The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6.2 Black Mt SDR AppealCITY CLERK FILE 410-30 AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 20, 2001 SUBJECT: ATTACHMENTS: BACKROUND ATTACHMENTS: Public Hearing: PA 00-009, appeal of Planning Commission approval of the Black Mountain Site Development Review for six single-family residences on six existing lots on Brittany Lane and one single-family residence on an existing lot on Rolling Hills Drive. (Report Prepared by: Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner/Zoning Administrator) ~/ 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Revised project plans for Lots 1, 8 and 9 Resolution of City Council affirming the December 12, 2000 Planning Commission action with changes reflecting revised Wildfire Management Plan Revised Tree Protection Plan Letter from the Director of Community Development approving the Revised Tree Protection Plan Analysis of Grounds for Appeal with Staff s Response RECOMMENDATION: 2) 3) 4) 5) January 16, 2001 Staff Report including project plans Letter dated December 21, 2000 appealing Planning Commission decision Heritage Tree Ordinance December 12, 2000 Planning Commission Staff Report without attachments Planning Commission Resolution 00-71. Study comparing topography profile prior to 1985, the 1985 finish grade profile and proposed finish floor elevations in relationship to Brittany Lane Hear Staff presentation Open Public Hearing Question Staff, Applicant and the Public Close public hearing and deliberate Options for action: A. Decide that the Planning Commission action be affirmed and adopt resolution (Attachment 2) approving the Black COPIES TO: PA 00-009 File. Appellants ITEM NO. Mountain Development Site Development Review for seven homes on seven existing lots with changes proposed by Staff. Decide that the Planning Commission decision be reversed and direct Staff to prepare a resolution reversing the Planning Commission decision and deny the Black Motretain 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 B10ck 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 5. Under Section 8.136.060.D, the City Council may affirm, affirm in part, or reverse the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the Site Development Review. Staff suggests two options: The. City Council could decide that the Planning Commission action be affirmed and direct Staff to prepare a resolution affirming the Planning Commission decision and 'approving the Black Mountain Development Site Development Review for seven homes on seven existing lots with changes proposed by Staff as further set forth in this Staff Report. The City Council could decide that the Planning Commission decision be reversed and direct Staff to prepare a resolution reversing_Planning Commission decision and denying the Black Mountain Development Site Development Review for seven homes on seven existing lots BACKGROUND: Original development. On August 12, 1985, the City Council approved PA 85-035.3, Hatfield Development Corporation 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 Development Review be processed for the development of these lots. Black Mountain Development Application. On May 22, 2000, Jeff Woods of Black Mountain Development applied for this Site Development Review. The project proposes five 3,400 square foot semi-custom homes on Lots 7, 10, 11 and 12. On February 12, 2001, Jeff Woods of Black Mountain Development submitted revised project plans for the homes on Lots 1, 8 and 9 (Attachment 1). The homes on Lots 8 and 9 will be 2,800 feet in size and the home on Lot 1 will be reduced in size to 3,255 square feet to draw it back 5 feet from a Fire Resistive Heritage Tree. 2 Planning Commission Action. On December 12, 2000, The Planning Commission voted 3 in favor with 2 absent to adopt Resolution 00-71 approving this Site Development Review. Timely appeal.. On December 21, 2000 a timely appeal of the December 12, 2000 decision was filed. January 16, 2001 Public Hearing. On January 16, 2001, the City Council heard the appeal of this project. The City Council contim~ed the public hearing on this project until February 20, 2001 and directed that the project be redesigned to minimize impacts to the heritage trees and provide for construction of the homes. It was recognized that the redesign of the homes to protect the heritage trees could result in impacts to views of adjacent homes on Brittany Lane. The City Council also directed that Staff look at ways to modify the Wildfire Management Plan to take into consideration heritage trees in proximity to the homes while minimizing Fire Code pruning impacts to the trees. Staff was directed to bring back a resolution modifying the previous resolution establishing the Wildfire Management Plan General Plan. The proposed residences are located on existing single family lots that were created in 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-1 Zoning District. ANALYSIS OF GROUNDS FOR APPEAL Staff has responded to specific grounds of appeal in the attached Analysis of Grounds for Appeal with Staffs ReSponse (AttaChment 5). The analysis addresses and presents the staff response to each ground for appeal. PROJECT REDESIGN Front yard setback. City Council Resolution 82-85 requires a 20-foot front yard setback for homes in the development of which the subject 7 lots are a part. Condition 3 of that Resolution permits the stipulation of other regulations, including setbacks, via the Site Development Review process. Staff has proposed that the homes on lots 8 and 9 have the face of the garage door at 18 feet from the curb and that living areas of the house be able to encroach to 13 feet from the curb. This level of encroachment will permit the placement of 2,800 square foot homes on these two lots and is typical of many homes in the Hansen Hills development to the south. No changes to the front yard setback were necessary for Lot 1. The home on Lot 1 was reduced in size to move it away from the Fire Resistant Heritage Trees on Lot 1. Height. The peak of the roof on the redesigned home on lot 8 is at an elevation of 637 feet whereas the peak of the roof of the home that was originally proposed on this lot is at an elevation of 634 feet 7 and ½ inches. This results in an increase in height of 2 feet 4½ inches. The peak of the roof on the redesigned home on lot 9 is at an elevation of 646 feet whereas the peak of the roof of the home that was originally proposed on this lot is at an elevation of 640 feet 7 and ½ inches. This results in an increase in height of 5 feet 4 and ½ inches. Measured at mid-lot the home on Lot 8 will increase in height from 17 feet 6 inches to 19 feet 10 and ½ inches measured from the sidewalk. The home on Lot 9 will increase in height from 13 feet to 18 feet 4 and ½ inches measured from the sidewalk. The increase in height of the homes was necessary to preserve the Fire Resistant Heritage Trees on lots 8 and 9. The homes on Lots 7, 10, 11 and 12 average 13.16 feet high when viewed from the sidewalk on Brittany Lane. . Design of the homes. The seven homes will range in size from 2,800 square feet to 3,400 square feet. The homes on Lots 7, 10, 11, and 12 are identical to those described at the January 16, 2001 public hearing on this project. Two floor plans, one with a "straight-in" garage and one with a "side-in" garage are proposed. The home on Lot 1 was reduced in size to draw it away from the driplines of the Fire Resistive Heritage Trees on Lot 1. Other than a reduction in size, the home is identical to the design proposed earlier. The homes on lot 8 and 9 were redesigned to move them closer to Brittany lane and not encroach into the driplines of Fire Resistive Heritage Trees. The residences are sited on the lots to minimize impacts to views from other residences on Brittany Lane. Hip roofs have been incorporated into the design to minimize impacts to views. The homes on lots 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 will have a street presence of a single-story home. Landscaping plans were prepared by Gates and Associates and will provide an attractive landscape presence on Brittany Lane. WILDFIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN Changes to the Plan. The Fire Marshall and Staff are proposing the following changes to the Wildfire Management Plan to allow construction of homes near Heritage Trees while insuring minimal impacts to the Heritage Trees and insuring the safety of the residents of the homes: A. Definition 'of Fire Resistive Heritage Trees Fire Resistive Heritage Trees - Coast Live Oak, Valley Oak, Blue Oak, or California Buckeye trees that otherwise qualify as Heritage Trees under the Heritage Tree Ordinance, Chapter 5.60 of the Dublin Municipal Code B. Construction requirements for buildings or lots containing Fire Resistire Heritage Trees. Modified Construction Requirements for Buildings/Lots Containing Fire Resistive Heritage Trees The following requirements shall be implemented in addition to the construction requirements set forth above when there is a Fire Resistive Heritage Tree within 100 feet of the exterior wall or deck projection as measured from the drip line of the tree. 1. Exterior walls. Fire rated construction standards required for the exterior wall of buildings most exposed to .wildfire risk shall be extended to the adjacent exterior walls of the building. 