborist and the City's arborist and the City of Dublin. PROJECT DESIGN The proposed residences are well designed and sited. Staff met with the applicant/developer and his architect on several occasions and refined the designs of the residences. The 3,400 square foot four bedroom homes are quite attractive and will complement the architectural quality of the surrounding neighborhood. The design elements are shown in colored renderings in the bound project plans. 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 the other side of 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-family home. They average 13.16 feet high when viewed from the sidewalk on Brittany Lane and 15.4 feet high at the front porch. Landscaping plans have been prepared by Gates and Associates and will provide an attractive landscape presence on Brittany Lane. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The environmental impacts ofthis project were addressed under the Negative Declaration prepared for the P A 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 9 /11 ~ J.~6 15304, Class 4, minor public or private alterations in the condition ofthe land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry and agricultural purposes. Specifically, Example "I", 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 of a structure if the public agency having fire protection responsibility for the area has determined that 100 feet offuel clearance is required due to extra hazardous fire conditions. This project is adjacent to a wildfire area and the 1997 Uniform Fire Code requires 100 feet offuel clearance for this project. CONCLUSION: The project is in conformity with the Dublin General Plan, City Council Resolution 82-85, the Zoning Ordinance and with the Heritage Tree Ordinance. The homes are well sited and designed. Impacts to views will be minimized. RECOMMENDATION: Open public hearing, receive staff presentation and public testimony, question staff, applicant and the public, close public hearing and adopt Resolution (Attachment 2) approving the Site Development Review, subject to conditions. GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: Jeff Woods Black Mountain Development 12 Crow Canyon Court, Suite 207 San Ramon, CA 94583 LOCATION/ ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER: The lots to be developed have the following addresses and Assessor's Parcel Numbers: LOT ADDRESS ASSESOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 11299 Rolling Hills Drive 11191 Brittany Lane 11183 Brittany Lane 11175 Brittany Lane 11167 Brittany Lane 11159 Brittany Lane 11151 Brittany Lane 941-2775-30 941-2775-36 941-2775-37 941-2775-38 941-2775-39 941-2775-40 941-2775-41 EXISTING ZONING: R-l GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential LV /J5 < ;d5 RESOLUTION NO. 00 - 71 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING P A 00-009 BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR SEVEN SINGLE-F AMIL Y HOMES ON EXISTING LOTS ON BRITT ANY LANE 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 Review is available and on file in the Dublin Planning Department; and WHEREAS, The environmental impacts of this project were addressed ooderthe Negative Declaration prepared for the P A 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 "I", 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 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 1997 Uniform 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 WHEREAS, the project is consistent in all respects with Dublin General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the project is consistent in all respects with the conditions of approval of City Council Resolution 82-85; and WHEREAS, the project is consistent in all respects with the Heritage Tree Ordinance; and 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 A1TACHMENT I ^' 116 ~I-Y~ Development Review subject to conditions prepared by Staff; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgement and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding said proposed Site Development Review: A. The approval of this application (P A 00-009) is consistent with the intent/purpose of Section 8.104 (Site Development Review) of the Zoning Ordinance. B. The approval of this application, as conditioned, complies with the policies ofthe General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, the Heritage Tree Ordinance and City Council Resolution 82-85. C. The approval will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare because all applicable regulations will have been met. D. Impacts to views have been addressed by sensitive design and siting of the proposed single- family residences. E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed in the project through the use of pier and grade beams and by minimal grading to site the homes and front yards. F. The approval of this application, as conditioned, is in conformance with regional transportation and growth management plans. G. The approval ofthis 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 ap.d implements the requirements of the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, the Heritage Tree Ordinance and City Council Resolution 82-85. H. The proposed physical site development, including the intensity of development, site layout, grading, vehicular access, circulation and parking, setbacks, height, walls, public safety and similar elements, as conditioned, 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. J. Landscape considerations, including the locations, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant materials, provisions and similar elements have been considered to insure visual relief and an attractive environment for the public. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find that: A. The Black Mountain Development Site Development Review is consistent with the intent of 2 /11 ~ )~j 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 Dublin Zoning Ordinance. D. 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 padded exterior living areas are proposed in the front yards and in raised deck areas. Therefore the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of single-family residential development proposed. E. The environmental impacts of this project were addressed under the Negative Declaration prepared for the P A 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 ofthe land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry and agricultural purposes. Specifically, Example "I", 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 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 1997 Uniform Fire Code requires 100 feet of fuel clearance for this project. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE City of Dublin Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves the Site Development Review Application for P A 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 December 4, 2000, the Heritage Tree Protection Plan for this project dated received December 4, 2000 and the Site Development Plan by RMR Design Group dated received December 4, 2000 by the Department of Community Development, unless modified by the Conditions of Approval contained below. CONDITIONS OF APPROV AL Unless otherwise stated. all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to final occupancy of any building and shall be subiect to Planning Department review and approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance with the Conditions of Approval: rPL 1 Planning. rBl Building. rpOl Police. [PWl Public Works. rADMl Administration/City Attorney. rFIN] Finance. rpCSl Parks and Community Services. rFl Al~meda County Fire Dept.. rDSRl Dublin San Ramon Services District. 3 1'/ g- ~ )- ~)5 [CO] Alameda County Flood Control and water Conservation District Zone 7. GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. Standard Conditions of Approval. Applicant/Developer shall comply with all applicable City of Dublin Standard Public Works Criteria (Attachment A). In the event ofa conflict between the Public Works Criteria and these Conditions, these Conditions shall prevail. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Approval of Improvement Plans through completion 2. 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 3. Term. Approval of the Site Development Review shall be valid for one year from approval by the Planning Commission. If construction has not commenc,ed 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 4. Fees. Applicant/Developer 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. Responsible Agency: Various When Required: Various times, but no later than Issuance of Building Permits 5. 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 6. 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 7. Building Codes and Ordinances. All project construction shall conform to all building codes and 4 J?1~;Z~~ ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. Responsible Agency: Bldg. When Required: Through Completion 8. Compliance. ApplicantlDeveloper shall comply with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance, City Council Resolution 82-85, 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 9. 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. ApplicantlDeveloper will be responsible for obtaining the approvals of all participating non-City agenCies. Responsible Agency: PW, PL, Bldg. When Required: Building Permit Issuance 10. Solid WastelRecycling. Applicant/Developer shall comply with the City's solid waste management and recycling requirements. Responsible Agency: ADM, When Required: On-going 11. Refuse Collection. The refuse collection service provider shall be consulted to ensure that adequate space is provided to accommodate collection and sorting of petrucible 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 12. Water Quality Requirements. All development shall meet the water quality requirements of the City of Dublin's NPDES permit and the Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program. Responsible Agency: PW, PL Required By: Issuance of Grading Permit 13. NPDES Permit. Pursuant to requirements of federal law, a NPDES permit shall be obtained from the R WQCB, and any terms of the permit shall be implemented, if applicable. Responsible Agency: PW Required By: Finaling Building Permits 14. Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental Assessment Studies. Applicant/Developer shall supply the Director of Community Development and Public Works Department with a copy of the Developer's Phase 1 and Phase 2 (only as required by Phase 1) environmental assessment studies. All remediation required by those studies shall be implemented to the satisfadion of the Director of Public Works prior to Improvement Plan approval. Responsible Agency: PL, PW Required By: Issuance of Grading Permit 15. Rodenticides and Herbicides. The use of roden tic ides and herbicides within the project area shall be performed in cooperation with and under the supervision of the Alameda County Department of 5 /gO ~ 1~5 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 16. Dust Control/Cleanup. Applicant/Developer 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 'of Public 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 clean-up and charging the costs of such clean-up to Applicant/Developer. 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 17. Hold Harmless/Indemnification. Applicant/Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board, Planning Commission, City Council, Director of Community Development, 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 DRAINAGE/GRADING 18. 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 19. Compliance. The Applicant/Property Owner shall comply with the City of Dublin Public Works Department grading permit process ,and Plan Check-List. An information packet outlining the grading permit process and Plan Check List is attached. Responsible Agency: PW Required By: Grading Permit 20. Undocumented fill. 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. 21. 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 6 jff/o( J.45 relationship to the street shall terminate with City-approved energy-dissipation devices or per a design that prevents erosion ofthe natural downslopes. No water from subdrains or from earthen swales shall discharge in a concentrated manner over and across the natural slopes below the proposed building envelopes. No surface storm runoff shall be directed towards or across the neighboring sideyard lot lines. Responsible Agency: When required: PW Prior to issuance of Building Permits. 7 Ig-~ ~ )~7 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 present to people. Other surface boulders that may be discovered on the existing slopes shall be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer to determine whether a hazard potential will exist if left in place. The Director of Public Works shall concur with the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer with respect to any boulders or other topographic features proposed to remain. Responsible Agency: PW When required: Prior to issuance of Building Permits. DEDICATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS 23. 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 Management 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 24. Mitigation Measures/Drainage Impacts. Applicant/Developer shall demonstrate to the 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. All drainage improvements shall be constructed to the satisfaction to of the Director of Public Works. Responsible Agency: PW Required By: Occupancy of any Building 25. Retaining Walls. Where finish grade ofthis 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 26, Joint Utility TrencheslUndergroundinglUtility Plans. ApplicantlDeveloper shall construct all joint utility trenches (such as electric, telephone, cable TV, and gas) in accordance with the appropriate utility jurisdiction. All 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 Warks 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 27. 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 per 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 not exceed 12%. Responsible Agency: PW When required: Prior to issuance of Building Permits. 28. 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 8 Ig~ ~ j-~j prepared by Engeo titled "Foundation Exploration, Bordeaux Estates, Dublin California" dated April 6, 2000. The responsible geotechnical engineer shall certify on the building plans that all proposed grading, site development, and foundation work conforms to the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. Responsible Agency: When required: PW Prior to issuance of Building Permits. 29. 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. 30. Steep inclines. Grading which results in slope inclinations that are steeper than presently exist will 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 31. 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 the 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 32. 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 33. Construction Noise Management Program/Construction Impact Reduction Plan. The following measures shall be taken to reduce construction impacts: Responsible Agency: PL Required By: During any construction a. Off-site truck traffic shall be routed as directly as practical to and from the freeway (1-580) 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 9 ;gt.j c6 )~? obtained from the City prior to hauling of any oversized loads on City streets. b. 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. c. Construction equipment shall not be left idling while not in use. d. All construction equipment shall be fitted with noise muffling devises. e. Erosion control measures shall be implemented during wet weather to assure that sedimentation and erosion do not occur. f. Mud and dust carried onto street surfaces by construction vehicles shall be cleaned-up on a daily basis. g. Excavation haul trucks shall use tarpaulins or other effective covers. h. Upon completion of construction, measures shall be taken to reduce wind erosion. Replanting and repaving should be completed as soon as possible. 1. Houses will be constructed in phases such that most of the construction traffic can be routed into the subdivision without traveling in front of existing homes that are occupied. J. After grading is completed, fugitive dust on exposed soil surfaces shall be controlled using the following methods: k. Inactive portions of the construction site should be seeded and watered until grass growth is evident. L Require that all portions of the site be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. m. On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 mph. n. Use of petroleum-based palliatives shall meet the road oil requirements of the Air Quality District. Non-petroleum based t<;tckifiers may be required by the Director of Public Works. o. 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 concemsin 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. p. Construction interference with regional non-project traffic shall be minimized by: q. Scheduling receipt of construction materials to non-peak travel periods. r. Routing construction traffic through areas ofleast impact sensitivity. s. Routing construction traffic to minimize construction interference with regional non-project traffic movement. t. Limiting lane closures and detours to off-peak travel periods. u. Providing ride-share incentives for contractor and subcontractor personneL 10 /9:5 ~ ;yj v. Emissions control of on-site equipment shall be minimized through a routine mandatory program of low-emissions tune-ups. w. Radios and loudspeakers shall not be used outside of the residences during all phases of construction. x. 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. y. No double-parking shall be allowed along Brittany Lane. z. Fencing of construction site shall be to the satisfaction ofthe Building Official. PARKS 34. Public Facilities Fee. Applicant/Developer shall pay a Public Facilities Fee in the amounts and at the times set forth in City of Dublin Resolution No. 195-99, or in the amounts and at the times set forth in any resolution revising the amount of the Public Facilities Fee. Responsible Agency: PCS Required By: As indicated in Condition of Approval ARCHITECTURE 35. Exterior colors and materials. Exterior colors and materials 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 36. Exterior lighting. Exterior lighting shall be of a design and placement so as not to cause glare onto adjoining properties. Lighting used after daylight hours shall be minimized to provide for security needs only. ' Responsible Agency: PL Required By: Ongoing 37. Fencing, and 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 slopes higher than ten feet, and/or fences of rear yards with a high visibility from adjoining down slope 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. 38. Pad levations. All residences shall be built at the pad elevations shown on the project plans by EDI Architects dated received December 4, 2000. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to occupancy. 39. Colors and Materials Board. Applicant shall submit a colors and materials board subject to approval of the Director of Community Development to reflect any changes made during project review. 11 Ir6 < ;46 Responsible Agency: Required By: PL Prior to building permit 40. Increase in height of residences prohibited. The increase in height of residences in this project beyond that originally approved by the City is prohibited. LANDSCAPING 41. Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan. Applicant/Developer shall submit a Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan, conforming to the requirements of Section 8.72.030 of the Zoning Ordinance (unless otherwise required by this Resolution), stamped and approved by the Director of Public Works and the Director of Community Development. The plan should generally conform to the landscaping plan and must reflect any revised project design shown on the Site Development Review with a later date. Responsible Agency: PL Required By: Prior to building permit 42. Wildfire Management Plan. The Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan shall be in accordance with the City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan. Responsible Agency: F Required By: Prior to building permit 43. 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 44. Installation. Prior to final occupancy approval, all required landscaping and irrigation, shall be installed. Responsible Agency: PL, B Required By: Prior to occupancy 45. Drought-tolerant and/or native species. The landscape design and construction shall emphasize drought-tol~rant and/or native species wherever possible. Responsible Agency: PL Required By: Prior to occupancy TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 46. DamagelRepairs. 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. Residential Security Requirements. The development shall comply with the City of Dublin Residential Security Requirements (attached). Security hardware mustbe 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 12 /$] ~ ;Y5 48. Projected Timeline. ApplicantlDeveloper shall submit a projected timeIine 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 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. Fireground operation area. The rear yard shall have a minimum 10 foot of fireground operation area. Responsible Agency: F Required By: Ongoing 51. Rear yard accessibility. The rear yard shall be accessible from both sides of the structure. Responsible Agency: F Required By: Ongoing 52. 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 53. Wildfire Management Plan. Site development shall be in accordance with the City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan. Responsible Agency: F Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits 54. Water supply. Water supply shall be adequate to support required fire flow. Responsible Agency: F Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits 55. 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 56. 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 ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT. ZONE 7 57. 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, filed with Zone 7, are to be destroyed prior to any demolition or construction activity in accordance 13 It'ff ~ ). t/j 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 58. Salt Mitigation. Recycled water projects must meet any applicable salt mitigation requirements of Zone 7. Responsible Agency: Zone 7, PW Required by On-going 59. Requirements and Fees. Applicant/Developer shall comply with all 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 60. 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 61. 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 62. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity flow to DSRSD's existing sanitary sewer system. Pumping of sewerage is discouraged and may only be allowed under extreme circumstances following a case by case review with DSRSD staff. Any pumping station will require specific review and approval by DSRSD of preliminary design reports, design criteria, and final plans and specifications. The DSRSD reserves the right to require payment of present worth 20 year maintenance costs as well as other conditions within a separate agreement with the applicant for any project that requires a pumping station. Responsible Agency: DSRSD. Required By: Ongoing 63. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, all utility connection fees, plan check fees, inspection fees, permit fees and fees associated with a wastewater discharge permit shall be paid to DSRSD in accordance with the rates and schedules established in the DSRSD Code. Responsible Agency: DSRSD. Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits 64. 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 sh2U contain a signature block for the District Engineer indicating approval of the sanitary sewer or water facilities shown. Prior to approval by the District Engineer, the Applicant shall pay all required DSRSD fees, and provide an engineer's estimate of construction costs for the sewer and water systems, a performance bond, a one-year maintenance bond, and a comprehensive general liability insurance policy in the amounts and forms that are acceptable to DSRSD. The Applicant shall allow at least 15 working days for final improvement drawing review by DSRSD before signature by the District Engineer. Responsible Agency: DSRSD. 14 /C"r ~ )~j Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits 65. No sewer line or water line construction shall be permitted unless the proper utility construction permit has been issued by DSRSD. A construction permit will only be issued after all of the items in the condition immediately before this one have been satisfied. Responsible Agency: DSRSD. Required By: Ongoing 66. The Applicant/Property Owner shall hold DSRSD, its Board of Directors, commissions, employees, and agents of DSRSD harmless and indemnify and defend the same from any litigation, claims, or fines resulting from completion of the project. Responsible Agency: DSRSD. Required By: Ongoing 67. 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 68. Construction by Applicant/Developer. All onsite potable and recycled water and wastewater pipelines and facilities shall be constructed by the Applicant/Developer in accordance with all DSRSD master plans, standards, specifications and requirements. Responsible Agency: DSRSD. Required By: Completion of Improvements 69. DSRSD Water Facilities. Water facilities must be connected to the DSRSD or other approved water system, and must be installed at the expense of Applicant/Developer in accordance with District Standards and Specifications. All material and workmanship for water mains and appurtenances thereto must conform with all of the requirements of the officially adopted Water Code of the District and shall be subject to field inspection by the District. Responsible Agency: DSRSD. Required By: Completion of Improvements 70. The applicant shall coordinate with the District and Alameda County Fire Department on required fire flows. Responsible Agency: DSRSD. Required By: Approval of Improvement Plans MISCELLANEOUS 71. 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 requirements. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits or the installation of any improvements related to this project, the Applicant shall supply written documentation from each such agency or department to the Community Development Department, indicating that all applicable conditions required have been or will be met. Responsible Agency:. B, PL. Required By: Ongoing 72. Compliance. The Applicant/Property Owner shall comply with all applicable regulations and requirements ofthe Uniform Building Code and the Building Inspection Department. Responsible Agency: B Required By: Ongoing 15 I?D ~ ;ljj 73. Building permits for the proposed project shall be secured and construction commenced within one (1) year after the effective date ofthis 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 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. [B, PL] 74. To apply for building permits, the Applicant shall submit thirteen (13) sets of full construction plans for plan check. Each set of plans shall have attached an annotated copy of these Conditions of Approval, including any attached Special Conditions. The notations shall clearly indicate how all Conditions of Approval will be complied with. Construction plans will not be accepted without the annotated conditions attached to each set of plans. The Applicant will be responsible for compliance with all Conditions of Approval specified and obtaining the approvals of all participating non-City agencies prior to the issuance of building or grading permits. Responsible Agency: B, PL, PW. Required By: Prior to issuance of building permits 75. Construction plans. Construction plans shall be fully dimensioned (including building elevations) accurately drawn (depicting all existing and proposed conditions on site), and prepared and signed by an appropriately design professional. The site plan, landscape plan and details shall be consistent with each other. . Responsible Agency: B, PL, PW. Required By: Prior to issuance of building permits 76. Hours of operation. All construction shall be limited to take place between the hours of7:30 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 77. Compliance. The Applicant/Property 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 ofthe terms or conditions specified may be subject to enforcement action. Responsible Agency: PL. Required By: Ongoing 78. 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 ofthe Postal Service. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit. HERITAGE TREES: 79. A Tree Protection Zone shall be established 30 feet north of trees #340 - 342, and at the driplines of trees #335,345 - 346,353 - 354. No grading, excavation, construction or storage of materials shall occur within this zone. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit. 80. 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: Ptior to issuance of Building Permit. 81. The rock outcropping within 30 feet of trees #335 and 342 shall be retained. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 16 j1/~;Yj 82. No underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer lines shall be placed in the Tree Protection Zone. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 83. 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 84. Irrigation systems must be designed so that no trenching will occur within the Tree Protection Zone. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit. 85. 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 86. Foundations, footings and pavement on expansive soils near the Heritage Trees should be designed to withstand differential displacement due to expansion and shrinking of the soil. Responsible Agency:' PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit. 87. Heritage Trees shall be pruned in conformance with the 1997 Uniform Fire Code. All pruning shall be completed by a Certified Arborist 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. 88. The Tree Protection Zone for trees on lots 1, 7, 8, and 9 shall completely surround those trees to the satisfaction ofthe City's arborist. A fence shall completely surround and define the Tree Protection zone to the satisfaction ofthe City's arborist prior to demolition, grubbing or grading. Fences shall be 6 feet tall chain link or equivalent as approved by the consulting arborist. Fences are to remain until all grading and construction is completed. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit. 89. 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. 90. No grading, construction, demolition or other work shall occur within the Tree Protection Zone. Any modifications must be approved and monitored by the consulting arborist. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit. 17 Iff ~;~5 91. 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. 92. 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 93. 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 94. Any additional pruning needed for clearance during construction must be performed by a certified arborist and not by construction personnel. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 95. All pruning shall be in accordance with the Tree Pruning Guidelines (International Society of Arboriculture) and adhere to the most recent editions of the American National Standard for Tree Care Operations (Z133.1) and Pruning (A300). Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 96. Where possible, pruning shall be confined to small diameter wood at the ends of branches. Interior branches shall not be stripped out. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 97. All trees shall be pruned to provide a minimum of 6 feet of clearance between the ground surface and foliage, to remove dead branches to a minimum of 2 inches in diameter, and to reduce end weight on heavy, horizontal branches by selectively removing small diameter branches, no greater than 2 to 3 inches, near the ends of the scaffolds. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior t issuance of Building Permit. 98. While in the tree, the arborist shall perform an aerial inspection to identify defects that require treatment. Any additional work needed shall be reported to the Project Arborist. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 99. Brush shall be chipped and chips shall be spread underneath trees to a maximum depth of 6 inches, leaving the trunk clear of mulch. Wood shall be hauled off the site. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 18 /r~ 'if). ~5 100. Trees shall not be climbed with spurs. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 101. Thinning cuts are to be employed rather than heading cuts. Trees shall not be topped or headed back.. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 102. Vehicles and heavy equipment shall not be parked beneath the trees. If access by equipment is required to accomplish the specified pruning, the soil surface shall be protected with 6 inches to 8 inches of wood chips before placing equipment or vehicles. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 103. Equipment shall be serviced and fueled outside the tree canopy to avoid accidental spills in the root area. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 104. A certified arborist shall be present on the project site during grading or other construction activity that may impact the health of the Heritage Trees in this project. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 105. 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 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 $1 00,000. The cash bond or other security shall be retained for a reasonable period oftime 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 removal or destruction of a Heritage Tree. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 107. 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 19 Jf1 ~;~ 108. No heritage Tree on the project site shall be removed unless its condition presents an immediate hazard to life or property. Such Heritage Tree shall be removed only with the approval of the Director of Community Development, City Engineer, Police Chief, Fire Chief or their designee. The Fire Marshall has indicated the Heritage Trees conform with the Wildfire Management Plan and that no Heritage Tree on the project site will be removed pursuant to the Wildfire Management Plan. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 109. 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 ofthe Heritage Tree Ordinance pursuant to Section 5.60.40.b, Heritage Tree Definition. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 110. The major scaffold on Tree 340 pointing north toward the proposed residence on Lot 8 shall only be trimmed 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 so much foliage had to be trimmed that, in the opinion of the consulting arborist and the City's arborist, it was necessary. If said major scaffold projects to within 5 feet of the residence, the residence shall be modified to move it until it is at least five feet from the furthest extent of foliage of said limb. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit. 111. All cuts on Tree 340 shall be as marked in yellow on that tree and as agreed upon with the City of Dublin. Any changes to the pruning of the tree can only occur with the concurrence of the arborist and the City's arborist and the City of Dublin. ' Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit. 112. The trunk to be removed and the remainder of Tree 340 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 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 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 12th day of December, 2000. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners Johnson, Jennings and Musser Commissioner Hughes Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST Community Development Director 20 Irs %)'-16 ATTACHMENT "A" TYPICAL PUBLIC WORKS GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The following Conditions of Approval (as referenced in the preceding resolution) are standard Conditions of Approval applicable as required by the Public Works Department for all development projects within the City of Dublin. Unless modified by referenced conditions in the preceding resolution, these conditions are assumed to be complied with prior to issuance of Grading Permit or approval of Improvement Plans. ARCHAEOLOGY: 1. If, during construction, archaeological materials are encountered, construction within 100 feet of these materials, shall be halted until a professional Archaeologist who is certified by the Society of California Archaeology (SCA) or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOP A) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation measures, if they are deemed necessary . BONDS: 2. The developed shall provide Performance (100%), labor and material (50%) securities and a cash monumentation bond to guarantee the installation of subdivision improvements, including streets, drainage, grading, utilities and landscaping subject to approval by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer prior to approval of the Final or Parcel Map. 3. Prior to acceptance of the project as complete and the release of securities by the City: a) All improvements shall be installed as per the approved Improvement Plans and Specifications. b) All required landscaping shan be installed. c) An as-built landscaping plan prepared by the project Landscape Architect and a declaration by the Project Landscape Architect that all work was done under his supervision and in accordance with the recommendations contained in the landscape and soil erosion and sedimentation control plans shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. d) Photo mylar and, if available, AutoCAD electronic copies, of the Improvement, Grading and Storm Drain plans along with the Final or Parcel and Annexation Maps, if any, which are tied to the City's existing mapping coordinates including all as-built plans prepared by a registered Civil Engineer. e) A complete record, including location and elevation of all field density tests, and a summary of all field and laboratory tests. f) A declaration by the Project Civil Engineer and Project Geologist that all work was done in accordance with the recommendations contained in the soil and geologic investigation reports and the approved plans and specifications. 4. Upon acceptance of the improvements and receipt of required submittals, the performance security may 21 ;r6 ~i-lJ5 be replaced with a maintenance bond that is 25% of the value of the performance security. The maintenance bond is released one year after acceptance of the project and after the repair of deficiencies, if any, are completed. 5. The labor and materials security is released upon acceptance of the improvements, provided no liens are filed against the developer on this project. CREEK: 6. Buildings shall be no closer than 20 feet from top of the bank along the Creek, where the top of bank is either the existing break in topography, or a point at the existing ground line which is the intersection of a line on a two-horizontal-to-one-vertical slope begun at the toe of the slope in the Creek, whichever is more restrictive. DRAINAGE: 7. Each lot shall be so graded as not to drain on any other lot or adjoining property prior to being deposited to an approved drainage system. 8. Where possible, roof drains shall empty onto an approved dissipating device and then over lawn or other planted areas to street or approved drainage facility. Concentrated flows will not be allowed to drain across sidewalk areas. 9. An 18" minimum diameter reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) shall be used for all public storm drain main lines and 12" minimum diameter RCP shall be used for laterals connecting inlets to main drain line. 10. Under-sidewalk drains (curb drains) shall be installed on both sides of driveway approaches. 11, Storm drainage detention facilities shall be designed to contain the 100- year storm occurrence including 1 foot of freeboard. 12. In case that the detention basin outlet fails and the basin cannot contain the 100-year storm, streets must be designed so that the overflow release shall directed to the subdivision streets and shall be contained in the road right-of-way. 13. Storm drainage facilities shall be designed to meet the following capacity: Drainage area Design Storm less that 1 sq. mile 1 to 5 sq. miles over 5 sq. miles 15 year 25 year 100 year All streets shall be designed so that the IS-year storm is contained within the gutter and shoulder area. In addition arterial streets shall have one lane of traffic in both directions of travel above the 1 DO-year storm level. 14. No buildings or other structures shall be constructed within a storm drain easement. 15. Developer shall provide "trash racks" where storm drainage improvements intercept natural drainage 22 /r11!fj.41 channels. An all-weather maintenance road shall be constructed to the trash racks. 16. Concrete V-ditches shall be constructed on slopes 10 feet and higher in accordance with City Ord. 56-86. These V -ditches shall have a 5% minimum slope. 