2. Windows. Install dual tempered glass windows in openings on the elevation most exposed to wildfire risk and adjacent elevations of the structure. 3. Metal Structural Members. Metal structural members shall be used in place of wood in construction of all underfloor areas that are enclosed to the ground with exterior walls as required above in the Wildfire Management Plan. 4. Automatic Fire Sprinklers. Provide fire sprinkler flow detection monitoring through a central station company. C. Vegetation standards. ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF FIRE RESISTIVE HERITAGE TREES ON APPROVED LOTS When any of the Vegetation Standards calls for pruning of limbs and trees that are identified as Fire Resistive Heritage Trees, the following standards may be implemented in place of required ground clearance. 1. An irrigated fuel break/greenbelt shall be installed outside the dripline of the Fire Resistive Heritage Trees. Size and compatibility of the greenbelt shall be determined following consultation with a Certified Arborist and review of the degree of slope surrounding the trees. The greenbelt vegetation shall be fire resistive and require little watering. 2. All vegetation shall be maintained per the Wildfire Management Plan standards or Alameda County Fire Department Removal Standards, except as modified for Fire Resistive Heritage Trees. 3. Ground under the Fire Resistive Heritage Trees shall be kept flee of weeds and dead wood. Leaf litter shall be allowed to remain as a mulch to protect the soil. 4. Limited pruning shall be completed to thin foliage, remove dead wood, raise the foliage one-foot above the ground and where appropriate, separate the crowns of the trees. Crown separation shall be based on the recommendation of the Project Arborist and the City' s Arborist. Branches larger than one inch in diameter shall not be pruned unless agreed to by the project arborist and the City's arborist. 5. All other applicable standards shall continue to apply except as modified above. Liability issue The proposed changes to the Wildfire Management Plan will insure that the structures built adjacent to Fire Resistive Heritage Trees meet the requirements of the 1998 Califomia Fire Code. CHANGES TO PROJECT SINCE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING The following additional conditions of approval to Planning Commission Resolution 00-71 are proposed by Staff to address drainage issues and Fire Resistant Heritage Tree issues: Storm Drain Easement on Lot 1. This condition is proposed to reflect the existence of a "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 rimoff 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. Perpetuation of Oak Grove/planting of additional oak trees. This condition is proposed becanse it · was recommended for inclusion by the City's arborist. 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. Tree Protection Zone. This condition was revised to place a Tree Protection Zone around all of the trees, not just north of certain trees. Tree Protection Zone. A Tree Protection Zone shall be established at the driplines of all the trees. No grading, excavation, construction or storage of materials shall occur within this zone. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit. Construction Requirements. The wording of the condition is the same as in the modified Wildfire Management .Plan. Vegetation Standards/pruning. The wording of the condition is the same as in the modified Wildfire Management Plan. Tree pruning by construction personnel. This condition is recommended by the Project Arborist to ' minimize impacts to the trees. Tree pruning by construction personnel. No tree pruning may be performed by construction personnel., Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing Encroachment of Driplines. This condition establishes a minimum distance of homes from a Fire Resistive Heritage Tree. Encroachment of Driplines. No structure shall encroach to within 5 feet of the dripline of a Fire Resistive Heritage Tree. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit. The following changes to conditions of approval of Planning Commission Resolution 00-71 are proposed by Staff: Condition 39. Condition 39 of the Planning Commission Resolution of Approval is proposed to be deleted because it is not necessary. Condition 87. Condition 87 is proposes to be modified to substitute "1998 California Fire Code" for "1997 Uniform Fire Code" because the 1998 code has been adopted by the City and has the same requirements relating to this project. Condition 106. Condition 106 is proposed to be modified to add the word "unauthOrized" to make the ' wording identical to the requirements of the Heritage Tree Ordinance. That condition as amended (underlined) reads as follows: 106. The applicant/developer shall guarantee the protection of the Heritage Trees on the project site through placement of a cash bond or other security deposit in the amount of $100,000. The cash bond or other security shall be retained for a reasonable period of time following the occupancy of the last residence occupied, not to exceed one year. The cash bond or security is to be released upon satisfaction of the Director of Community Development that the Heritage Trees have not been endangered. The cash bond or security deposit shall be forfeited as a civil penalty for any unauthorized removal or destruction of a Heritage Tree. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing REVISED TREE PROTECTION PLAN A revised Tree Protection Plan was prepared by HortScience to reflect the preservation of the Fire Resistive Heritage Trees. The Plan was revised to reflect the revised home plans for Lots 1, 8 and 9 and minimize any impacts to the Fire Resistive Heritage Trees. The requirements of the revised Tree Protection Plan are incorporated as conditions of approval. The Community Development Director has approved the revised Tree Protection Plan (Attachment 3). DECISION OPTIONS BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL If the City Council wishes to affirm the Planning Commission action, with changes proposed by 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 Staff to prepare a resolution reversing_Planning Commission decision and denying the Black Mountain Development Site Development Review for seven homes on seven existing lots. The resolution should identify how the project fails to comply with applicable Site Development Review findings and/or standards and how the project can be brought into compliance with such findings and/or standards. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The environmental impacts of this project were addressed under the Negative Declaration prepared for the 'PA 85-035 Hatfield Development Corporation Planned Development Rezone, Annexation and Site Development Review of which the subject lots were a part. The Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. Further, the project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15304, Class 4, minor public or private alterations in the condition of the land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry and agricultural purposes. Specifically, Subsection (I) providesprovides, Fuel management activities within 30 feet of 7 structures to reduce the volume of ~ammable 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-l) 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: Option B: 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 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 2-20-01 BRITTANY DRIVE i1 10 7 ~ SILVER 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: EDI ARCHITECTURE INC. 450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 TEL: 415 362 2880 FAX: 415 394 8767 CIVIL ENGINEER: 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 LOT 9 LOT 8 ALTERNATE SOLUTION for LOTS 1, 8 & 9 In order to meet the new tree ordil}allcc we arc proposing the flowing changes on LOTS l, 8 and9. LOT 1 As shown on the Site.plan, we have reduce the width of the original house and relocated it on site to inorder to avoid drip-line Of the existing trees by a miniretina o f 5'. The overall look of the home will remain unchanged. LOTS 8 & 9 These two lots have the largest existing trees and they are strategically placed to intrude on the potential building sites. To avoid ~e trees, we developed a new floor plan that places more of the house on the uphill t~race. This allows ~ho house and deck to pull at least 5' away from the existing drip-lines. Like the original house, this ALTERNATE plan, has the mess of the home is at the center rear to allow for view corddon between homes and over the low sidewall hip roof forms. LOTS 7, 10, 11 and 12 These tots ar~ tinchanged because there are no trees to deal with. (See: 1 November 2000 submittal package, NOTE floor plan dim~sious for the original plans should r~ad 6s'-6"x s4'4", ALTERNATE' PROPOSAL for LOTS DESCRIPTION BRITTANY DRIVE 1,8&9 'FEB 12 2001 0il"/OF DUBUN BUILDING INSPECTION DEPT. RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AIA EDI' ARCHITECTURE, INC. 450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310 T 415.362.2880 F 415~394.8767 .DUBLIN CALIFORNIA 00011 ~ 06 FEBRUARY 2001 o ,. ~.5.4. second 001i afpi.dwg PAGE BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT A'rrAOH.f. NT s LOT 8 LOT 9 LOT 7 RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AIA EDI ARCHITECTURE, INC. 450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310 T 415.362.2880 F 4t5.394.8767 STREETSCAPE BRITTANY DRIVE - DUBLIN I CALIFOBNIA 00011 o:'~'~ ,e. 06 FEBRUARY 2001 oon ~ 7 9 n.d~ PAGE ~ B~CK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT · 0T 1 ' , LO~ 11 . ' ' ........( ............? ......~ LOT 10 ~ LOT 9 LOT 8 REARSCAPE BRITTANY DRIVE LOT '7 RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AIA EDI ARCHITECTURE, INC. 450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310 T 415.36~.2880 F 415.394.8767 00011 06 FEBRUARY 2001 o ,, ~. ~. second 0011 efp~.dwg PAGE BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATE "~Cl · ~~' / oRIGINAL · . LOT 8-FRONT ALTERNATE , · ';-~ ORIGINAL' ' . ·-- -- '/""' ~:~ ,Tf LOT 9-FRONT RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AIA EDI ARCHITECTURE, INC. ~50 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310 T 4i5.362.~880 F 415.394.B767 LOTS 8 & 9 ELEVATION COMPARISON BRITTANY DRIVE D U B L I N :CALIFORNIA 00011 ~ 06 FEBRUARY 200i o,'2'~',' 0011 LOTS B 10 la.dwg PAGE BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATE LOT CROSS SECTION BRITTANY COMPARISON DRIVE RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AIA EDI ARCHITECTURE, INC. 450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310 T 415.362.2BB0- F 415;394.8767 DUBLIN* CALIFORNIA 00011 ~ 06 FEBRUARY 2001 o,.2.~., alter SE~lONS.dwg PAGE B~CK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATE RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AIA EI)I ARCHITECTURE, INC. 450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-33t0 LOT 9 CROSS SECTION COMPARISON BRITTANY DRIVE D UBLI N W CALIF0 RNIA 00011 ~ 06 FEBRUARY 2001 o,'~',4' · Iter SECTIONS.dWg PAGE BLACK MOUNTAIN ·DEVELOPMENT 1174 BRITTANY RICHARD C. HANDLEN, .AIA EDI ARCHITECTURE, INC. 450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310 T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.8767 ALTERNATE VIEW CORRIDOR SECTION-LOT 8/PLAN for 1174 BRITTANY <> BRITTANY DRIVE O D U BL[N m CALIFO RNIA 00011 ~ 06 FEBRUARY 2001 o~.4,~.s, alter SE~ wi~ nei~hbon.dw~ PAGE 5 B~CK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT 1166 BRITTANY AI, LOWABL~ HEIGHT RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AIA EDI ARCHITECTURE, INC. 450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310 T 415.362.2880 F 415.394,8767 ALTERNATE VIEW CORRIDOR SECTION/PLAN for 1166 BRITTANY BRITTANY DRIVE ~ DUBL[N !m 0001'1 ~ 06 FEBRUARY 2001 o~',~'~' alter SE~ with neighbo~.dwg PAGE B~CK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AIA EDI ARCHITECTURE, INC. 450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310 30" j //' 20" & · ×/ OAKS 550, 2 548. 7 2b'-O" 550, 5 X ---,~,, LOT 1 ALTERNATE SITE PLAN BRITTANY DRIVE 'DUBLIN ~r CALIFORNIA ICNV .00011 06 FEBRUARY 2001 second OOll arp2,dwg PACE 7 BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT / m.~~_~ · .fT.-. Z"'.."~_________. ": """~ ................. FRONT RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AIA EDI ARCHITECTURE, INC. 450 SANSOME, SEC~OND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310 T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.8767 REAR LOT S ELEVATIONS BRITTANY DRIVE OUR LI N I CALIFORNIA 00011 ~ '06 FEBRUARY 2001 o,'z~'4' 0011 ~ 8 lO 12.dwg PAGE BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AIA EDI ARCHITECTURE, INC. 450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310 T 415.362.2880 F 415,394.8767 SECOND DUBLIN FLOOR b4'-o" BBDROOM G FIRST FLOOR LOT 8 FLOOR PLAN BRITTANY DRIVE CALIFORNIA FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR 2,157 SF 655 SF LIVING TOTAL 2,812 SF ,,, ~6' = I'"~* 00011 r~ 06 FEBRUARY 2001 second 0011 a/pl.dw~ PAGE BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT Averag_e__Sl_o_Re___--' 19.5% ALLOWABLE HEIGHT Maximum height = 25' + 5" = 30' 9' MAXIMUM HEIGHT above natural grade LOT 8 ALTERNATE CROSS SECTION BRITTANY DRIVE PROPOSED HEIGHT RICHARD C. HANDLEN,' AIA EDI ARCHITECTURE, INC. 450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310 T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.8767 MID POINT of NATURAL GRADE CO~tTACT ~6' MAXIMUM HEIGHT above finished grade ALLOWABLE for 50% of LOWER FLOOR i Z ~,~ D UBLIN W CALIFORN IA 00011 ~ 07 FEBRUARY 2001 o,'='~'4' BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT FRONT RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AIA EDI ARCHITECTURE, INC. 450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310 T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.6767 .--_-:z2 REAR LOT 9 FRONT ELEVATION <> BRITTANY .DRIVE <> DUBLIN W CALIFORNI,/~ 00011 06 FEBRUARY 2001 B~CK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AIA EDI ARCHITECTURE, INC. 450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310 T 415.362.21180 F 415.394.8767 64'-0" SECOND FLOOR LOT 9 FLOOR PLAN <> BRITTANY DRIVE ~ DU'BLIN CALIFORNIA mROOW ~ FIRST FLOOR FIRST FLOOR 2,157 SF SECOND FLOOR 655 SF LIVING TOTAL 2,812 SF ,n~.. ,.~. 00011 ~ 06 FEBRUARY 2001 o~.~.~,4. ~. BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT Average S10pe = 30.00% Maximum Height = 25' + 10' = 35' :~c~ PROPOSED HEIGHT i 50% line of 9' MAXIMUM HEIGHT ~" ~ lower floor _ ~ i MID ' ' above natural grade _~ , ~'6 'M ~ u~. ~ ' ~IMUM HEIGHT above finished grade . . of LOWER FLOOR . RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AIA EDI ARCHITECTURE, INC. 450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 9+111-3310 T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.8767 LOT 9 ALTERNATE CROSS SECTION BRITTANY .DRIVE ~ B'LI N C ALIFO RNIA ALLOWABLE HEIGHT 00011 ~ 06 FEBRUARY 2001 o,'2',,' LOT 9.dwg PAGE BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT tl LOT NO. 9 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 PA 00-009 BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR SEVEN SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ON EXISTING LOTS ON BRITTANY LANE WITH CHANGES PROPOSED BY STAFF WHEREAS, Black Mountain Development has requested approval of a Site Development Review for seven single family homes on existing lots on Brittany Lane; and WHEREAS, a completed application for Site Development Review is available and on file in the Dublin Planning Department; and WHEREAS, The environmental impacts of this project were addressed under the Negative Declaration prepared for the PA 85-035 Hatfield Development Corporation Planned Development Rezone, Annexation and Site Development Review of which the subject lots were a part. The Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. 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 'T', 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 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 the Wildfire Management Plan; and WHEREAS, the project is consistent in all respects with Dublin General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the project is consistent in all respects with the conditions of approval of City Council Resolution 82-85; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on December 12, 2000; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said heating was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a staffrep0rt was submitted to the Planning Commission recommending approval of the Site ATTACHMENT 2 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 ayes and 2 absent 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: The approval of this application (PA 00-009) is consistent with the intent/purpose of Section 8.104 (Site Development Review) of the Zoning Ordinance. The approval of this application, as conditioned, complies with the policieSof the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, the Heritage Tree Ordinance, the Wildfire Management Plan 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. Impacts to views have been addressed by sensitive design and siting of the proposed single- family residences. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed in the project through the use of pier and grade beams and by minimal grading to site the homes and front yards. The approval of this application, as conditioned, is in conformance with regional transportation and growth management plans. The approval of this application, as conditioned, is in the best interests of the public health, safety and general welfare as the development is consistent with all laws and ordinances and implements the requirements of the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, the Heritage Tree Ordinance and City Council Resolution 82-85. The proposed physical site development, including the intensity of development, site layout, grading, vehicular access, circulation and parking, setbacks, height, walls, public safety and similar elements, as conditioned, has been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development. Architectural considerations, including the character, scale and quality of the design, the architectural relationship with the site and 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. 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' attractive environment for the public. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does hereby find that: The Black Mountain Development Site Development Review is consistent with the intent of' applicable subdivision regulations and related ordinances. 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. 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. 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. 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 ~n 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 'T', 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 requires 100 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 PA 00-009 on December 12, 2000, and hereby conditionally approves the Site Development Review Application for PA 00-009 to develop seven single family residences on seven lots with the Assessors Parcel Numbers 941-2775 -30, 941- 2775 -36, 941-2775 -37, 941-2775 -38, 941 - 2775-39, 941-2775-40 and 941-2775-41 as generally depicted by materials labeled Attachment 1, stamped "approved" and on file in the City of Dublin Planning Department. This approval shall conform generally to the project plans submitted by EDI Architecture dated "received December 4, 2000" and "received February 12, 2001", the Heritage Tree Protection Plan for this project stamped "received February 12, 2001", the Site Development Plan by RMR Design Group dated "received December 4, 2000" and the Colors and Materials Boards subxnitted by EDI Architecture dated "received June 12, 2000" by the Department of Community Development, unless modified by the Conditions of Approval contained below. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Unless otherwise stated, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to final occupancy of any building and shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance with the Conditions of Approval: [PL] Planning, [B] Building, [PO] Police, [PW] Public Works, [ADM] Administration/City Attorney, [FIN] Finance, [PCS] Parks and Community Services, [F] Alameda County Fire Dept., [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District, [CO] Alameda County Flood Control and water Conservation District Zone 7. The bolded words at the beginning or each condition of approval identify. the general topic of the condition of approval or constitute the condition if not followed by explanatory text. GENERAL CONDITIONS Standard Conditions of Approval. AppliCant/Developer shall comply with all applicable City of Dublin Standard Public Works Criteria (Attachment A). In the event of a conflict between the Public Works Criteria and these Conditions, these Conditions shall prevail. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Approval of Improvement Plans through completion Modifications or changes. Modifications or changes to this Site Development Review approval may be considered by the Community Development Director, if the modifications or changes proposed comply with Section 8.104.100, of the Zoning Ordinance. Responsible Agency: PL Required By:: Approval of Improvement Plans through completion Term. Approval of the Site Development Review shall be valid for one year from approval by the Planning Commission. If construction has not commenced by that time, this approval shall be null and void. The approval period for Site Development Review may be extended six (6) additional months by the Director of Community Development upon determination that the Conditions of Approval remain adequate to assure that the above stated findings of approval will continue to be met. (Applicant/Developer must submit a written request for the extension prior to the expiration date of the Site Development Review.) Responsible Agency: · PL Required By: On-going 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 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 4 10. 11. 12. 13. Required Permits. Applicant/Developer shall comply with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance and obtain all necessary permits required by other agencies (Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7, California Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, State Water Quality Control Board, Etc.) and shall submit copies of the permits to the Department of Public Works. Responsible Agency: Various When Required: Various times, but no later than Issuance of Building Permits Building Codes and Ordinances. All project construction shall conform to all building codes and ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. Responsible Agency: Bldg. When Required: Through Completion Compliance. Applicant/Developer shall comply with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance, City Council Resolution 82-85, the Wildfire Management Plan, the Tree Protection Plan for this project and the City of Dublin General Plan. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Issuance of Building Permits and On-going Conditions of Approval. In submitting subsequent plans for review and approval, each set of plans shall have attached an annotated copy of these Conditions of Approval and the Standard Public Works Conditions of Approval. The notations shall clearly indicate how all Conditions of Approval and Standard Public Works Conditions of Approval will be complied with. Improvement plans will not be accepted without the annotated conditions and standards attached to each set of plans. Applicant/Developer will be responsible for obtaining the approvals of all participating non-City agencies. Responsible Agency: PW, PL, Bldg. When Required: Building Permit Issuance Solid Waste/Recycling. Applicant/Developer shall comply with the City' s solid waste management and recycling requirements. Responsible Agency: ADM, When Required: On-going Refuse Collection. The refuse collection service provider shall be consulted to ensure that adequate space is provided to accommodate collection and sorting 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 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 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 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 shah 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 ofrodenticides 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 i6. 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 flee 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. 19. Grading, drainage and improvement plan. The Applicant/Property Owner shall submit a grading, drainage and improvement plan for each residence subject to review and approval by the Public Works Director. Responsible Agency: PW Required By: Grading Permit Compliance. The Applicant/Property Owner shall comply with the City of Dublin Public Works Department grading permit process and Plan Check-List. An information packet outlining the grading 20. 