17. All slopes 10 feet or higher will have a concrete V -ditch installed at the toe of the slope. These ditches shall discharge into natural drainage channels or an adequate storm drain system. 18. Drainage in all concrete ditches shall be picked up and directed to the bottom of an approved drainage channel. The slope on these ditches shall not be less than 5%. 19. A 6" minimum diameter subdrain shall be installed in all swales that are to be filled. 20. All sub drains shall tie into storm drain catch basins or manholes at the downstream end of the subdrain. There shall be a clean-out at the upper end of all subdrains. 21. Downhill cul-de-sacs are not allowed without prior written approval of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer. If allowed they must provide a storm drain overflow corridor to an approved drainage facilities. This corridor shall be design to prevent flooding of building pads in case the street inlet is obstructed. 22. Streets designed with sump areas shall have a curb inlet at the low spot and two additional inlets within 50 feet of the low area. 23. No drainage shall be directed over slopes. 24. The storm drainage system shall be designed and constructed to the standards and policies of the City of Dublin. 25. All concentrated storm drain flow shall be carried in concrete curb and gutter, concrete valley gutters or storm drain pipe and shall discharged into an approved drainage facility, not onto slopes. 26. All public streets shall drain into storm drain systems before being discharged into established drainage channels. 27. The developer shall comply with Alameda County Flood Control District requirements. If there is a conflict between City and County Flood Control requirements the Director of Public Works/City Engineer shall determine which requirements shall apply. DUST: 28. Areas undergoing grading, and all other construction activities, shall be watered, or other dust-palliative measures may be used, to control dust, as conditions warrant or as directed by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer. NPDES: General Construction: 29. For projects disturbing five (5) acres or more the applicant shall submit a Storm Water Pollution 23 Ir~~ ;1;; Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review by the City prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits. The SWPPP shall be implemented by the general contractor and all subcontractors and suppliers of material and equipment. Construction site cleanup and control of construction debris shall also be addressed in the SWPPP. The developer is responsible for complying with the SWPPP. Failure to do so will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations or a project stop work order. For projects disturbing less than five (5) acres an erosion control plan shall be submitted with the grading plan. 30. Prior to the commencement of any clearing, grading or excavation resulting in a land disturbance greater than five acres, the developer shall provide evidence that a Notice of Intent (NOI) has been sent to the California State Water Resources Control Board. A copy of the SWPPP shall be kept at the construction site at all times. 31. Between October 1 and April 15 unvegetated graded slopes which drain to desilting basins shall be, at a minimum, protected by hydroseed mulch and silt fencing. Slopes not draining to a desilting basin, at a minimum, shall be seeded then covered with a 100% biodegradable straw fiber erosion control blanket. Silt fencing shall be installed at each bench and along the toe of slope. The developer shall be responsible for providing any addition slope protection which may be needed to prevent silting of natural water courses and storm drainage facilities. 32. Construction access routes shall be limited to those approved by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer and shall be shown on the approved grading plan. 33. Gather all construction debris on daily and place them in a covered dumpster or other container which is emptied or removed on a weekly basis. A secondary containment berm shall be constructed around the dumpster. When appropriate, use tarps on the ground to collect fallen debris or splatters that could contribute to storm water pollution. 34. Remove all debris from the sidewalk, street pavement and storm drain system adjoining the project site daily or as required by the City inspector. During wet weather, avoid driving vehicles off paved areas. 35. Broom sweep the sidewalk and public street pavement adjoining the project site on a daily basis. Caked on mud or dirt shall be scraped from these areas before sweeping. 36. Install filter materials (e.g. gravel filters, filter fabric, etc.) at all on-site storm drain inlets and existing inlets in the vicinity ofthe project site prior to: 1) start of the rainy season (October 15) 2) site dewatering activities, 3) street washing activities, 4) saw cutting asphalt or concrete Filter materials shall be cleaned or replaced as necessary to maintain effectiveness and prevent street flooding. Dispose of filter particles in an appropriate manner. 37. Create a contained and covered area on the site for the storage of bags of cement, paints, flammable, oils, fertilizers, pesticides or any other materials used on the project site that have the potential for being discharged to the storm drain system. Never clean machinery, tools, brushes, etc. or rinse containers into a street, gutter, storm drain or stream. See "Building Maintenance/Remodeling" flyer for more inforination. 38. Concrete/gunite supply trucks or concrete/plasters or similar finishing operations shall not discharge wash water into street gutters or drains. 24 17r ~ )l-)5 39. Minimize the removal of natural vegetation or ground cover from the site in order to reduce the potential for erosion and sedimentation problems. All cut and fill slopes shall be stabilized as soon as possible after completion of grading. No site grading shall occur between October 15 and April 15 unless detailed erosion control plan reviewed by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer and implemented by the contractor. 40. Fueling and maintenance of vehicles shall be done off-site unless an approved fueling and maintenance area has been approved as part of the SWPPP. CommerciallIndustrial Developments: 41. The project plans shall include storm water pollution prevention measures for the operation and maintenance of the project for the review and approval of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer. The project plan shall identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate to the uses conducted on-site to effectively prohibit the entry of pollutants into storm water runoff. 42. The project plan BMPs shall also include erosion control measures described in the latest version of the ABAG Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook or State Construction Best Management Practices Handbook, to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system. 43. The developer is responsible for ensuring that all contractors are aware of, and implement, all storm water pollution prevention measures. Failure to comply with the approved construction BMPs will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations and/or a prqject stop order. 44. All washing and/or steam cleaning must be done at an appropriately equipped facility which drains to the sanitary sewer. Any outdoor washing or pressure washing must be managed in such a way that there is no discharge of soaps or other pollutants to the storm drain system. Wash waters should discharge to the sanitary sewer. Sanitary connections are subject to the review, approval, and conditions of the Dublin- San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). 45. All loading dock areas must be designed to minimize "run-on" to or runoff from the area. Accumulated waste water that may contribute to the pollution of storm water must be drained to the sanitary sewer, or filtered for ultimate discharge to the storm drain system. BMPs should be implemented to prevent potential storm water pollution. Implement appropriate BMPs such as, but not limited to, a regular program of sweeping, litter control and spill clean-up. 46. All metal roofs and roof mounted equipment (including galvanized), shall be coated with a rust-inhibitive paint. 47. Trash enclosures and/or recycling area(s) must be completely covered; no other area shall drain onto this area. Drains in any wash or process area shall not discharge to the storm drain system. Drains should connect to the sanitary sewer. Sanitary connections are subject to the review, approval, and conditions of the DSRSD. 48. All paved outdoor storage areas must be designed to eliminate the potential for runoff to carry pollutants to the storm drain system. Bulk materials stored outdoors may need to be covered and contained as required by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer. , 49. All landscaping shall be properly maintained and shall be designed with efficient irrigation practices to 25 ~ ,~)~5 reduce runoff, promote surface filtration, and mInImIZe the use of fertilizers and pesticides which contribute to runoff pollution. 50. Sidewalks and parking lots must be swept weekly, at a minimum, to prevent the accumulation of litter and debris. If pressure washed, debris must be trapped and collected to prevent entry to the storm drain system. No cleaning agent may be discharged to the storm drain. If any cleaning agent or degreaser is used, wash water shall not discharge to the storm drains; wash waters should be collected and discharged to the sanitary sewer. Discharges to the sanitary sewer are subject to the review, approval and conditions of the DSRSD. 51. A structural control, such as an oil/water separator, sand filter, or approved equal, may be required to be installed, on site, to intercept and pre-treat storm water prior to discharging to the storm drain system. The design, location, and a maintenance schedule must be submitted to the Director of Public Warks/City Engineer/City Engineer for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 52. Restaurants must be designed with contained areas for cleaning mats, equipment and containers. This wash area must be covered or designed to prevent "run-on" to, or runoff from, the area. The area shall not discharge to the storm drains; wash waters should drain to the sanitary sewer, or collected for ultimate disposal to the sanitary sewer. Employees must be instructed and signs posted indicating that all washing activities be conducted in this area. Sanitary connections are subject to the review, approval, and conditions of the DSRSD. 53. Commercial Car Washes: No wash water shall discharge to the storm drains. Wash waters should discharge to the sanitary sewer. Sanitary connections are subject to the review, approval, and conditions ofthe DSRSD. 54. VehiclelEquipment Washers: No vehicle or equipment washing activity associated with this facility shall discharge to the storm drain system. Wash areas should be limited to areas that drain to the sanitary sewer collection system, or the wash water collected for ultimate disposal to the sanitary sewer. This wash area must be covered and designed to prevent "run-on" to, and runoff from, the area. A sign must be posted indicating the designated wash area. Sanitary connections are subject to the review, approval and conditions of the DSRSD. 55. Fuel dispensing areas must be paved with concrete extending a minimum of 8' -0" from the face of the fuel dispenser and a minimum of 4' -0" from the nose of the pump island. Fuel dispensing areas must be degraded and constructed to prevent "run:;-on" to, or runoff from, the area. Fuel dispensing facilities must have canopies; canopy roof down spouts must be routed to prevent drainage flow through the fuel dispensing area. The facility must have a spill cleanup plan. The fuel dispensing area must be dry swept routinely. Dispensing equipment must be inspected routinely for proper functioning and leak prevention. 56. All on-site storm drain inlets must be labeled "No Dumping-Drains to Bay" using an approved methods. 57. All on-site storm drains must be cleaned at least twice a year; once immediately prior to the rainy season (October 15) and once in January. Additional cleaning may be required by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer. Residential: 58. The project plans shall include storm water pollution prevention measures (SWPPP) for the operation and maintenance of the project subject to the review of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City 26 ;'D/ ~ J. tfj Engineer. The SWPPP shall identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate to residential construction activities conducted on-site to effectively prohibit the entry of pollutants into storm water runoff. 59. The SWPPP shall include erosion control measures to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system, in accordance with the regulations outlined in the most current version of the ABAG Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook or State Construction Best Management Practices Handbook. 60. The applicant is responsible for ensuring that all contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers are aware of, and implement, all storm water quality measures and implement such measures. Failure to comply with the approved construction BMPs will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations and/or a project stop order. 61. All on-site storm drain inlets must be labeled "No Dumping - Drains to Bay" using an approved methods. 62. All metal roofs and roof mounted equipment (including galvanized) shall be coated with a rust-inhibitive paint. 63. Trash enclosures and/or recycling area(s) must be completely covered; no other area shall drain onto this area. Drains in any wash or recycling area shall not discharge to the storm drain system. Drains should connect to the sanitary sewer. Sanitary connections are subject to the review, approval and conditions of the DSRSD. 64. When a common area car wash is provided, no wash water shall discharge to the storm drain system. The car wash area should drain to the sanitary sewer. The area must be covered and designed to prevent excess rainwater from entering the sanitary sewer. Contact the local permitting authority and POTW for specific connection and discharge requirements. If no common car wash area exists, means should be taken to discourage car washing, e.g., removing hose bibs and installing signs. 65. The applicant shall record CC&R's at the time of filing the final map which shall create a property owners association for the development. The CC&R's shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney. Where not covered by a landscape and lighting district, the homeowner's association shall be responsible for implementing all storm water measures and the maintenance of all private streets, private utilities, and other common areas and facilities on the site, including all landscaping. Landscaping shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff and promote surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides which can contribute to urban runoff pollution. GENERAL DESIGN 66. The developer is responsible for the construction site and construction safety. 67. The minimum width for the private roads with parking on one side shall be 33 feet or as otherwise approved by Director of Public Works. 68. A cul-de-sac or turnaround at or near the end of all dead-end private roads. 69. All public sidewalks must be within City right-of-way or in a pedestrian easement except as specifically approved by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer. 70. Special paving or concrete paving a minimum of ten feet wide shall be installed across private streets 27 tP,O,J. ~ ;L~5 where they intersect public streets. No special paving or concrete paving will be allowed in public streets. 71. All of the plans, including Improvement and Grading Plans, and subdivision maps, must be designed to the City of Dublin's standards plans and specifications, policies and requirements using standard City title block and format. The grading plan design must based on the approved soil reports. In addition to the civil engineer, a soils engineer must sign the grading plans. The soils engineer or his technical representative must be present at all times during grading. All engineering plans must be designed and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer. Plans are subject to the review and approval of the Director of Public Works, and after his approval, original mylars or photo mylars with three sets of blue prints must be submitted to the City. 72. The minimum uniform street gradient shall be 1 %. The structure design of the road shall be subject to approval of the Director of Public Works. Parking lots shall have a minimum gradient of 1 % and a maximum gradient of 5%. 73. No cut and fill slopes shall exceed 2:1 unless recommended by the project soils engineer and approved by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer. Slopes shall be graded so that there is both horizontal and vertical slope variation where visible from public areas and the top and bottom of slopes shall be rounded in order to create or maintain a natural appearance. 74. All residential building pad elevations must be above the 1 DO-year flood level. 75. In the 100-year Flood Hazard Zone, all residential units shall have their finished floor elevation a minimum of one foot (1') above the 1 DO-year flood level. Commercial buildings shall either provide flood-proofing, or have their finished floor elevation above the 1 DO-year flood level. 76. A registered civil or structural engineer shall design all retaining walls over three feet in height (or over two feet in height with a surcharge) and a building permit shall be required for their construction. A maintenance and inspection program shall be implemented by the developer or homeowners' association for the periodic inspection and maintenance of all retaining walls that could possibly affect the public right -of-way. 77. Minimum sight distance for public streets, including intersection sight distance, shall meet the CAL TRANS Highway Design Manual. 78. Prior to filing for building permits, precise plans for street improvements, grading, drainage (including size, type and location of drainage facilities both on and off-site) and erosion and sedimentation control shall be submitted and subject to the review and approval of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer. 79. The soils report for the project shall include recommendations 1) for foundations, decks, and other miscellaneous structures, 2) for design of swimming pools, and 3) for setbacks for structures from top and toes of slopes. Additionally, the soils report shall include a professional opinion as to safety of the site from the hazards of land slippage, erosion, settlement and seismic activity. 80. The Contractor shall be responsible for acquiring permits required by other agencies. (Fish & Game, Army Corps of Engineers, Zone 7, Etc.) 81. The Applicant/Developer and ApplicantlDeveloper's representatives (engineer, contractor, etc.) must 28 ~l?:; ~ )~5 meet and follow all of the City's requirements and policies, including the Urban Runoff Program and Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. EASEMENTS: 82. The Developer shall acquire easements, and/or obtain rights-of-entry from the adjacent property owners for improvements required outside of the subdivision. The easements and/or rights-of-entry shall be in writing and copies shall be furnished to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer. EROSION: 83. Prior to any grading of the site and filing of the Final Map or Parcel Map, a detailed construction grading/erosion control plan (including phasing); and a drainage, water quality, and erosion and sedimentation control plan, for the post-construction period, both prepared by the Project Civil Engineer and/or Engineering Geologist; shall be approved by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer. Said plans shall include detailed design, location, and maintenance criteria, of all erosion and sediment control measures. The plans shall provide, to the maximum extent practicable, that no increase in sediment or pollutants from the site will occur. The post-construction plan shall provide for long-term maintenance of all permanent erosion and sediment control measures such as slope vegetation. The construction grading/erosion control plan shall be implemented in place by October 15th and shall be maintained in place until April 15th unless otherwise allowed in writing by the City Engineer. It shall be the developer's responsibility to maintain the erosion and sediment control measures for the year following acceptance of the subdivision improvements by the City Council. FINAL MAP / PARCEL MAP: 84. Prior, to filing the Final Map or Parcel Map, precise plans and specifications for street improvements, grading, drainage (including size, type, and location of drainage facilities both on- and off-site), and erosion and ' sedimentation control, shall be approved by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer. 85. Submit three (3) sets of approved blueprints and approved original mylars or photo mylars of improvement plans, grading plans, and recorded Fihal/Parcel Map to the City of Dublin Public Works Department. Upon completion of construction, the City's mylar shall be modified to an '"as-built" plan (mylar) prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer. A declaration by a Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer that all work was done under his supervision and in accordance with recommendations contained in the soils report shall be submitted to the Public W orks Department~ 86. For storm drains outside the public right-of-way a '"Storm Drain Easement" or '"Private Storm Drain Easement" shall be dedicated on the final map. 87. Provide an access road and turn around and maintenance easement to storm drainage detention facilities and trash racks. 88. A current title report and copies ofthe recorded deed of all parties having any recorded title interest in the property to be divided, copies of the deeds and the Final/Parcel Maps for adjoining properties and easements shall be submitted at the time of the submittal of the final subdivision maps. 89. Existing and proposed access and public utility easements shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer prior to approval of the Final/Parcel Map. 29 ;;'0 'I ~ .t l)j These easements shall allow for vehicular and utility service access. 90. A lO-foot public service easement (6-foot on residential streets) shall be shown on the FinallParcel Map along all street frontages, in addition to all other easements required by the utility companies or governmental agencies. 91. All street dedications shall include working easements for slope maintenance. 92. The boundary of all lots and the exterior boundary of the Subdivision, as well as the centerline of the streets, shall be survey monumented. At least three (3) permanent benchmarks shall be established. Plats and elevation data shall be provided to the City in a form acceptable to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer. FIRE: 93. Install fire hydrants at the locations approved by the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority in accordance with the standards in effect at the time of development. A raised blue reflectorized traffic marker shall be epoxied to the center of the paved street opposite each hydrant. 94. All materials and workmanship for fire hydrants, gated connections, and appurtenances thereto, necessary to provide water supply for fire protection, must be installed by the developer and conform to all requirements of the applicable provisions of the Standard Specifications of Dublin San Ramon Services District and Dougherty Regional Fire Authority. All such work will be subject to the joint field inspection of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer and Dublin San Ramon Services District. 95. Fire access roads must be designed, constructed, and gated to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer and to the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority. 96. The improvement plans must be approved by the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority, as indicated by their signature on the title sheet. FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS: 97. Dedication of land shall be made to the City of Dublin such that it conveys land sufficient for the approved streets' right-of-way. Improvements shall be made, by the applicant, along all streets within the development and as required off-site including curb, gutter, sidewalk, paving, drainage, and work on the existing paving, if necessary, from a structural or grade continuity standpoint. FUTURE CONFORMANCE: 98. The design and improvements of the Subdivision shall be in conformance with the design and improvements indicated graphically, or as modified by the Conditions of Approval. The improvements and design shall include street locations, grades, alignments, and widths, the design of storn~ drainage facilities inside and outside the Subdivision, grading of lots, the boundaries of the Tract, and shall show compliance with City standards for roadways. GRADING: 99. Grading shall be designed in conformance with the approved tentative map. The grading plan shall 30 :J.b5 ~ J.47 incorporate the recommendations of the soil report. The grading plan shall conform with the City specifications and ordinances, City policies and the Uniform Building Code (UBC). In case of conflict between the soil engineer's recommendations and City ordinances the City Engineer shall determine which shall apply. 100. Prior to final preparation of the subgrade and placement of base materials, all underground utilities shall be installed and service connections stubbed out to property lines. Public utilities, Cable TV, sanitary sewers, and water lines, shall be installed in a manner which will not disturb the street pavement, curb, gutter and sidewalk, when future service connections or extensions are made. All public and private utilities shall be undergrounded. 101. Grading shall be done under the continuous inspection of the Project Soils Engineer. Grading shall be completed in compliance with the construction grading plans and recommendations of the Project Soils Engineer and/or Engineering Geologist, and the approved erosion and sedimentation control plan, and shall be done under the supervision of the Project Soils Engineer and/or Engineering Geologist, who shall, upon its completion, submit a declaration to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer that all work was done in accordance with the recommendations contained in the soils and geologic investigation reports and the approved plans and specifications. Inspections that will satisfy final subdivision map requirements shall be arranged with the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer. 102. If grading is commenced prior to filing the Final Map or Parcel Map, a surety or guarantee shall be filed with the City of Dublin. The surety shall be equal to the amount approved by the City Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer as necessary to insure restoration of the site to a stable and erosion resistant state if the project is terminated prematurely. 103. Any grading, stockpiling, storing of equipment or material on adjacent properties will require written approval of those property owners affected. Copies of the rights-of-entry shall be furnished to the Director of Public Warks/City Engineer/City Engineer prior to the start of work. 104. Street grades shall be designed and built in accordance with the General Plan, unless otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer. 105. The developer shall keep adjoining public streets free and clean of project dirt, mud, materials, and debris. 106. Where soil or geologic conditions encountered in grading operations are different from that anticipated in the soil and geologic investigation report, or where such conditions warrant changes to the recommendations contained in the original soil investigation, a revised soil or geologic report shall be submitted for approved by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer. It shall be accompanied by an engineering and geological opinion as to the safety of the site from hazards of land slippage, erosion, settlement, and seismic activity. 107. Landslide and erosive areas outlined in the geokchnical investigation report shall be shown on the improvement/grading plans or plans which are part of improvement/grading plans. The plans shall show the method for repair of these areas as stated in the geotechnical investigation. 108. Grading plans shall indicate the quantity of soil that must be imported or off-hauled. If soil must be imported or off-hauled, the Applicant shall submit details as to how it will be done and routes of travel for the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer's approval. 31 ~ob ~ ;2.~) 109. All unsuitable material found at the site shall be removed from the site or stockpiled for later use in landscape areas. 110. Grading within a designated open space area shall be limited to that grading which is necessary for construction of the roadways traversing the open space and any approved development. 111. All cut and fill slopes shall be revegetated with native shrubs, trees and grasses subject to review and approval of the Planning Director and Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer. A revegetation plan for replanting graded slopes and replacing the amount of woodlands lost due to grading shall be prepared. Enhanced revegetation techniques shall be employed to ensure the success of the revegetation. Examples of enhancements to the revegetation plan include irrigating the young plants, placing top soil on fill slopes, using special planting techniques such as drilling into fill slopes to allow root penetration, and planting at a density similar to the native woodlands in the riparian corridors. 112. All landslides which effect any structures or roads or other improvements shall be maintain by Geologic Hazards Abatement District (GHAD). The developer or homeowners' association are responsible for financing the GHAD. The administration ofthe GHAD is to be determined at the Final Map stage. 113. A minimum 20 foot bench/maintenance road with concrete V-ditch shall be constructed at the bottom of slopes where open space abuts private property. 114. The project civil engineer shall certify that the finished graded building pads are within:t 0.1 feet in elevation of those shown on approved plans. HANDICAPPED ACCESS: 115. Handicapped ramps and parking shall be provided as specified in the American Disability Act (ADA). IMPROVEMENT PLANS. AGREEMENTS. AND SECURITIES: 116. Obtain copies of and comply with conditions as noted on "City of Dublin General Notes on Improvement Plans" and "City of Dublin Improvement Plan Review Check List." 117. All improvements within the public right-of-way, including curb, gutter, sidewalks, driveways, paving, and utilities, must be constructed prior to occupancy and in accordance with' approved City Standards and/or Plans. 118. The ApplicantlDeveloper shall enter into an improvement agreement with the City for all improvements. 119. Complete improvement plans, specifications, and calculations shall be submitted to, and be approved by, the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer and other affected agencies having jurisdiction over public improvements, prior to execution of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. Improvement plans shall show the existing and proposed improvements along adjacent public street(s) and property that relate to the proposed improvements. 120. The developer shall have their engineer provide the City AutoCAD electronic copies of the Improvement, Grading and Storm Drain plans along with the Final Map which is tied to the City's existing mapping coordinates if available. 32 ;<0 I) e/ ;~j 121. The Developer shall enter into an Improvement Agreement with the 'City for all subdivision improvements prior to issuance of improvement permit. Complete improvement plans, specifications and calculations shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer and other affected agencies having jurisdiction over public improvements prior to execution of the Improvement Agreement. Improvement plans shall show the existing and proposed improvements along the adjacent public street and property that relate to the proposed improvements. 122. All required securities, in an amount equal to 100% of the approved estimates of construction costs of improvements, and a labor and material security, equal to 50% of the construction cost, shall be submitted to, and be approved by, the City and affected agencies having jurisdiction over public improvements, prior to execution of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. MAINTENANCE OF COMMON AREA: 123. Maintenance of common areas, including ornamental landscaping, graded slopes, erosion control plantings and drainage, erosion and sediment control improvements, shall be the responsibility of the developer during construction stages and until final improvements are accepted by the City Council and the securities are released (one year after improvements are accepted). Thereafter, maintenance shall be the responsibility of a homeowners' association or individual property owners, in accordance with the project CC&Rs. MISCELLANEOUS: 124. Copies of the Final Map and improvement plans, indicating all lots, streets, and drainage facilities within the subdivision shall be submitted at 1" = 400' scale, and 1" = 200' scale for City mapping purposes. 125. The developer shall be responsible for controlling any rodent, mosquito, or other pest problem due to construction activities. 126. All construction traffic and parking may be subject to specific requirements as determined by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer. 127. The developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees, from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its agents, officers, or employees, to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board, or legislative body concerning a subdivision, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Section 66499.37 of the Government Code of the State of California. The City of Dublin shall promptly notifythe developer of any claim, action, or proceedings. 128. In submitting subsequent plans for review and approval, each set of plans shall have attached an annotated copy of the project's conditions of approval. The notations shall clearly indicate how all conditions of approval will be complied with. Construction plans will not be accepted without the annotated conditions attached to each set of plans. The Applicant will be' responsible for obtaining the approval of all participating non-City agencies prior to the issuance of building permits. PERMIT: 129. Applicant shall obtain Caltrans' approval and permit for any work performed within their right-of-way or impacting their facilities. 33 ;<0 ~ <;. qj 130. An encroachment permit shall be secured from the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer for any work done within the public right-of-way where this work is not covered under the improvement plans. 131. The developer and/or their representatives shall secure all necessary permits for work including, but not limited to, grading, encroachment, Fish and Game Department, County Flood Control District, Corps. of Engineers and State water quality permits and show proof of it to the City of Dublin, Department of Public Works. 132. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, visually important trees shall be tagged in the field. After the staking of the daylight lines but prior to the start of grading, protective fencing shall be installed around the trees, subject to approval of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer. NOISE: 133. Construction and grading operations, including the maintenance and warming of equipment, shall be limited to weekdays, Monday through Friday, and non-City holidays, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. The Director of Public Works may approve days and hours beyond the above mentioned days and hours. The developer is responsible for the additional cost of the Public Works inspectors' overtime. 134. During the construction, noise control and construction traffic mitigation measures within residential neighborhoods or on public streets must be taken to reduce noise and use of public streets by construction traffic as directed by Public Works officials. PARKLAND DEDICATION: 135. Park land shall be dedicated or in-lieu fees shall be paid, or a combination of both shall be provided prior to issuance of building permits or prior to recordation of the Final Map or Parcel Map, whichever occurs first, in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance. STREETS: 136. The street surfacing shall be asphalt concrete paving. The Director of Public Works/City Engineer shall review the project's Soils Engineer's structural pavement design. The developer shall, at his sole expense, make tests of the soil over which the surfacing and base are to be constructed and furnish the test reports to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. The Developer's soils engineer shall determine a preliminary structural design of the road bed. After rough grading has been completed, the developer shall have soil tests performed to determine the final design of the road bed. In lieu of these soil tests, the road may be designed and constructed based on an R-value of 5. STREET LIGHTS: 137. Street light standards and luminaries shall be designed and installed per approval of the Director of Public Works. The maximum voltage drop for street lights is 5%. 138. Properties shall be annexed to the Street Lighting Maintenance Assessment District. 34 ~D9 ~ ~q~ STREET SIGNS: 139. The developer shall furnish and install street name signs, bearing such names as are approved by the Planning Director, and traffic safety signs in accordance with the standards of the City of Dublin. Addresses shall be assigned by the City Building Official. 140. Street names shall be submitted and processed through the Planning Department and shall be indicated on the Final Map. 141. The Developer shall furnish and install street name signs, in accordance with the standards of the City of Dublin, bearing such names as are approved by the City. The developer shall furnish and install traffic safety signs in accordance with the standards of the City of Dublin. STREET TREES: 142. Street trees, of at least a IS-gallon size, shall be planted along the street frontages. Trees shall be planted in accordance with a planting plan, including tree varieties and locations, approved by the Planning Director and Director of Public Works. Trees planted within, or adjacent to, sidewalks or curbs shall be , provided with root shields. TRAFFIC: 143. The City of Dublin is currently studying the adoption and implementation of a regional traffic impact fee for roadway and street improvements in the Tri-Valley area. This fee will provide for Public Works projects to improve traffic circulation for accommodating new development within the City. If a regional traffic impact fee ordinance is approved and enacted prior to issuance of any building permits, the Applicant shall pay its fair share of this regional traffic impact fee. 144. All new traffic signals shall be interconnected with other new signals within the development and to the existing City traffic signal system by hard wire. In addition, conduits with pull ropes shall be installed along the project frontage to accommodate future extension of the interconnect system. The extent of this work shall be determined by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer. 145. Multi-family and non-residential facilities shall provide bike racks. In addition commercial and office centers shall provide car and van pool preferential parking spaces as required by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer. 146. Non-residential facilities shall provide pedestrian access from the public street to building entrances as required by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer. UTILITIES: 147. Electrical, gas, telephone, and Cable TV services, shall be provided underground to each lot in accordance with the City policies and existing ordinances. All utilities shall be located and provided within public utility easements and sized to meet utility company standards. All utilities to and within the project shall be undergrounded. 148. Prior to the filing of the Final Map or Parcel Map, the developer shall furnish the Director of Public Works/City Engineer with a letter from Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) stating that the' 35 ~/O ct)~j District has agreed to furnish water and sewer service to each of the dwelling units and/or lot included on the Final Map of the subdivision. 149. The Dublin San Ramon Services District shall review and approve the improvement plans as evidenced by their representative's signature on the Title Sheet. 150. Any relocation of improvements or public facilities shall be accomplished by the developer and at no expense to the City. WATER: 151. Water facilities must be connected to the DSRSD system, and must be installed at the expense of the developer, in accordance with District standards and specifications. All material and workmanship for water mains, and appurtenances thereto, must conform with all of the requirements of the officially adopted Water Code of the District and will be subject to field inspection by the District. 