21. permit process and Plan Check List is attached. Responsible Agency: PW Required By: Grading Permit 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. Drainage. All rain water leaders from roof gutters, balconies, and patios shall be connected to a pipe network that discharges to the abutting public street via through-curb drains. Foundation or retaining wall subdrains that must discharge towards the rear of the properties due to their lower elevation in relationship to the street shall terminate with City-approved energy-dissipation devices or per a design that prevents erosion of the natural downslopes. No water from subdrains or from earthen 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 of the 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 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 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 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 Publit Works shall be required. Responsible Agency: PW Required By: Issuance of Building Permit Joint Utility Trenches/Undergrounding/Utility 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 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. 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. 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. 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 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 Program/Construction Impact Reduction Plan 33. Construction Noise Management Program/Construction Impact Reduction Plan. Applicant/Developer shall conform to the following Construction Noise Management Program/Construction Impact Reduction Plan. Construction shall be conducted so as to minimize the impacts of the construction on the existing community and on the occupants of the new homes as they are completed. Responsible Agency: PL Required By: During any construction 34. Construction Noise Management Program/Construction Impact Reduction Plan. The following measures shall be taken to reduce construction impacts: Responsible Agency:: PL Required By: During any construction a, Off-site truck traffic. 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. Watering. The construction site shall be watered at regular intervals during all grading activities. The frequency of watering should increase if wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Watering should include all excavated and graded areas and material to be transported off-site. Use recycled or other non-potable water resources where feasible. Idling construction equipment. Construction equipment shall not be left idling while not in use. d. Muffling devises. All construction equipment shall be fitted with noise muffling devises. e, Erosion control measures. Erosion control measures shall be implemented during wet weather to assure that sedimentation and erosion do not occur. Mud and dust clean up. Mud and dust carried onto street surfaces by construction vehicles shall be cleaned-up on a daily basis. g. Excavation haul trucks. Excavation haul trucks shall use tarpaulins or other effective covers. h, Wind erosion.' Upon completion of construction, measures shall be taken to reduce wind 9 m, r, erosion. Replanting and repaving should be completed as soon as possible. Phasing. Houses will be constructed in phases such that most of the construction traffic can be routed into the subdivision without traveling in front of existing homes that are occupied. Fugitive dust. After grading is completed, fugitive dust on exposed soil surfaces shall be controlled using the following methods: Seeding and watering of inactive portions of the construction site. Inactive portions of the construction site should be seeded and watered until grass growth is evident. Watering. Require that all portions of the site be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. On site speed limit. On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 mph. Air Quality District. Use of petroleum-based palliatives shall meet the road oil requirements of the Air Quality District. Non-petroleum based tacki~ers may be required by the Director of Public Works. The Department of Public Works. The Department of Public Works shall handle all dust complaints. The Director of Public Works may require the services of an air quality consultant to advise the City on the severity of the dust problem and additional ways to mitigate impact on residents, including temporarily halting project construction. Dust concerns in adjoining communities as well as the City of Dublin shall be addressed. Control measures shall be related to wind conditions. Air quality monitoring of PM levels shall be provided as required by the Director of Public Works. Construction interference with regional non-proj ect traffic. Construction interference with regional non-project traffic shall be minimized by: 1. Scheduling receipt of construction materials to non-peak travel periods. 2. Routing construction traffic through areas of least impact sensitivity. Routing construction traffic to minimize construction interference with regional non- project traffic movement. 4. Limiting lane closures and detours to off-peak travel periods. 5. Providing ride-share incentives for contractor and subcontractor personnel. Emissions control of on-site equipment. Emissions control of on-site equipmen.t shall be minimized through a routine mandatory program of low-emissions tune-ups. Radios and loudspeakers. Radios and loudspeakers shall not be used outside of the residences during all phases of construction. Construction vehicles and worker's vehicles. Construction vehicles and worker's vehicles shall not be parked on the north side of Brittany Lane or in any driveways on the north side of Brittany Lane. Double-parking. No double-parking shall be allowed along Brittany Lane. Fencing of construction site. Fencing of construction site shall be to the satisfaction of the Building Official. 10 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 elevations. All residences shall be built at the pad elevations shown on the project plans by EDI Architects dated received February 12, 2001. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to occupancy. 40. Increase in height of residences prohibited. The increase in height of residences in this project beyond 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 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. Damage/Repairs. The Developer shall repair all damaged existing street, curb, gutter and sidewalk along Brittany Lane and Rolling Hills Drive, lot frontages that exist now, or that result from construction activities to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Responsible Agency: PW Required By: Prior to Occupancy of first residence POLICE SECURITY 47. 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. 50. 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 Rear yard accessibility. The rear yard shall be accessible from both sides of the structure. Responsible Agency: F Required By: Ongoing 12 51. 52. 53. 54. 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 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 Water supply. Water supply shall be adequate to support required fire flow. Responsible Agency: F Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits Fire Hydrants. The Developer shall construct any required new fire hydrants in streets to City and Alameda County Fire Department standards. The Developer shall comply with applicable Alameda County fire Department, Public Works Department, Dublin Police Service, Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7 and Dublin San Ramon Services District requirements. Responsible Agency: F, PW Required By: Prior to Occupancy of adjacent building 55. Delivery of any combustible material. Prior to the delivery of any combustible material for storage on the site, fire hydrants, water supply, and roadways shall be installed and sufficient water storage and pressure shall be available to the site. Approved roadway shall be first lift of asphalt. Responsible Agency: F Required By: Prior to delivery of any combustible material ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, ZONE 7 56. Wells. Any water wells, cathodic protection wells or exploratory borings shown on the map that are known to exist, are proposed or are located during field operations without a documented intent of future use, 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 57. Salt Mitigation. Recycled water projects must meet any applicable salt mitigation requirements of Zone 7. Responsible Agency: Zone 7, PW Required by On-going 58. Requirements and Fees. Applicant/Developer shall comply with 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 59. Requirements and regulations. The Applicant/Property Owner shall comply with all applicable requirements and regulations of the Dublin San Ramon Services District. Responsible Agency: DSRSD. 