152. Any water well, cathodic protection well, or exploratory boring shown on the map, that is know to exist, is proposed, or is located during the course of field operations, must be properly abandoned, backfilled, or maintained in accordance with applicable groundwater protection ordinances. For additional information contact Flood Control, Zone 7 . 153. Developer shall design, incorporate, and institute water conservation measures for the entire project. Refer to "Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance # 18-92." 154. D,eveloper shall design and provide infrastructure for recycled water use for landscaping in accordance with DSRSD and to the satisfaction of the Public Work Director. 155. Developer shall design and construct the water and sewer system III accordance with the DSRSD requirements. :paOO-009/Black Mountain SDR 36 Cm. Musser commended the developer for their great work and cooperation 'in working with staff. On motion by Cm. Musser, seconded by Cm. Jennings with a vote of 3-0-2, with Cm. Oravetz no longer sitting on the Commission, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 00-69 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) REZONE I DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PA 00-015 COMMERCE ONE CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS RESOLUTION NO. 00-70 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR PA 00-015 COMMERCE ONE CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS FACILITY 8.4 PA 00-009 Black Mountain Development Site Development Review. A Site Development Review for seven single-family residences on existing lots on . Brittany Lane. Cm. Johnson asked for the staff report. Mr. Carrington presented the staff report. The Applicant is proposing the construction of seven single-family homes on seven existing subdivided lots whereby six homes are on Brittany Lane and one on Rolling Hills Dr. The lots are located at 11299 Rolling Hills Drive and 11151,11159,11167,11175,11183 and 11191 Brittany Lane. City Council Resolution 82-85 sets forth conditions of approval that apply to all tract maps. Conditions 4 and 12 of aforementioned Resolution requires that a Site Development Review be prepared for the custom lots and is therefore being presented to the Planning Commission for its approval. The project is consistent with a single-family residential designation of the General Plan and is consistent with the R1 single family zoning district. Major issues are conformity of project with City Council resolution 82- 85, views, with height, grading, heritage trees and the tree protection plan and project design. Mr. Carrington addressed the conformity issue. Condition # 3 of City Council rimming Commission Regular Meeting 151 December 12, 2000 ATTACHMENT \3 Resolution 82-85 sets forth the zoning regulations. The front yard setback is 20-ft, the side-yard setback is 5-ft minimum. The lots are subject to the R-l zoning regulations as far as uses are concerned. The lots must be 7000-sq. ft. in size and 70-ft. in width. All the lots in the proposed projects comply with requirements of Condition 3. Condition 4 states briefly that a Site Development Review must be done if grading involves more than 50 cubic yards. Condition 6 is the most controversial condition of the said Resolution. It reads 'The height of custom or modified homes shall not exceed 25-ft as measured perpendicularly from natural grade. Skirt heights screening undeveloped, non-living space for custom or modified homes (measured from natural grade to finished floor elevations) shall not exceed a maximum of nine (9) feet. Deviation and/ or refinement of these standards may be considered as part of the Site Development Review process covering these lots". Mr. Carrington explained that there is a 25-foot height limit with a maximum skirt height of 9-feet as measured from the natural grade. Natural grade is defined by the current zoning ordinance as the contour of ground surface before grading. Grading on the site occurred between 1981 and 1985. A review of the lots by a geotechnical firm states that grading for the subject lots was done properly and meets the current standard of engineering practice in the Bay area. A field evaluation of the lots on Brittany Lane indicated that moderate amounts of fill has occurred on the lots in 1985 ranging between 1-10 feet depending on the parcel involved. Staff has noted undocumented placement of fill on the proposed site. A condition of approval requires that any undocumented placement of fill should be removed before during the grading of this project to create pads. A condition of approval also requires that the houses being built should be built at the elevation shown on the project plans. Staff feels that the flexibility of the last part of condition 6 is appropriate. Staff feels that the project minimizes impact to views. Staff worked with the developer to site the houses and design the houses so that they minimize impacts to views. A tree protection plan was prepared pursuant to Heritage Tree ordinance. Staff has worked closely with the project applicant and his arborist called Hort Science and staff has had the tree protection pre-reviewed by Jeffrey Gamboni who is a registered landscape architect as well as a certified arborist. Mr. Carrington explained the grading issue for the project. A concern addressed to Staff is the soil placed in these parcels from 1981 to 1985 was placed improperly. NGO Incorporated is doing the geo-technical work for the proposed project. Kleinfelder has reviewed these reports stating that grading was done properly and meets the standard of engineering practice in the bay area. Kleinfelder has recommended supplemental grading be undertaken to remove an area of boulders. Residents of Brittany Lane have expressed concerns to Staff that pruning of trees on the project site will harm trees. Staff has worked closely with the applicant, developer, the applicant's arborist and the City's arborist, and Fire Marshall and determined that planning Commission Regular Meeting 152 December 12, 2000 eAI8 cr6 J~' any pruning of the heritage trees will not harm the trees. Mr. Carrington stated that the Fire Marshall is available to address this issue. Nineteen oak trees are identified by the Tree Protection Plan within this project. Twelve of those trees are Oaks are over 24 inches in diameter measured 4 feet 6 inches above natural grade and therefore meet the definition "a" of a Heritage Tree. All nineteen trees will be designated as Heritage Trees by a condition of approval of this Site Development Review. The Heritage Trees on site will not be removed as part of this project but, if the project is approved, must be pruned in order to meet the requirements of the 1997 Fire Code. A portion of Tree 340 will be removed pursuant to the Fire Code and to Section 5.60.50.b.1 of the Heritage Tree Ordinance. It is technically a separate trunk from the main trunk of Tree 340. The trunk to be removed and the remainder of Tree 340 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 trunk is permitted by the Director as part of this Site Development Review 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. Heritage Trees required to be retained pursuant to this Site Development Review will be protected during demolition, grading, and construction operations. The Tree Preservation Guidelines of the Tree Protection Plan have been incorporated as conditions of approval to ensure that the Heritage Trees are protected during demolition, grading, and construction operations. The proposed project is very well designed. Michael Porto, City of Dublin Planning Consultant worked with the applicant and developer and his architect on several occasions and refined the designs of the residences. The homes are attractive and will complement the architectural quality of the surrounding neighborhood. The residences are sited on the lots to minimize impacts to views from the other side of Brittany Lane. Hip roofs have been incorporated into the design to minimize impacts to views. Staff feels the project is in conformity with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, Resolution 82-85 adopted by the City Council and consistent with the Heritage Tree Ordinance. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the project subject to the conditions of approval and concluded his presentation. Cm. Johnson asked to heqr from the Fire Marshal. Jim Ferdidnand, Fire Marshall stated that the City adopted the Wildfire Management Plan in 1996. The document states trees will be limbed up 15 feet or 1/3 their crown height ifwithin 100 feet of a home. The Wildfire Management Plan was drafted before planning Commission Regular Meeting 153 December 12, 2000 ;/1'-/ ~ )4~ the Heritage Tree Ordinance was created. The Alameda County/City of Dublin adopted Uniform Fire Code lowers the tree height from 15 feet to 6 feet. Cm. Johnson opened the public hearing. Jeff Woods Black Mountain development thanked Dennis and Staff for working on project. Brought his architect. Cm. Johnson explained the project review is a public hearing with a number of people who wish to speak on the project. He stated that Mr. Bond, Mr. Bewley, and Mr. Wies wished to speak as a group. He asked them to speak individually and the Commission would be happy to hear from each of them. Jerry Weis, 11158 Brittany Lane spoke with Jeff Woods on the custom homes. He has concerns with his property value being effected with the loss of his view. He called a local real estate agent to inquire on the affects of the project. The agent indicated the loss of his view will lower his property value. An appraiser assessed a $10,000 premium for the view from his home compared to a ridge home without a view. He requested that the homes be appraised before they are approved by the City. Cm. Jennings asked Mr. Weis if he is asking the City to employ an appraiser to appraise his home. Mr. Weis responded that it should be determined whether the value of the homes would increase or decrease. The City Council Resolution 82 - 85 approved in 1985 condition number 6 has been applied to the project with a deviation. The strict interpretation of condition number 6, the houses would have to come down to open up the view. It is subjective to state the project will minimize the impacts to the view. He requested translating the impacts to home value. Cm. Jennings stated it would be difficult to get a licensed appraiser to make that determination. A different appraiser would give a different opinion. Mr. Weis stated he does not want an exact appraisal, only if it will make a difference. Cm. Jennings asked Mr. Weis if he is requesting the City to pay for the cost of an appraIser. Mr. Weis responded yes. Cm. Johnson asked if the view from the street for the proposed homes is better on the natural grade than going 25 feet high from the curb. planning Commission Regular Meeting 15+ December I2f 2000 ~/s crt )-V1 Mr. Carrington stated the homes would have the same height view from the street. Cm. Johnson if the view from across the street for the proposed homes are at 16 feet high instead of 25 feet. Mr. Carrington stated yes. Susan Bewley, Brittany Lane resident stated that Mr. Carrington is referring to grading that occurred in 1985, which makes the site plan incorrect. There is landfill that would be removed. Mr. Carrington explained there is a band of fill that is parallel to Brittany Lane. The land will stair step with some areas removed and some filled in. Mrs. Bewley asked if the plans are an accurate representation of the project. Mr. Carrington responded yes. There is a profile on each home in the staff report. Mrs. Bewley said Mr. Woods assured her that she would still have a view from her living room. Cm. Johnson stated the houses will be 16 feet high at street level. Mrs. Bewley said the arch roof is taking away from her view and the setbacks are 5 feet and 10 feet from the fence. Cm. Johnson stated staff report indicates the site line is over the top of the house across the street. Mrs. Bewley said that is only true or some lots. The Fire Marshall referred to the Ordinance requiring distance of 100 feet from a home; it is inapplicable because there is no home and it does not apply to a empty lot. David Bewley 11166 Brittany Lane stated with him is Rich Bond 11182 Brittany Lane. They have prepared overheads and would like to address the staff report line by line as fast as they can. Resolution 82-85, condition 6 and 16 are conditions, which preserve their view. The preservation of their view was granted to them in 1985 by the City Council. Condition 6 is not being followed by way of interpretation. Staff is using 1997 ordinance which rewrites original condition of 25 feet and allows building heights of 40 feet. The concern is condition 2, which allows for reasonable modification. The developer, future home owners could come back and increase the height. Condition 6 states the height shall not exceed 25 feet as measured from natural grade, deviation or natural refinement may be considered as part of Site Development Review. The problem planning Commission RetJUlar Meeting 155 December 12, 2000 ~)b i ;45 is the definition of natural grade. Staff states as defined by the zoning ordinance the contour of ground surface before grading; common engineering practice is define to ground surface as ground that has never been graded or ground that has been grade.d pursuant to improved grading permit so there is new ground surface} new ground surface can be used to determine natural grade. He quoted from the ordinance, existing or natural grade} the contour of natural grade before grading} b - rough grade the stage of which the grade approx conforms to an approved grading plan. That land was graded in 1985 after the council approved. If use common engineering practice, which is not written anywhere and has not been provided in written document anywhere in the City or Ordinance. Can make that grade anything - nothing in condition 6 precludes anyone from regrading subject to a 25 foot height ordinance, because it applies specifically to homes. Therefore could have a grade lower or higher, can grade again and make it higher, there is no natural grade. That is logical nonsense. The Ordinance states existing or natural grade is the contour of the ground surface before grading, not by common engineering practice. Mr. Bond said he would like to address the staff report, point by point. He stated that he would like to refer to the Arial photo on the wall to make a point; he stepped away from the microphone and could not be heard or recorded. Mr. Bond returned to the microphone and stated there is a large area of boulders and presented the Commission with a photograph. He explained that part of the grading plan was to put in keyways in with drainage pipes to stabilize the' ground. Either the pipe was suppose to be put in the drains and was not put there or thrown away in the stream. The grading plan for Brittany Lane ot 1985 shows the revene exposed. A modern Arial photo of same area the revene is not exposed. Cm. Muss~r stated the grading plan shows the revene closed in and not exposed. He explained to Mr. Bond how the plans show the revene filled in. Mr. Bond was not in full agreement with Cm. Musser. Cm. Johnson asked Mr. Bond and Mr. Bewley to continue with their presentation. He explained that there is usually a 3 minute time limit to address the Commission. He suggested addressing other issues of concern. Mr. Bewley stated that the lay of land today is rough grade not natural grade and houses would be lower. Cm. Johnson asked if they would be lower than 16 foot roof lines Mr. Bewley stated yes. If go from natural grade, will drop 20 feet back will drop it down. planning Commission ReLJUlar Meeting 156 December 12, 2000 rJ./1 ~ ;.~5 Cm. Johnson stated won't drop it down from street level for front elevation. Mr. Bewley stated grade from street some cases it is 10 feet. He said he would try and move quickly through the remainder of his presentation. Cm. Johnson stated he'd appreciate that. Mr. Bewley stated the 1997 Ordinance allows homes 40 feet in height, which is too much. Interpretation of Ordinance under Section D states conflicts between other requirements between this Ordinance and other regulations of the City, the most restrictive shall apply. He stated that 25 feet is more restrictive than 40. The 40 foot rule should not be used for interpretation. Cm. Johnson asked if was concerned with the houses adding a 2nd story. Mr. Bewley said yes. Cm. Johnson stated that the point has been taken regarding natural grade; the Commission appreciates his comments and asked him if he could move on. Mr. Bewley responded yes. Cm. Johnson asked if Mr. Bewley was speaking for everyone or were there other speakers. Mr. Bewley stated he was speaking for a majority and they may be other speakers. Cm. Johnson stated they have had ample time to prove their point. Mr. Bewley stated he needs to talk about Heritage Tree Ordinance. Cm. Johnson asked Mr. Bewley if he could wrap it up in 2 minutes. Mr. Bewley said that is not enough time. Cm. Johnson asked Mr. Bewley if he provided Staff with documentation on his presentation. Mr. Bewley said he will provide Staff with documentation. Cm. Johnson explained there will be another opportunity to speak on the project at the City Council meeting. planning Commission Regular Meeting 157 December 12, 2000 ~/$' ~ ;.15 Mr. Bond stated Mr. Woods gave them drawings of the project that are different than the drawings submitted to the City, which impacts the views differently. Mr. Bewley discussed the Heritage Tree protection plan. The Ordinance does not have language for tree preservation. Heritage Tree Ordinance does not include definition of tree preservation. Cutting away tree is not preserving tree. He requested that the Ordinance be revised. He thanked the Commission for allowing him the time to speak and apologized for taking up so much time. He submitted a letter for the Commission. Charles Breed, 11296 Rothschild stated he would not take too much of the Commission's time. He stated the project should not be approved. The Developers are here to make money at the community's expense. These lots were not developed in 1985 because they are not buildable and have a lot of problems. He had concerns with the proposed homes are larger than the surrounding neighborhood, the loss of his view, and it will take away the only fire access. Cm. Johnson asked Mr. Breed if he is referring to the flag lot. Mr. Breed responded yes. Cm. Johnson asked Mr. Breed if his house was adjacent to the flag lot. Mr. Breed responded yes. Cm. Johnson asked Mr. Breed if he was aware it was a flag lot when he purchased his home. Mr. Breed stated that the real estate agent was mis-informed and told them it was a fire access road. He is not familiar with a flag lot.. The natural grade calculations are wrong; the grade calculations is from dirt that was pushed back from the houses being built. After the driveway is put in on the adjacent lot, there will be a drainage problem and the water going into his backyard. He stated there are a number of potential problems with the project and it shouldn't be approved. Pete Body, 11293 Rothschild stated there is a large concrete drainage inlet in his back yard and drains to one of the proposed lots. He asked where his drainage will go after the house is built. Cm. Johnson stated he is confident that drainage will be replaced. Mr. Body stated there is a large tree hanging over his fence from the adjacent lot. planning Commission Regular Meeting 158 December 12, 2000 _ ri</r ~ ;yj Cm. Johnson explained that Mr. Body can prune the part of the tree hanging over the fence into his property. Cm. Johnson asked if there were any other comments or questions; hearing none he closed the public hearing. Cm. Musser asked Staff to clarify the conflicting issues with the 1997 Ordinance and the City Council Resolution 82-85. Mr. Carrington stated Resolution 82-85 is in effect. He does not believe there is a conflict with the 1997 Ordinance and Condition 6. The resolution specifically states that for steep situations pursuant to Site Development Review can make a deviation or modification. Staff applied this standard to the Bryce Davies lot adjacent to this project. Cm. Musser stated with respect to height requirement, these houses are below 25 feet. Mr. Carrington responded yes. Many of the houses are right at 25 feet, but way below 35-40 feet. He suggested that the Commission could modify the conditions to prohibit a height increase. Cm. Musser asked if there is an arborist report and if the project is encroaching into any trees covered by the Heritage Tree Ordinance. Mr. Carrington stated yes there is an arborist report. There is one tree on lot 8 that is affected, but the fire code reduces the drip line of the tree. Cm. Jennings asked if the conditions have been reviewed by the arborists. Mr. Carrington stated yes. Cm. Jennings asked if the Applicant has read the conditions. Mr. Carrington responded yes and he is in agreement with the conditions Cm. Musser asked if project will conform to the Heritage Tree Ordinance. Mr. Carrington stated yes. The Arborist requested changes, which were made. Cm. Musser asked there is a fencing plan for the project. Mr. Carrington said yes. planning Commission Regular Meeting 159 December 12, 2000 t/.-rJ. D cr6 ;2 ~.5 Cm. Jennings stated to her knowledge this is the first time a certified Arborist needs to be present during grading and construction of the project. Cm. Johnson asked if there were any other question~; hearing none he asked for a motion. On motion by Cm. Jennings and seconded by Cm. Musser with a 3-0-1 vote, with Cm. Oravetz no longer sitting on the Commission, and with the noted amendments to the conditions, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 00-71 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING PA 00-009 BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT SITE DEVELOPMENT REV.EW FOR SEVEN SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ON EXISTING LOTS ON BRITTANY LANE NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mr. Peabody went over the upcoming Planning Commission schedule. OTHER BUSINESS None ADOURNMENT Cm Hughes adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Community Development Director planning Commission Regular Meeting 160 December 12, 2000 c?-~/ ~ )Y5 ANALYSIS OF GROUNDS FOR APPEAL RECEIVED DECEMBER 21. 2000: The appellants have given six grounds for their appeal. An analysis of each ground for appeal is as follows. Staffhas used different fonts to help distinguish between grounds for appeal, footmarks, and Staff responses to grounds for appeal. The texts ofthe grounds for appeal were divided into "grounds" such as 1-1, 1-2, etc., for clarity of analysis: Ground for Appeal 1. Ground 1-1. "Unequal enforcement of 1997 Dublin Zoning Ordinance and Condition 6 of Resolution 82-85. Issue: Natural Grade and conformity with Condition 6. Proposed housing on Brittany Lane lots 1 and 7-12 of Block 1 of Tract Map 5073 located at 11299 Rolling hills Drive and 11151, 11159, 11167, 11175, 1183 and 11191 Brittany Lane (hereinafter "Custom Lots") should be lowered from the current proposed siting to reflect a siting on "Natural Grade" as defined in Section 8.08.020.G.at, of the Zoning Ordinance and Condition 62 of City Council Resolution 82-85, August 12, 1985." Footnote 1 to this groundfor appeal is the definition of "Grade" from the Zoning Ordinance that follows: Grade. The term Grade shall mean the vertical location of the ground surface, as follows: a. Existing or natural grade: The contour of the ground surface before grading. b. Rough grade: The stage at which the grade approximately conforms to an approved grading plan. c. Finish grade: The final terrain contour of a site that conforms to an approved grading plan. Where there is no approved grading plan, Finish Grade is the lowest point of elevation of the finished surface of the ground between the exterior wall of a building and a perimeter drawn five feet distant from said wall, or the lowest point of elevation of the finished surface of the ground between the exterior wall of a building and the property line if it is less than five feet distant from said wall, whichever is lowest. In the case of walls parallel to and within five feet of a public sidewalk, alley, or other public way, the Finished Grade shall be the elevation of the sidewalk, alley, or public way. Footnote 2 to this groundfor appeal is Condition 6 of City Council Resolution 82-85 the full text of which reads as follows: Condition 6. Condition 6 reads asfollows: "The height of custom or modified homes shall not exceed twenty-five (25) feet as measured perpendicularly from natural grade. Skirt heights screening undeveloped, non-living space for custom or modified homes (measured from natural grade to finished floor elevations) shall not exceed a maximum of nine 9 feet. Deviation and/or refinement of these standards may be considered as part of the Site Development Review process covering these lots. " 1 ATTACHMENT 14 c;lo1fl 0{ :;LY5 Staff response to Ground 1-1. Appellants unequal protection argument appears to be that when there are two requirements which could bear upon a given situation, the two requirements are not both strictly enforced by the City and a conflict results. Thus the appellants propose that the residences in this project be lowered from the current proposed siting to reflect a siting on "Natural Grade" as they understand it in the current Zoning Ordinance and Condition 6. Staff is of the opinion that there is no conflict between the Definition of "Grade" in the Zoning Ordinance and Condition 6, and that the height of the proposed homes has been properly measured from "Finish grade" and "Existing or natural grade" for several reasons: 1. When Resolution 82-85 was adopted in 1985 there was no definition of "Natural Grade" in the resolution or in the Zoning Ordinance in effect at that time which has since been superceded (Old Ordinance). 2. "Grade" was defined in the Old Ordinance as "the lowest point of elevation of the finished surface of the ground between the exterior wall of the building and a point five feet distant from the said wall or the lowest point of elevation of the finished surface of the ground between the exterior wall of the building and the property line if it is less than five feet distant from the wall.. ,," 3. There is no conflict between the New Zoning Ordinance definition of "Natural Grade" and Condition 6. The New Zoning Ordinance defines the term "Existing or natural grade", not "Natural Grade". As will be discussed below in Ground 1-2, "Existing or natural grade" as modified by an approved grading plan results in "Finish Grade". This in turn is the new "Existing or natural grade" which would exist before yet further grading. "Natural Grade" as used in Condition 6 is not defined but the intent of the condition is clearin light of the definition of "Grade" in the Old Zoning Ordinance as being measured from "the finished surface of the ground" and the New Zoning Ordinance which shows that "Finish Grade" is the result of grading pursuant to an approved grading plan which establishes a new "Existing or natural grade". Condition 6 results in measuring building height from the same point as the definition of "Grade" in the New Zoning Ordinance. Lots 1, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of this project (as were the rest of the lots in Tracts 5072,5073 and 5074) were graded pursuant to an approved grading plan. Lot 12 was graded pursuant to an approved grading plan at the time Brittany Lane was constructed and no further grading of that lot was necessary for the purposes of Tract 5073. The heights of the homes built on these lots will conform to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance with regard to heights. Both the New Zoning Ordinance and Condition 6 result in the measurement of height from the same point, finish grade, as established by an approved grading permit. 4. A study was prepared comparing the topography profile for the Brittany Lane lots prior to 1985, the 1985 finish grade profile and the proposed finish floor 2 ;<cA:3 l~ J ~5 elevations in relationship to Brittany Lane (Attachment 16 to the Staff Report). The study shows that the pad elevations of the proposed homes would average below the 1985 finish grade. Lot 9 is four feet over finish grade because of the requirements of acceptable driveway grades, lot usability, and consistency of street presence of the homes. As stated above, all of the homes will meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance with regard to height. Ground 1-2. "The Dublin Planning Commission (hereinafter "Commission") and Dublin Planning Department (hereinafter "Staff') have without proper authority created a heretofore-unknown definition of "New Ground Surface" to replace natural grade in both the 1997 Dublin Zoning Ordinance and Condition 6 of Resolution 82085 (page 3, Staffrepod). This constitutes an impermissible revision or amendment of both the 1997 Ordinance and Resolution 82-85 and is beyond allowed reasonable deviation and/or refinement in Condition 6, resulting in an increase in the heights of homes developed on these Custom Lots. No evidence of an established or measurable Dublin City Standard for such revision was introduced into the record at the December 12,2000 hearing and therefore is an unequal enforcement as applied to this development.4" Footnote 3 to this groundfor appeal reads asfollows: "Agenda Statement 12-12-00, Page 3 "Common engineering practice is to define the ground surface before grading as ground that has never been graded or ground that has been graded pursuant to an approved grading permit so that there is a "new" ground surface." Thefact is that common engineering practice is to define this "new" ground surface as rough grade. Proof of this is seen in the 1986 engineering reports and current Peer Review for this development. See Kleinfelder letter to City of Dublin, dated October 13, 2000 page 2, paragraph 4: "The January 9, 1986 (ENGEO Inc) report provides documentation concerning the general geotechnical observations and compaction testing performed during the rough grading performed in 1985..." (Emphasis added) see Attachment #1. The phrase "rough grade" is the accepted standard. Additionally, adopting a standard of "new" ground surface via approved grading, could be used to redefine the height limitations of Condition 6 on a repeated basis, rendering the height limitation impossible to establish because you would modify it with each new grading permit. For example, will the height limits be changed again based on the new grading being allowed by proposed development P A 00-009? This is why the height must be measured from the Natural Grade, otherwise the height limits in Condition 6 are meaningless. " Footnote 4 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: "See attached letter dated December 12, 2000 from the Residents of Brittany Lane, paragraph I and paragraph II as Attachment #2. It should be noted that Resolution 82-85 was passed before any approved grading permits were issuedfor this development. Subsequent grading therefore will not change the wording of Resolution 82-85 Condition 6. The grading has resulted in an increase in the elevation of the ground surface by over ten feet on some of the Custom Lots, which will result in an increase in the height of the homes ifused as a "new" ground surface standard." A copy of this letter was proved to the Planning Commission qt the time of the public hearing. It should be pointed out that Attachments 3,4, 5, and 6 of the appeal package were not presented to the Planning Commission at the December 12, 2000 hearing and are being placed in the public record for the first time at this hearing. 3 ;2/l- ~ ~.. J ~ :? Staff response to Ground 1-2. "Existing or natural grade" is defined under the Zoning Ordinance adopted in 1997 (New Ordinance) as the contour of the ground surface before grading. The Staff report for the December 12,2000 Planning Commission hearing on this item stated the following: "Common engineering practice is to define the ground surface before grading as ground that has never been graded or ground that has been graded pursuant to an approved grading plan so that there is a "new" ground surface. This new ground surface can then be used to determine Natural Grade." Staff was not creating a heretofore-unknown definition of "New Ground Surface" but was trying to clarify that a sites "Natural Grade" is not a static condition. Instead, it may change under the Zoning Ordinance from time to time as the site is graded and re-graded pursuant to approved grading plans. The language in the Planning Commission Report would have been more clear if it had stated that, pursuant to the definition of "Grade" in the New Zoning Ordinance, a new ground surface created pursuant to an approved grading plan is the final terrain contour of a site or "Finish Grade". This "Finish Grade" then becomes a new "Existing or natural grade" which would exist before any further grading. Lot 12 and Brittany Lane were created by Tract Map 4859 pursuant to an approved grading permit. Tract Map 4859 was approved by Alameda County on July 20,1981. Lots 1, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 were created in 1985 pursuant to an approved grading Plan for PA 85-035, Hatfield/lnvetec Tract Maps 5072,5073 and 5074 (which re-subdivided Tract Map 4859). Lots that were graded pursuant to a valid grading permit create a new or "Finish" grade and "Existing or natural grade" from which measurements of building height should be made. This method was used to determine the height of the residences of this project. Staff has not created a heretofore unknown definition of "New Ground Surface" so there is no unequal enforcement as applied to this development. It is not common engineering practice to determine the new ground surface as "rough grade" as implied in footnote 4. "Rough Grade" is defined by the New Zoning Ordinance as "The stage atwhich the grade approximately conforms to an approved grading plan." As stated above, the final terrain contour of a site that conforms to an approved grading plan is "Finish grade" not "Rough grade". Section 8.04.060.D.1 states "If conflicts occur between requirements of this Ordinance, or between this Ordinance and other regulations of the City, the most restrictive shall apply." There is no conflict between the definitions of "Natural Grade" and Condition 6. Applying both terms results in the same condition, the surface of the ground that existed after grading of Tract Map 5073 pursuant to an approved grading plan. To summarize, the "Existing or natural grade" of a ground surface may be re-established over time by successive approved grading plans. Building height is measured from whatever grade exists in conformance with an approved grading plan a the time building permits are requested. Ground for Appeal 2. Ground 2-1. 4 clA5 ~ }-~, "The height limit on these custom or modified homes should not exceed 25 feet if the impacts to the views are to be properly minimized. Issue: Section 8.36.11 O.C.2 of the 1997 Dublin Zoning Ordinance is being applied to this Site Development Review resulting in unequal enforcement. Staff response to Ground 2-1. Natural grade. The Appellants state that the heights of the residences are measured from "natural grade". As stated above "Natural Grade" is incorporated into "Existing or natural grade" under the New Zoning Ordinance. The "Finish grade" resulting from the approved grading plans for Tracts 5072,5073 and 5074 and for the construction of Brittany Lane created a new "Existing or natural grade" from which building heights are measured. New Zoning Ordinance Section 8.36.110 C.2, Residential exception - Sloping lots, permits the maximum height allowed for a dwelling.to be increased on steeply sloping lots. Applying the slope exception, the maximum potential height for the proposed homes would be 35 to 40 feet. In contrast, Condition 6 established a 25 foot height standard which may, however, be refined through Site Development Review. There is no identified maximum height under Condition 6. No conflict between Condition 6 and Section 8.36.110 C.2. In spite of this contrast, Staff is of the opinion that there is no conflict between the Condition 6, Deviation and/or refinement provision and Section 8.36.110 C.2. A strict application of the 25-foot height limit of Condition 6 would make construction of a home with a useable floor plan almost impossible. A typical two-story residence on a flat or stepped pad foundation can easily conform to the 25-foot height limit. A residence on a steeply sloping lot would only conform to the 25-foot limit if it resembled a stairway with shallow treads and had rooms that were not very usable. In Staffs view Condition 6 anticipated this situation and provided for deviation and/or refinement of its standards pursuant to Site Development Review. In order to evaluate the proposed "Deviation and/or Refinement", Staff applied the Zoning Ordinance slope exception for steep lots. Minimal impacts to views. Staff worked with the applicant/developer to site the residences as low on the lots as possible in order to preserve views. This project contains 2 lots with slopes exceeding 22.5 % and 5 lots exceeding 30%. These homes could be up to 35 and 40 feet high under the new Zoning Ordinance height exception. It should be pointed out that the seven homes have roof peaks that average 13.6 feet below the height allowed with the height exception because the building pads are located down slope from Brittany Lane. The residences are designed to appear from the street as single story homes. They average 13.16 feet high when viewed from the sidewalk on Brittany Lane and 15.4 feet high at the front porch. Hip roofs are incorporated into the design of the homes to provide minimum interference with views. The project plans provide profiles for each proposed residence to show impacts to the views of the homes on the opposite side of Brittany Lane. Staff believes that the proposed heights are consistent with both Condition 6 and the New Zoning Ordinance and reflect site and architectural design which minimizes impacts to views. Bryce Davies home. Staff used Section 8.36.110.C.2 to approve PA 98-053, Bryce Davies Site Development Review for a single-family residence at 11197 Brittany Lane (Lot 6 of Block 1 of Tract Map 5073), which is adjacent to Lot 7 of this project. That 5 c?A&. ci ;qj residence was similar in height, design and size to the proposed residences. It is located on a lot with slopes in excess of 30% like the subject lots. The Bryce Davies residence, when built, will have the presence on the Brittany Lane frontage of a single story home. Staff applied Section 8.36.110.C.2 in light of Condition 6 of City Council Resolution 82- 85 and approved the project on January 15, 1999. Staff discussed the Bryce Davies home proposal with most of the nearby residents before approving the project. There were no appeals of the staff approval. Ground 2-2. Staff and Commission state in paragraph page 3 of the Agenda Statement that impacts to views are being minimized because these homes could be 35 and 40 feet high. This creates the possibility and potential that this developer or his successors, or future owners could assert a right to increase the height of these homes.5 Footnote 5 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: "See General Condition 2: 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. "" Staff response to Ground 2-2. The appellants are concerned that the developer or his successors, or future owners could increase the height of these homes to the maximum height (35 feet and 40 feet) allowed by Section 8.36.110 C.2. Footnote 5 cites Section 8.104.100 of the Zoning Ordinance as permitting this. Section 8.104.100 addresses a Site Development Review Waiver for minor projects which are Categorically Exempt from CEQA such as the physical expansion of a structure by no more than 1000 square feet or the exterior modification of no more than 100 square feet of surface area of an existing structure. This Section cannot be used to increase the height of a residence because Condition 40 of the Planning Commission Resolution of Approval for this project prohibits the increase in height of residences in this project beyond that originally approved by the City. If the City Council affirms the action of the Planning Commission approving this project, this condition would apply to this project. If the project were approved by the City Council, only the City Council could modify the condition to allow the residences to be increased in height. Ground 2-3. The height limit should be 25 feet from natural grade according to Rt::solution 82-85 condition 6.6 Staff assertion that Section 8.36.11 O.C.2 ofthe 1997 Dublin Zoning Ordinance applies to this Site Development Review is incorrect. This Ordinance states in simple and direct language that it is not to be applied to other existing regulations or ordinances such as Resolution 82-85 ifthere is a conflict. If a conflict exists between the 1997 Dublin Zoning Ordinance and other regulations then the most restrictive shall apply. Resolution 82-85 is more restrictive because is (sic) allows for only 25 feet height whereas the 1997 Dublin Zoning Ordinance Section 8.36.110.C.2 allows for heights up to 40 feet on the Custom Lots7. Section 8.04.0608 and Section 8.04.060.D.19 clearly show that the 1997 Dublin Zoning Ordinance never intended to rewrite and supersede Resolution 82-85. 