13 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. Required By: Ongoing 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 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 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 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 are acceptable to DSRSD. The Applicant shall allow at least 15 working days for final improvement drawing review by DSRSD before signature by the District Engineer. Responsible Agency: DSRSD. Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits 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 Hold Harmless. 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 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 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. 14 Responsible Agency: Required By: DSRSD. Completion of Improvements 68. DSRSD Water Facilities. Water facilities must be connected to the DSRSD or other approved water system, and must be installed at the expense of 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 69. Fire flows. The applicant shall coordinate with the District and Alameda County .Fire Department on required fire flows. Responsible Agency: DSRSD. Required By: Approval of Improvement Plans MISCELLANEOUS 70. 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 71.. Compliance. The Applicant/Property Owner shall comply with all applicable regulations and requirements of the Uniform Building Code and the Building Inspection Department. Responsible Agency: B Required By: Ongoing 72. 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] 73. 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 issuanceof building or grading permits. Responsible Agency: B, PL, PW. Required By: Prior to issuance of building permits 74. Construction plans. Construction plans shall be fully dimensioned (including building elevations) accurately drawn (depicting all existing and proposed conditions on site), and prepared and signed by an appropriately qualified design professional. The site plan, landscape plan and details shall be consistent with each other. Responsible Agency: B, PL, PW. Required By: Prior to issuance of building permits 15 75. 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 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 77. 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. FIRE RESISTIVE HERITAGE TREES: 78. Tree Protection Zone. A Tree Protection Zone shall be established at the driplines of all trees. No grading, excavation, construction or storage of materials shall occur within this zone. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit. 79. Plot plans to be reviewed by project arborist. All plot plans shall be reviewed by the project arborist for evaluation of impacts to trees and recommendations for mitigation. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit. 80. Rock outcropping. The rock outcropping within 30 feet of trees #335 and 342 shall be retained. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing '81. 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 82. Tree Preservation Notes. Tree Preservation Notes, prepared by the consulting arborist, shall be included on all construction plans. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit 83. Irrigation systems. Irrigation systems must be designed so that no trenching will occur within the Tree Protection Zone except that necessary to protect the tree from surface runoff. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit. 84. Landscape improvements. No landscape improvements such as lighting, pavement, drainage or planting may occur which may negatively affect the health or structural stability of the trees. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 16 85. 87. 88. Foundations, footings and pavement. Foundations, footings and pavement on expansive soils near the Fire Resistive Heritage Trees should be designed to withstand differential displacement due to expansion and shrinking of the soil. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit. Construction Requirements. The following requirements shall be implemented in addition to the construction requirements set forth in the Wildfire Management Plan when there is a Fire Resistire Heritage Tree within 100 feet of the exterior wall or deck projection as measured from the drip line of the tree. Ao Exterior walls. Fire rated construction standards required for the exterior wall of buildings most exposed to wildfire risk shall be extended to the adjacent exterior walls of the building. B, Windows. Install dual tempered glass windows in openings on the elevation most -exposed to wildfire risk and adjacent elevations of the structure. Metal Structural Members. Metal structural members shall be used in place of wood in construction of all underfloor areas that are enclosed to the ground with exterior walls as required above in the Wildfire Management Plan. D. Automatic Fire Sprinklers. Provide fire sprinkler flow detection monitoring through a central station company. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit. Vegetation Standards/pruning. When any of the Vegetation Standards of the Wildfire Management Plan call for pruning of limbs and trees that are identified as Fire Resistive Heritage Trees, the following standards shall be implemented in place of required ground clearance. An irrigated fuel break/greenbelt shall be installed outside the dripline of the Fire Resistive Heritage Trees. Size and compatibility of the greenbelt shall be determined following consultation with a Certified Arborist and review of the degree of slope surrounding the trees. The greenbelt vegetation shall be fire resistive and require little watering. B, All vegetation shall be maintained per the Wildfire Management Plan standards or Alameda County Fire Department Removal Standards, except as modified for Fire Resistive Heritage Trees. Ground under the Fire Resistive Heritage Trees shall be kept flee of weeds and dead wood. Leaf litter shall be allowed to remain as a mulch to protect the soil. D, Limited pruning shall be completed to thin foliage, remove dead wood, raise the foliage one-foot above the ground, and separate the crowns of the trees. Branches larger than one inch in diameter shall not be pruned unless agreed to by the project arborist and the City' s arborist. E. All other applicable standards shall continue to apply except as modified above. Responsible Agency: When Required: PL Prior to issuance of Building Permit. 17 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. Irrigation of Irrigated Fuel BrealdGreenbelt. Irrigation systems must be designed so that no trenching will occur within the Tree Protection Zone. Surface water from the irrigation runoff must be directed away from oak trunks. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit. Pruning. Fire Resistive Heritage Trees shall be pruned in conforrnance 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. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit. Tree Protection Zone for trees on lots 1, 7, 8, and 9. The Tree Protection Zone for trees on lots 1, 7, 8, and 9 shall completely surround those trees to the satisfaction of the City' s arborist. A fence shall completely surround and define the Tree Protection zone to the satisfaction of the City' s arborist prior to demolition, grubbing or grading..Fences shall be 6 feet tall chain link or equivalent as approved by the consulting arborist. Fences are to remain until all grading and construction is completed. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit. Meeting to review work procedures, access routes, storage areas and tree protection measures. Prior to work the contract(>r 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. 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. 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. 18 95. 96. 97.¸ 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. Damage. If damage should occur to any tree during construction it shall be immediately reported to the Director of Community Development so that proper treatment may be administered. The Director will refer to the City Arborist to determine the appropriate method of repair of any damage. The cost of any treatment or repair shall be borne by the developer/applicant responsible for the development of the project. Failure to do so may result in the issuance of a stop work order. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing Dumping or storage within the Tree Protection Zone. No excess soil, chemicals, debris, equipment or other materials shall be dumped or stored within the Tree Protection Zone. Responsible Agency: PL ~ When Required: Ongoing Tree Pruning Guidelines. 