6 pJ.1 ot I-~? Footnote 6 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: See footnote 2 supra. Footnote 7 to this groundfor appeal reads asfollows: See Staffreport Agenda Statement page 3 "Deviation and/or refinement" chart showing 15 feet can be added to the height of a home on a slope over 30 percent. Footnote 8 to this groundfor appeal reads asfollows: Section 8.04.060 "Interpretation." Of City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 1997 provides the rules for resolving questions about the meaning or applicability of any part of Ordinance. Definitions and the meanings of words and prhases are set out in this section. For example, Section 8. 04. 060A.3 states: " 'Shall, May and Should.' 'Shall' is always mandatory and not discretionary. 'May' is permissive and discretionary. 'Should' is . advisory and not mandatory. " Footnote 9 to this groundfor appeal reads asfollows: Section 8.04.060.d.1 states: Conflicting Requirements. 1. Other Municipal Code Provisions. "If conflicts occur between requirements of this Ordinance, or between this Ordinance and other regulations of the City, the most restrictive shall ~. (Emphasis added) Staff response to Ground 2-3. As stated above, Staff is of the opinion that Section 8.36.1 DD.C.2 is applicable to this project as permitted by Condition 6 of Resolution 82-85. Furthermore the application of Section 8.36.1DD.C.2 in this situation is appropriate because there is no conflict between Condition 6 and Section 8.36.1 DD.C.2. This is because Section 8.36.1 DD.Co2 is more restrictive than Condition 6. Condition 6 allows the open-ended deviation and/or refinement of the 25-foot standard to be considered as part of the Site Development Review process covering these lots. Section 8.36.1 DD.C.2 provides for a finite limit of the addition of 5, 10, or 15 feet to the height of a structure on steep slopes. The application of Section 8.36.1 DD.C.2 does not rewrite or supersede Resolution 82-85. Ground 2-4. The Dublin City Council went into specific detail to require severe height limitations for only 12 lots (the Custom Lots) in a development of over 200 homes. Staff response to Ground 2-4. It is Staff opinion the City Council intended for the height limitations for steep lots to be flexible. It is not possible to construct a residence with a useable floor plan if the 25-foot height limit is strictly enforced. Furthermore, the Staff Report for the July 15, 1985 Planning Commission hearing for the Hatfield development addressed Condition 6. The relevant sentance reads as follows: "Provides a standard for on (sic) building heights and skirt heights for lots backing up to extreme up or down sloping areas (Condition #6)." This is a clear indication of the intent of the Planning Department at that time to provide a "standard for building heights for lots backing up to extreme up or down sloping areas". In other words, the condition was intended to provide flexibility for the heights of buildings on extreme up or down sloping lots, such as those of this project. 7 )!J-g ~ ~Ll' Staff is of the opinion that the project has been designed in compliance with Condition 6. The heights of the residences are being measured from the proper elevation. The deviation and/or refinement of the standards is appropriate. The project is well designed, well sited and minimizes impacts to the views of neighbors on the north side of Brittany Lane. Ground 2-5. Staff does not challenge Condition 6 of the 1985 Resolution but instead incorrectly applies the 1997 Ordinance. This constitutes an impermissible revision of both the 1997 Ordinance and Resolution 82-85 and is beyond reasonable deviation and/or refinement in Condition 6, resulting in an increase in the heights of homes developed on the Custom Lots and a potential loss of protected views for the current residents of Brittany Lane. This Council Should rule that the homes on the Custom Lots cannot go any higher than 25 feet as mandated in Condition 6." Staff response to Ground 2-5. See the response to Ground 2-3 above. With regard to the words "a potential loss of protected views" within Ground 2-5, it should be pointed out that it was always intended that lots approved pursuant to Tract Map 5073, that were not built upon, would be built upon eventually with the potential that views would be modified. Ground for Appeal 3. Ground 3-1. "Staff and Commission failed to preserve tree 340 as required by Condition 1610 of Resolution 82- 85, August 12, 1985 and. . . . Footnote 10 to this groundfor appeal reads asfollows: Resolution 82-85 Condition 16: "Project grading performed within 25 feet of the drip line of existing onsite or ojfsite trees shall be addressed by a horticultural report and the recommendations and findings of that report incorporated into the grading and improvement plans of the project. " (Emphasis added) Staff response to Ground 3-1. Staff and the Planning Commission have preserved Tree 340 as required by Condition 16 of City Council Resolution 82-85. Condition 16 requires that project grading performed within 25 feet of the drip line of existing onsite or offsite trees be addressed by a horticultural report and the recommendations and findings of that report be incorporated into the grading and improvement plans of the project. A horticultural report dated July 5, 1985, was prepared by Douglas Hamilton for Tracts 5072, 5073 and 5074. A Tree Protection Plan (Attachment 5) dated "received December 4,2000", was prepared by Nelda Matheny of HortScience for this project. The project was designed pursuant to the Tree Protection Plan. Conditions of approval of the SDR will ensure that the requirements of the Tree Protection Plan are implemented, including the preservation of Tree 340. A subsidiary trunk of Tree 340 will be removed as part of the pruning of all 8 JJ<? cI ~ V3 trees within 100 feet of proposed structures to a height of 6 feet above the ground. The requirements of the Tree Protection Plan have been included as conditions of approval of this Site Development Review. Ground 3-2. . . . .Section 5.60.40(b) ofthe Heritage Tree Ordinance 29-99, December 21, 199911 (hereinafter the "Heritage Tree Ordinance") and. . . . Footnote 11 to this groundfor appeal reads asfollows: Section 5.60.40(b) Heritage Tree Ordinance states: "A tree required to be preserved as part of an approved development plan, zoning permit, use permit, site development review or subdivision map. " (Emphasis added) Staff response to Ground 3-2. Staff and the Planning Commission have preserved Tree 340 as required by Section 5.60.40(b) of the Heritage Tree Ordinance. That Section defines a Heritage Tree as a tree required to be preserved as part of an approved development plan, zoning permit, use permit, site development review or subdivision map. All Heritage Trees on the project site will be preserved. They will be pruned to meet the requirements of the 1998 California Fire Code. This will protect structures but will also help protect the trees from fires in adjacent grass and litter. Ground 3.;.3. . . . ~Section 8.04.020(F) for the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance12, September 1997 for the health and welfare of the citizens of Dublin. All three of these ordinances taken together require preservation of tree 340." Issue: Staff and Commission failed to address and enforce Condition 16 of Resolution 82-85, Section 5.60.40(b) of the Dublin Heritage Tree Ordinance, and Section 8.04.020(F) of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Footnote 12 to this groundfor appeal reads asfollows: Section 8. 04. 02 0 (F) Purpose: "Protect and preserve the natural environment of the City of Dublin. " (Emphasis added). "To promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort, convenience and general welfare and to preserve and enhance the aesthetic qualitY of the City... " Staff response to Ground 3-3. Staff and the Planning Commission have preserved Tree 340 as required by Section 8.04.020(F) of the Zoning Ordinance. This provision is one of the "Purposes" of the Zoning Ordinance. It reads as follows: "Protect and preserve the natural environment of the City of Dublin." Staff is of the opinion that this SDR does protect and preserve the natural environment of the City of Dublin. Seven existing approved lots are proposed to be developed. Heritage Trees do exist on the lots proposed to be developed with single- family residences. A Tree Protection Plan was prepared and approved by the Director of Community Development after approval during a peer-review by the City's arborist. The 9 ~SD vi J.L15 requirements of the Tree Protection Plan have been included as conditions of approval of this Site Development Review. Ground 3-4. "Under these sections, Staff and Commission were required to establish a tree preservation plan instead of a tree protection plan. Appellants contend that preservation is defined as follows: 2. a keeping of something unchanged: maintenance of something, especially something of historic value, in an unchanged condition13. Tree protection plans are more suitable for Heritage Trees defined under Section 5.60.40(a) Heritage Tree Ordinance, which addresses trees of a certain size but does not mention any requirement of preservation." Footnote 13 to this groundfor appeal reads asfollows: Encarta@ World English Dictionary ~ & (P) 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developedfor Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing PIc. Staff response to Ground 3-4. The Appellants assert that the City should have established a tree preservation plan instead of a tree protection plan. They state that Tree Protection Plans are more suitable for Heritage Trees defined as "Any Oak, Bay, Cypress, Maple, Redwood, Buckeye, and Sycamore tree having a trunk or main stem of 24 inches or more in diameter measured at 4 feet 6 inches above natural grade." Staff is of the opinion that Section 5.60.90 of the Heritage Tree Ordinance requires that a Protection plan be prepared prior to issuance of any permit. That Section requires that a plan to protect Heritage Trees be submitted to the Director prior to the issuance of demolition, grading or building permits. No mention is made in the Ordinance of a tree preservation plan. Staff is of the opinion that a Tree Protection Plan is appropriate for any tree meeting the definition of a Heritage Tree, not just the first of three definitions as asserted by the Appellants. Ground 3-5. Tree 340, was not preserved by proposed Resolution approving P A 00-009 and no effort was made to investigate tree preservation which is the spirit of the Heritage Tree Ordinance as stated in Section 5.60.20 Purpose and Intent. Staff response to Ground 3-5. The Appellants state that Tree 340 was not preserved by the resolution approving PA 00- 009 and no effort was made to investigate tree preservation which is the spirit of the Heritage Tree Ordinance as stated in Section 5.60.20, Purpose and Intent. That section reads as follows: "This Chapter is adopted because the city has many Heritage Trees, the preservation of which is beneficial to the health and welfare of the citizens of this city in order to enhance scenic beauty, increase property values, encourage quality gevelopment, prevent soil erosion, protect against flood hazards and the risk of landslides, counteract pollution in the air and maintain the climatic balance within the city. 10 cJ.. 3/ ot;1. '/:5 For these reasons the City finds it is in the public interest, convenience, necessity, and welfare to establish regulations controlling the removal of and preservation of Heritage Trees within the City. In establishing these regulations, it is the City's intent to preserve as many Heritage Trees as possible consistent with the reasonable use and enjoyment of private property." The Tree Protection Plan was adopted pursuant to the Heritage Tree Ordinance which implements the stated purpose and intent. Ground 3-6. For example, housing could be sited a sufficient distance from the trees to prevent unnecessary and severe pruningl4. Footnote 14 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: See letter from Jeffrey Gamboni, December 6,2000 paragraph 1.6: "Potential negative impacts resultingfrompruning: the pruning of tree # 340 is major surgery requiring the removal of a 27 inch trunkfrom a 40 inch diameter trunk... " (Emphasis added) Staff response to Ground 3-6. The Appellants suggest that the housing could be sited a sufficient distance from the trees to prevent unnecessary and severe pruning. The 1998 California Fire Code requires pruning of trees within 100 feet of structures. A staff analysis revealed that, if no Heritage Trees were to be pruned, all proposed homes would have to be 100 feet from the trees. This would eliminate homes on Lots 1, 7, 8, 9 and 10. They cite Point 1.6 of a December 6, 2000 letter from Jeffrey Gamboni describing the removal of a subsidiary trunk of Tree 340 as major surgery. The complete text of that point reads as follows: "Potential negative impacts resulting from pruning: the pruning of tree #340 is major surgery requiring the removal of a 27" trunk from a 40" trunk, however we agree that the oak's vigorous condition bodes well for its ability to compartmentalize the wound and eventually seal over the pruning cuts." Staff cites the responses to Grounds 3-1 through 3.5 to address this Ground. Ground 3-7. No investigation was made to determine if the ground surface could be removedl5 under the tree limbs to prevent their removal creating larger wounds to the tree than preferred.16 Footnote 15 to this groundfor appeal reads asfollows: Staffnoted on page 6, paragraph 1 of the 12-12-00 Agenda Statement, that removal of existing soil to natural grade could potentially destabilize Brittany Lane. Appellants contacted Dr. Robert Pyke, B.E., PhD, to look at the Custom Lots to assess if th~~ current grading is necessary for the geological stability for Brittany Lane. Dr. Pyke is an expert in the area of geotechnical analysis and has extensive experience with landslide problems in the East Bay and other regions of California. He told us that any notion that the grading of these Custom Lots is necessary to support the stability of Brittany Lane is "poppycock". We have attached his resume and recent work experience as Attachment #3 for reference. 11 l-. 1;)., crt;; tJ 5 Footnote 16 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: See HortScience Inc., Heritage Tree Protection Plan, T 5073 page 7 paragraph 3. "This pruning will create larger wounds than preferred..... " Staff response to Ground 3-7. It is asserted by the Appellants that no investigation was made to determine if the ground surface could be removed under the tree limbs to prevent their removal creating larger wounds to the tree than preferred. Staff did investigate the soil under the trees and also analyzed the 1985 grading plans for any grading or placement of fill under the Heritage Trees. It was determined that the ground surface under the Heritage Trees was not modified during the grading for Tracts 5072,5073 and 5074. The removal of the soil under the dripline of Tree 340 in order to have the subsidiary trunk and its foliage be 6 feet above the soil (and therefore not be pruned) would require excavation of 6 or more feet of soil from under the tree. This excavation would eliminate the root system and kill Tree 340. Ground 3-8. Establishment of a one-year bond17 for the protection ofthe Heritage Trees where there is major surgery is not adequate and the reasonableness of a longer time period needs to be addressed. Footnote 17 to this groundfor appeal reads asfollows: General Condition 103 Staff response to Ground 3-8. The Appellants state that the establishment of a one-year bond is not adequate and the reasonableness of a longer time period needs to be addressed. Staff points out that Section 5.60.1 OO(b) reads as follows: "(b) The cash bond or other security shall be retained for a reasonable period of time following the acceptance of the public improvements for the development, not to exceed one year (Emphasis added). The cash bond or security is to be released upon the satisfaction of the Director that the tree(s) to be preserved have not been endangered. The cash bond or security deposit shall be forfeited as a civil penalty for any unauthorized removal or destruction of a Heritage Tree." A condition of approval, should the City Council affirm the decision of the Planning Commission in part, reads as follows: "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 12 ;<,g CP~ )~j When Required: Ongoing" Ground 3-9. Another issue that needs to be addressed is what time of the year is best for pruningl8. Furthermore, building structures should not be allowed within the drip lines of any Heritage Trees. Footnote 18 to this groundfor appeal reads asfollows: We noted that development adjacent to San Ramon Road in San Ramon, included fencing beyond the drip lines of the existing oak trees. Consulting Arborist Stephen Batchelder, recommended pruningfor heavy lateral branches be performed during the months of August or September. Se letter dated May 5,2000 to City of San Ramon as Attachment 4. See also photos of protected trees in Dublin as Attachment #7. Staff response to Ground 3-9. The Appellants suggest that another issue that needs to be addressed is what time of the year is best for pruning. Furthermore, building structures should not be allowed within the drip lines of any Heritage Trees. A condition of approval of this Site Development Review requires that all pruning shall be completed by a Certified Arborist 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. Staff relies on the professionalism of the Certified Arborist and of the City's arborist in determining the correct time of the year to prune the trees. Buildings or structures will not be placed within the driplines of the Heritage Trees after they have been pruned to conform to the requirements of the 1998 California Fire Code. Ground for Appeal 4. Ground 4-1. City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan Resolution 84-96, July 9, 1996 was not fully considered, resulting in a denial of Due Process. Issue: Staff and Commission failed to consider the necessity of two roads and proper fire accessl9 to the proposed Custom Lots adjacent to open space and/or undeveloped land outside the current Dublin Urban Limit Line. Footnote 19 to this groundfor appeal reads asfollows: See page 9 Dublin Wildfire Management Plan: "OPEN SPACE ACCESS". Staff response to Ground 4-1. 13 ~3'/ t6J" J.~j The Wildfire Management Plan adopted by Resolution 84-96, has been referenced and is a minimum requirement for construction of homes on Lots 1 and 7-12. Staff reviewed compliance with the Wildfire Management Plan, as reflected in the Planning Commission Staff Report and conditions of approval. Responding to the substance of the Appellants concerns as per Page 3 of the Plan, Open Space is defined as those lands, which are set aside to remain permanently undeveloped. Undeveloped Land is that which is available for development but no Tentative Map, Master Tentative Map, of Development agreement has been approved. The access for the Lots 1 and 7-12 is bordered by Undeveloped Land and meets the requirements of the Plan. Open space access as addressed in the Plan on page 9 is not called for, yet is available via Martin Canyon Road and at the west-end of Brittany Lane. The Martin Canyon Road access is maintained and will be utilized in the event of any vegetation fire in the undeveloped land. The 21-foot gate at the end of Brittany Lane allows access to the undeveloped lands to the south and west as well as access to the DSRSD water tank. (See attached photos exhibit 1, 2,) Should there be a vegetation fire, fire attack tactics will place equipment on the downhill side via Martin Canyon Rd., and on Brittany Lane to protect the homes on both sides of the street. Hose lines will be advanced downhill between the structures to the defensible space and fire attack will proceed in the open space. The grade of the open space in a number of areas similar to that, which borders Brittany Lane precludes the use of motor vehicles. Ground 4-2. Issue: Staff and Commission failed to consider the proper construction requirements20 for building on lots adjacent to undeveloped land. Footnote 20 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: See page 5 of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan: "CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDINGS ON LOTS OR PARCELS ADJACENT TO OPEN SPACE AND UNDEVELOPED LAND". Staff response to Ground 4-2. As per the Wildfire Management Plan and related Planning Condition 53, the minimum construction standards for the homes located on Lots 1 and 7-12 shall be as follows: 1. Roof Covering - Shall be a Class-A rated assembly. Roof decking shall be solid. Space sheathing shall be prohibited. 2. Protection of Eaves - Shall be protected on the exposed underside by materials approved for 1-hour fire resistive construction. Fascias are required and must be protected on the backside by materials approved for 1-hour fire resistive construction or of 2-inch nominal dimension lumber. 3. Gutters and Downspouts - Shall be constructed of non-combustible materials. 14 ~35 1/' J~6 4. Exterior Walls - Walls of buildings or structures shall be constructed with materials approved for 1-hour fire resistive construction on the exterior side or of non- combustible materials. Exception - Heavy timber construction shall extend form the top of the foundation to the underside of the roof sheathing. 5. Unenclosed Underfloor Protection - Buildings and structures shall have all underfloor areas enclosed to the ground with exterior walls. (no open areas are allowed under decks or foundation. 6. Appendages and Projections- Unenclosed accessory structures attached to buildings with habitable spaces and projections, such as decks, shall be of 1-hour fire resistive construction, heavy timber or constructed with non-combustible materials. 7. Windows - Exterior windows, window walls and skylights shall be tempered glass or multi-layered glazed panels. 8. Exterior Doors - Exterior doors, other than vehicular access doors to garages, shall be of non-combustible or solid core not less than 1-3/4 inch thickness. When windows are within doors, they shall be tempered glass or multi-layered glazed panels. 9. Vents - Attic ventilation openings, foundation or underfloor vents, or other ventilation openings in vertical exterior walls and vents through roofs shall not exceed 144 square inches. Attic ventilation openings shall not be located in soffits, eave overhangs between rafters at eaves, or in other overhang openings. 10. Detached Accessory Structures and Fences - Structures located less than 50 feet from a building containing habitable space shall be constructed with materials approved for 1-hour fire resistive construction, heavy timber or non-combustible materials. 11.Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems - Shall be required in all buildings that are adjacent to open space or undeveloped land. 12. Gates at Martin Canyon Road and the west end of Brittany Lane shall meet the key control requirements of the fire department. Vegetation maintenance surrounding the structures shall meet the requirements of the Zones indicated within the Plan. Additionally, maintenance of the combustible vegetation shall conform to the requirements of the 1998 California Fire Code adopted by Resolution #86-99 by the City of Dublin. Article 11 - General Safety Precautions Section 1101.1 refers to Article 11 and Appendix II A. Section 1103.2.4 dictates that cut or uncut weeds, grass, vines or other vegetation shall be removed ...when a fire hazard. When total removal is impractical due to size or environmental factors approved fuel breaks shall be established. Appendix II-A Section 16 details the particular facts as to removal and firebreak creation. 16.1.1 Exception- relates to single specimens of trees provided that they do notform a means of rapidly transmitting fire to any structure. The Alameda 15 rJ% ~ :<Y5 County Fire Department Removal Requirements are the accepted standard for abatement of hazardous growth. The Plan dictates the establishment and maintenance of vegetation into permanently designated open space on Page 10. Where Fire Buffer Zones extend into designated open space the plantings established in the Buffer Zone will include only native grasses and trees. Grasses in the Open Space Fire Buffer Zone shall be kept mowed to a height of 3 - 4 inches. Mowing will only occur from the months of May through November. Where trees are established and/or maintained they will be established or maintained in accordance with the appropriate Zone. Defensible space between the structure and the open space will be created as per the Plan and maintained throughout the year. Exhibit #1 - Martin Canyon Road Access 16 ~8? vb ;lV5 Exhibit #2 - Brittany Lane Access Ground 4-3. These issues were not allowed to be discussed or addressed before the Dublin Planning Commission by verbal order of the Chairman of the Planning Commission. This is a denial of Due Process and therefore is a proper issue in appeal for the Health, Safety and Welfare of the residents of the City of Dublin in this appeal. Tree 340 as it sits today before development, is not in violation of the Wildfire Management Plan. Only if housing is placed within 100 feet of the tree do the provisions requiring tree trimming apply. We are not aware of any Development Agreement mandating the particulars of this proposed development. Confusion exists as to what standard is being used to determine what grade or ground level is being applied to determine the 9 17 :<:;5 crt ;tf5 height ofthe tree limbs. It is unclear if Staff and the Commission are using "natural grade" or "rough grade" or undocumented fill to apply the Standards For Vegetation Establishment And Mantenande21. Footnote 21 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: See page 8 Dublin Wildfire Management Plan: "Vegetation Establishment Guidelines 10% to 20% slope. Staff response to Ground 4-3. Six persons spoke before the Planning Commission on this issue. The speakers, whether or not they are appellants and the time spoken are listed below: Speaker Appellant? Time spoken Jerry Weis yes 6 minutes Susan Bewley yes 5 minutes David Bewley yes 41 minutes with Richard Bond Richard Bond yes 41 minutes with David Bewley Charles Breed no 3 minutes Pete Body no 3 minutes The Planning Commission hearing was conducted according to the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure (Resolution 95-12). Section VI.G addresses the limitation of time that persons can speak. That section reads as follows: "G. The Chairperson may limit the time for the presentation of testimony by each person and shall announce said limitation prior to any presentations. Persons may speak more than once only after obtaining permission from the Chairperson. Notwithstanding the above, the Chairperson may terminate the speaking period of any person when the time taken by the person becomes excessive or when the testimony becomes repetitious or irrelevant." As shown above, six persons testified before the Planning Commission on this Agenda Item. One presentation by Mr. David Bewley and Mr. Richard Bond was terminated after a period of time by Chairman Johnson after he determined that the time taken by Mr. Bewley and Mr. Bond had become excessive. No other speakers had their presentations terminated by the Chairman. Ground for AppealS. Ground 5-1. Denial of Due Process22 18 ~j9 rf ~V5 Footnote 22 to this groundfor appeal reads asfollows: See Letter to Guy S. Houston dated IJ,ecember 17, 2000 by Richard and Christina Bond as Attachment #5. Staff response to Ground 5-1. See Ground 4- 3. Ground 5-2. Issue: Appellants were not allowed to present Issues and Points for Review ofthe Agenda Statement.23 The issues and points contained in the attached Issues and Points for Review are hereby incorporated by reference. Footnote 23 to this groundfor appeal reads asfollows: See attached Issues and Points for Review section 1 through 9, and exhibits referenced therein (Pages 1 through 8) Attachment 6. Staff response to Ground 5-2. The Issues and Points for Review were not considered by the Planning Commission at the time of the Public Hearing for PA 00-009 and therefore cannot be incorporated by reference to this appeal. Ground for Appeal 6. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITYOF DULBIN APPROVING P AOO-009 BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR SEVEN SINGLE-F AMIL Y HOME SON EXISTING LOTS ON BRITTANY LANE IS NOT CONSISTENT IN ALL RESPECTS WITH: A. B. C. D. The Heritage Tree Ordinance The Dublin General Plan and Zoning Ordinance The City Council Resolution 82-85 City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan Resolution 84-96 Staff response to Ground 6. See above responses to relevant issues 19 'J. , " ) ~' ~. ',;2.90 ~ J.~5 RESOLUTION NO. 95-12 ( A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING AND ADOPTING THE DuBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION RULES OF PROCEDURE WHEREAS, the Dublin Municipal Code states that the Dublin Planning Commission shall adopt rules for the transaction of the Commission's business; and WHEREAS, on March 21, 1994, the Planning Commission did previously adopt amendments to the Dublin Planning Connnission Rules of Procedure; and WHEREAS, on March 20, 1995, the Planning Co~ssion did review additional amendments to the Dublin Planning Commission Rules of Procedure. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission does hereby adopt the following Rules of Procedure: REVISED 3/20/95 DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION RULES OF PROCEDURE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS ( A. These rules of procedure shall be known as the "Dublin Planning Commission Rules of Procedure:' A copy of these rules, and amendments thereto, shall be filed in the offices of the Planning. Department and the City Clerk for. examination by the public. B. These rules, and any amendments hereto, shall be effective on the date of the adoption hereof and shall govern the meetings and conduct of hearings by the Commission. n. OFFICERS A. . Election and Term of Office The Chairperson, Vice Chairperson and Secretary are elected by the majority of the Commission for a one-year term and hold office until their successors are elected or until their terms as members of the Commission expire. The officers are elected at the first meeting of the Commission in December of each year. Elections; whether regular or to fill vacancies, shall be held only if at least four . Commission members are present. B. Vacancies In case of any vacancy in the office of Chairperson, Vice Chairperson or Secretary, the vacancy . shall be filled by an election held at the first regular meeting after the occurrence of such vacancy. Persons so elected shall serve the balance of the term. ( 1 AnAcHMENT J 5 C. Duties of Officers ;z. ~I .06 ;I L/5 The Chairperson performs the following duties: ( 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Presides at all meetings of the Commission. Appoints committees and chairpersons of committees. Signs correspondence on behalf of the Commission. Represents the Commission before the City Council. Performs otQ.er duties necessary or customary to the office. In the event of the absence of the Chairperson or his/her inability to act, the Vice Chairperson presides in place of the Chairperson. In the event of the absence of or inability to act of both the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson, the remaining members shall elect one of their members to act as temporary Cpairperson. D. Committees The Chairperson, upon approval of the Commission, may appoint several of its members, but fewer than a quorum, to serve as or on a committee. On certain occasions, such as when a particular kind of expertise or public representation is desirable, the Chairperson may appoint non-members to the committee. Committees make recommendations directly to the Commission. A committee may not represent the Commission before the Council or other bodies unless it has first received the authorization. of the Commission to do so. m. MEETINGS A. Regular meetings shall beheld on the first and third Mondays of each monthat 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Dublin Civic Center, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California. ( \ B. If the regular meeting place is unable to accommodate. the meetings, the Commission may recess the meeting to another place. lithe Commission anticipates that the regular meeting place will be inadequate, the. Commission, or Chairperson in the event of an emergency, may order that the meeting be held in another place. C. Items for public hearing will normally be considered at the beginning of each meeting. D. Special meetings may be called by the Chairperson or a majority of the members of the Commission. E. A majority of the voting members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum for the Commission. F. No new public hearing item will begin after 10:30 p.m., and the meetings will be adjourned by 11:00 p.m., except under unusual circumstances where the Commission votes to hear the item or to extend the meeting for 30-minute increments. . IV. VOTING A. No official action shall be transacted by less than the affirmative vote of a majority of the quorum present, and at least three affirmative votes shall be required to recommend matters to the City Council for adoption. ( 2 ~ B. ( C. V. AGENDA .' )' .'. :< tJ~ ut cJ- ~ 5 A motion may refer''toitems by agenda number. A motion may noJe withdrawn by the mover without the consent of the member seconding it. Motions on items or matters not involving a hearing maybe adopted by voice vote unless any member requests a roll call vote. Tie votes result in defeat of a motion, and unless a subsequent motion is passed regarding an item, results in its denial. Abstentions shall notbe counted as either for or against a motion under any circumstances. The agenda of each regular or special meeting shall, at a minimum, include: a. The date, time, and location of the meeting. b. A brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting. c. A specified period of time for members of the public to address the Commission on items ofinteiest to the public that are within the jurisdiction of the Commission, including a provision that no person may speak longer than five (5) minutes, and including language that the Commission can only briefly respond with questions, refer to Staff, or place the item on a future agenda. The agenda of each meeting will nonnally include the following items: ( 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. " 11. Call to Order Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Additions or Revisions to the. Agenda Minutes Oral Communications Written Communications Public Hearings New or unfinished Business Other Business (Commission/Staff Infonnational Only Reports) Adjournment At least 72 hours before each regular meeting, and at least 24 hours before each special meeting, the Secretary shall post a copy of the agenda at the kiosk in front of the Dublin Civic Center, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California. The Secretary shall execute a Declaration of Posting which shall be filed in the Dublin Planning Department. VI. HEARING PROCEDURES A. The Chairperson shall announce the public hearing item. Commission members shall state any known conflicts of interest and shall not participate in the hearing. The Chairperson shall determine if the Applicant or representative is in attendance at the public hearing. If the Applicant or representative fails to' attend the public hearing, the Planning Commission may take action to deny, continue, or approve the item. The item may be continued if the Planning Commission receives written notification of the Applicant's inability to attend the meeting. ~ 11-- -.. ~ ~\~ ~~ t:j~r\ ~~ B. ( " 3 "D-<- (I" 4 ~ ~V-C^-ei C. r The order of presentation shall be as follows: ;2. t/:3 ~ J. 15 ( 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Summary Presentation by Planning Staff Questions by Planning Commission Comments by Applicant Comments by Other Proponents Comments by Opponents Rebuttal by Applicant if necessary Additional Comments by Staff as appropriate D. The Chairperson or Commission shall close the public hearing and the item is turned over to the Commission for discussion and action. The audience is not pennitted to make any further comments unless invited by the Commission. E. The Planning Staff shall retain copies of all documents or exhibits presented. F. All those wishing to give testimony shall identify themselves by name and address. The Chairperson may require the use of speaker slips. G. The Chairperson may limit the time for the presentation of testimony by each person and shall announce said limitation prior to any presentations. Persons may speak more.than once only after obtaining pennission from the Chairperson. NotWithstanding the above, the Chairperson may terminatethe speaking period of any person when the time taken by the person becomes excessive or when the testimony becomes repetitious or irrelevant. H. A member of the Commission, Staff or public may ask the speaker questions only with 1pe consent of the Chairperson. All responses and answers shall be made to the Commission through the Chairperson. 1. A member of the Commission may not consider a fact not presented as part'of the record unless he discloses said fact prior to the closing of the public hearing. J. No evidence shall be taken after the closing of the public hearing. The public hearing may be reopened for the taking of further evidence at the discretion of the Chairperson. K. Applause and other demonstrations are prohibited during public hearings. Such demonstrations tend to intimidate those in the audience who may have valid but opposing viewpoints. VII. DELffiERATIONS AND DECISIONS , A. The Commission shall not deliberate nor make a decision on the application until the close of the public hearing. B. Deliberations and decisions shall be based on the staff report, documents and exhibits, evidence presented at hearings and stated open and notorious facts. VIII. ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA A. No action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the posted agenda for a regular or special meeting, unless: ( 4 ( ,. i \. 1. th PI ...! .. de . b " ~k~ . ~ LJ ~ e6 ) y 5 e anmng ConumssiOn termmes y maJonty vote U1aI. an emergency SItuatJon eXIsts, as defined in Government Code Section 54956.5; 2. the Planning Commission determines by a two-thirds vote, or by a unanimous vote if only three members are present, that the need to take action arose after the agenda was posted; or 3. the item was included in a posted agenda for a prior meeting held within five (5) calendar days and was continued to the meeting at which the action is taken. B. When an item not on the agenda is raised by a member of the public, the Commission may briefly respond, may ask questions for clarification, may refer the item to Staff, or may request Staff to report back at a subsequent meeting, unless the Planning Commission determines to take action under SectionVIII (A-2). PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of March, 1995 AYES: Commissioners Zika, Geist, Jennings, Johnson and Lockhart NOES: None ABSENT: None 4,a fJf " Planni Conumssio .. erson ATTEST: _ ( . dr~~~~ Planning Director . (g:\minutes\doc2) 5 ) ) LOT 11 LOT 10 LOT 9 LOT 8 LOT 7 . PROPOSED FINISH FLOOR ELEVATIONS / f f 1985 FINISH GRADE PROFILE ~ L t BRIT,T ANY LANE PROFILE 643.7 t , .... , '" ","1.0 " ..... 1I"''b TOPOGRAPHY PRIOR TO 1985 " " " /. - to~\_o - 0 rl.'" /11 - -- ----- ~~~ -- II . ---......-....- /* . / 0 O' (,~ FF 618.0 / ~~ (pO . PROFILE COMPARISON SOUTH SIDE OF BRITTANY LANE ~ )~ ~ AnACHMENT ~ >t::. V\ MORGAN D. KING, J.D. JAN C. NIELSEN, ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY LAW OFFICES OF MORGAN D. KING LUSO-AMERICAN BLDG. 7080 DONLON WAY SUITE 222 DUBLIN, CA 94568 (925) 829-6363 FACSIMILE (925) 829-7262 TRACY (209) 832-8328 TOLL FREE (800) 205-1010 January 16, 2001 doc:bewley.011 TO: The Dublin City Council RE: Appeal of Dave Bewley, et seq. regarding a proposed con- struction of a residence on the street where Mr. Bewley resides. The purpose of this memorandum is to apprise the City of the current status of the proposed residential development in connec- tion with the Silvergate Highlands Homeowners' Association. 1. The property in question is within the jurisdiction of the Silvergate Homeowners Association and is subject to the provi- sions of the Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (ICC&R's") applicable to that association. 2. Under the CC&R's no alteration whatever of any property sub- ject to the jurisdiction of the Association may be commenced without prior approval of the plans by the Association. The Board of Directors passes on all applications for approval; 3. No application has been submitted to the Board of the Associa- tion; 4. At the present time the Board is reviewing and drafting new standards for trees; 5. Pursuant to the CC&R's, either the Association or any individ- ual member has standing to seek civil remedies to enforce the CC&R's, including injunctive relief. ;01~ , ~-------------=::::::> ~_._--