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 (Z 133.1 ) and Pruning (A300). Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing Tree pruning by construction personnel. personnel. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing No tree pruning may be performed by construction 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 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 Trees shall not be climbed with spurs. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing Thinning cuts are to be employed rather than heading cuts. Trees shall not be topped or headed back. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing Vehicles and heavy equipment. Vehicles and heavy equipment shall not be parked beneath the trees. If access by equipment is required to accomplish the specified pruning, the soil surface shall be protected with 6 inches to 8 inches of wood chips before placing equipment or vehicles. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 19 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. Servicing and fueling of equipment. Equipment shall be serviced and fueled outside the tree canopy to avoid accidental spills in the root area. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing Certified arborist. A certified arborist shall be present on the project site during grading or other construction activity that may impact the health of the Fire Resistive Heritage Trees in this project. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing Guide to Maintenance for Native Oaks. The consulting arborist shall prepare a Guide to Maintenance for Native Oaks that describes the care needed to maintain tree health and structural stability including pruning, fertilization, mulching and pest management as may be required. In addition, the Guide shall address monitoring both tree health and structural stability of trees. As trees age, the likelihood of failure of branches or entire trees increases. Therefore, annual inspection for hazard potential should be addressed in the Guide. A copy of this Guide shall be provided to each purchaser. Responsible Agency: , PL When Required: Prior to occupancy Cash bond or other security deposit. The applicant/developer shall guarantee the protection of the 'Fire Resistive Heritage Trees on the project site through placement of a cash bond or other security deposit in the amount of $100,000. The cash bond or other security shall be retained for a reasonable period of time following the occupancy of the last residence occupied, not to exceed one year. The cash bond or security is to be released upon satisfaction of the Director of Community Development that the Fire Resistive Heritage Trees have not been endangered. The cash bond or security deposit shall be forfeited as a civil penalty for any unauthorized removal or destruction of a Heritage Tree. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing Overhead wires or underground pipes or conduits. Any public utility installing or maintaining any overhead wires or underground pipes or conduits in the vicinity of a Heritage Tree in this project shall obtain permission from the Director of Community Development before performing any work, which may cause injury to the Heritage Tree. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 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 Fire Resistive Heritage Trees conform with the Wildfire Management Plan and that no Heritage Tree on the project site will be removed pursuant to the Wildfire Management Plan. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 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 20 111. Encroachment of Driplines. Resistive Heritage Tree. Responsible Agency: When Required: No structure shall encroach to within 5 feet of the dripline of a Fire PL Prior to issuance of Building Permit. 112. Perpetuation of Oak Grove/planting of additional oak trees. Landscape improvements for this project shall include the planting of additional oak trees. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 20th day of February, 2001. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST Mayor City Clerk G:pa00-009/cc reso sdr 21 INO, Heritage Tree Protection Plan Brittany Drive Estates, Tract 5073 Dublin, CA PREPARED FOR: Black Mountain Development 12 Crow Canyon Ct., Suite 207 San Ramon CA 94583 PREPARED BY: HortScience, Inc. 4125 Mohr Ave., Suite F Pleasanton CA 94566 February 2001 FEB :L.,~ ZOO1 CITY OF DUBLIN BUILDING INSPECTION DEPT. ATTACHlENT -.~ Heritage Tree Protection Plan Brittany Drive Estates, Tract 5073 Dublin, CA Table of Contents Page Introduction and Overview 2 Survey Methods -. 2 Description of Trees 3 Suitability for Preservation 4 Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations for Preservation 6 Tree Preservation Guidelines 7 List of Tables and' Exhibits Table 1. Table 2. Condition ratings and frequency of occurrence for trees 3 Suitability for Preservation 5 Attachments Tree Survey Map Tree Protection Fencing Plan Tree Survey Form Heritage Tree Protection Plan, Brittany Drive, T. 4073, Dublin February 12, 2001 HortScience, Inc. Page 2 Introduction and Overview Black Mountain Development is proposing to develop six lots located on Brittany Drive and one lot on Rolling Hills Dr. in Dublin, CA. The project encompasses portions on the native oak woodland. The Tentative Tract map was approved by the City Council of Dublin in 1985:in Resolution No. 82-85. That document requires preparation of a horticultural report if project grading is performed within 25 feet of the dripline of trees. Since that time a. Heritage Tree Ordinance (No. 29-99) has 'been enacted that requires preparation of a Heritage Tree Protection Plan. HortScience, Inc was asked to prepare that report. This report provides the following information: 1. A survey of trees within the project boundaries. 2. An assessment of the impacts of constructing the proposed project on the trees. 3. Guidelines for tree preservation and protection during the design, construction and maintenance phases of development. Survey Methods Trees were surveyed in July 2000.. The survey included trees greater than 6" in diameter, located within the project boundaries. The survey procedure consisted of the following steps: 1. Identifying the tree as to species; 2. Tagging each tree with an identifying number; 3. Measuring the trunk diameter at a point 54" above grade. 4. Evaluating the health and structural stability using a scale of 1-5: 5 - A healthy,. vigor~ous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptoms of disease, with good structure and form typical of the species. 4 - Tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, minor structural defects that could be corrected. 3 - Tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, thinning of crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that might be mitigated with regular care. 2- Tree in 'decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large branches, significant structural defects that cannot be abated. 1 - Tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and/or trunk; most of foliage from epicormics; extensive structural defects that cannot be abated. 0- Dead tree. Heritage Tree Protection Plan, Brittany Drive, T. 4073, Dublin February 12, 2001 ' HortScience, Inc. Page 3 H% Rating the suitability for preservation as "good", -fair or "poor. Suitability for preservation considers the health, age and structural condition of the tree, and its potential to remain an asset to the site for years to come. Good. Fair. Poor. Trees with good health and Structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site. Trees with somewhat declining health and/or structural defects than can be abated with treatment. The tree will require more inten~se management and monitoring, and may have shorter life span than those in 'good" category. Tree in poor health or with significant Structural defects that cannot be mitigated. Tree is expected to continue to decline, regardless of treatment. The species or individual may have characteristics that are undesirable for landscapes, and generally are unsuited for use areas. 6. Recording the tree's location on a map. Description of Trees Twenty (20) trees were evaluated. Descriptions of each tree are found in the Tree Survey (see Attachments). A Summary is provided in Table 1. Tree locations are shown by tag number on the Tree Survey Map (see Attachments). The trees on the subject property are a portion of a small woodland associated with a drainage course south 'of Brittany Dr. Two oak species were presenton the south;facing slope: the evergreen coast live oak, which comprised 20% of the population and the deciduous valley oak with 80% of the population (Table 1). Two of the oaks were on a west;facing slope off Rolling Hills Dr. As is normal for native oak woodlands, a range of tree condition was present, from excellent to poor. Tree condition ranged from excellent to poor, although most (80%) were in the good to fair category. Most were large, mature individuals, Tree size ranged from 14" to 61" diameter single-trunked trees. Average trunk diameter was 28". There were six multiple-trunked trees with individual trunks ranging in size from 6" to 40". Table 1: Condition ratings and frequency of occurrence of trees at T. 5073 Common Name Scientific Name Condition Rating No. of Good Fair Poor Trees (4-5) (3) (1-2) Coast live oak Valley oak Quercus agrifolia Quercus Iobata 1 I 2 4 (20%) 7 7 2 16 (80%) Total 8 8 4 20 40% 40% 20%' 100% Heritage Tree Protection Plan, Brittany Drive, T. 4073, Dublin February 12, 2001 HortScience, Inc. Page 4 Heritage Trees City of Dublin Ordinance No. 29-99 identifies "Heritage Trees" as being any of the following: 1. Any oak, bay, cypress, maple, redwood, buckeye and sycamore tree having a trunk of 24" or more in diameter measured 4.5' above natural grade, 2. A tree required to be preserved as part of an approved development plan, zoning permit, use permit, site development review or subdivision map. 3. A tree required to be planted as a replacement for an unlawfully removed tree. By definition #1,13 trees are Heritage. However, because the project was approved with the trees at the Tentative Tract Map stage, all trees are now designated as Heritage by definition #2. Suitability for Preservation Before evaluating the impacts that will occur during development, it is important to consider the quality of the tree resoume itself, and the potential for individual trees to function well over an extended length of time. Trees that are preserved on development' sites must be carefully selected to make sure that they may survive development impacts, adapt to a new environment and perform well in the landscape. Our goal is to identify trees that have the potential for long-term health, structural stability and longevity. For trees growing in open fields, away from areas where people and property are present, structural defects and/or poor health presents a low risk of damage or injury if they fail. HOwever, we must be concerned about safety in use areas. Therefore, where development encroaches into existing plantings, we must consider the potential for trees to grow and thrive in a new environment as 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. Evaluation of suitability for preservation considers several factors: 'Tree health Healthy, vigorous trees are better able to tolerate impacts such as root injury, demolition of existing structures, changes in soil grade and moisture, and soil compaction than are non-vigorous trees. Structural integrity Trees with significant amounts of wood decay and other structural defects that cannot be corrected are likely to fail. Such trees should not be preserved in areas where damage to people or property is likely. Species response There is a wide variation in the response of individual species to construction impacts and changes in the environment. Coast live oak has good construction, while valley oak has moderate tolerance to impacts.' Tree age and longevity Old trees, while having significant emotional and aesthetic appeal, have limited physiological capacity to adjust to an altered environment. Young trees are better able to generate new tissue and respond to change. Heritage Tree Protection Plan, Brittany Drive, T. 4073, Dublin February 12, 2001 HortScience, Inc.' Page 5 Each tree was rated for suitability for preservation based upon its age, health, structural condition and ability to safely coexist within a development environment (see Tree Survey Form). A summary is provided in Table 2. Table 2: Suitability for Preservation of Trees in Tract 5073. Good These are trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site. Eight (8) trees were rated as having good suitability for preservation. Tree No. Species Diameter (in.) 335 Valley oak 27, 23, 23 337 Valley oak 25, 16 340 Coast live oak 40, 26 346 Valley oak 31 350 Valley oak 31 352 Valley oak 28 353 Valley oak 19, 18, 15, 13 354 Valley oak 31 Moderate Trees in this category have fair health and/or structural defects that may be abated with treatment. Trees in this category require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life- spans than those in the "good" category. Eight (8) trees were rated as having moderate suitability for preservation. Tree No. Species Diameter (in.) 338 342 343 344 347 348 349 351 Valley oak 29 Coast live oak 41 Valley oak 14, 13, i 2, 11, 6 Valley oak 33 Valley oak 25 Valley oak 17 Valley oak 61 Valley oak 17, 13 Low Trees in this category are in poor health or have significant defects in structure that cannot be abated with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline regardless of management. The species or individual tree may possess either characteristics that are undesirable in landscape settings or be unsuited for use areas. Four (4) trees were rated as having low suitability for preservation. Tree No. Species Diameter (in.) 336 Valley oak 20 339 Coast live oak 22 341! Coast live oak 15 345 Valley oak 14 Heritage Tree Protection Plan, Bdttany Drive, T. 4073, Dublin February 12, 2001 HortScienCe, Inc. Page 6 We consider trees with good suitability for preservation to be the best candidates for preservation. We do not recommend retention of trees with low suitability for preservation in areas where people or structures will be present. Retention of trees with moderate suitability for preservation depends upon the intensity of proposed site changes. Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations for Preservation Appropriate tree retention develops a practical match between the location and intensity of construction activities and the quality and health of trees. The Tree Survey Form was the reference' point for tree condition and quality. Potential impacts from construction were evaluated using the Composite Site Plan (June 2000) and house layouts for lots 1, 8 and 9 prepared by EDI Architecture, Inc. (received Feb. 12, 2001 ). Potential impacts from construction were assessed for each tree. The project has been designed to retain all trees. Normally we would not recommend retention of trees in poor condition. However, because this is a native stand of oaks and the trees in poor condition are downslope from the home areas, they can be .retained. Only trees along the north canopy edge will be impacted by construction. These include trees #335, 342, 340, 341,345, 346 and 353. Construction will occur a minimum of 5' outside the driplines of all trees. Roots of oaks typically extend for a long distance beyond the dripline. Construction of the homes on lots 1,7, 8 and 9 will encroach into the root area. However, we consider the encroachment to be within the tolerance level of the adjacent trees.. We expect no observable reduction in plant growth or health from the construction. Fill placed outside the driplines ~years ago when Brittany Drive was constructed has had no observable effect. No impacts to the trees will occur downslope from the trunks. A TREE PROTECTION ZONE at the driplines of trees shall be established. The Wildfire Management Plan contains several requirements that affect management of the trees: · Pruning is required to, "thin foliage, remove dead wood, raise the foliage one-foot above the ground, and separate the crowns of the trees." Implementation of these requirements will be directed by the Fire Marshall, project arborist and City's arborist. It is unclear at this time how much pruning will be required to separate crowns of the trees because they exist in small groves of continuous canopy. Specifications for pruning will be pro~/ided following on-site consultation with the Fire Marshall. "Ground under the Fire Resistive Heritage Trees shaft be kept freeof weeds and dead wood." Weed controls must be applied in a manner that will not harm trees. Pre-emergent herbicides and tilling are not acceptable methods of weed control. Post-emergent herbicides and hand-pulling weeds are allowable. "An irrigated fuel break/greenbelt shall be installed surrounding the Fire Resistive Heritage Trees." The irrigated area must be designed to protect the native trees from excessive water and exclude trenching to install irrigation lines within 'the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. The rock outcropping on lot 9 will be removed to construct the home. To eliminate potential damage to trees on that lot we recommend retaining any rocks in place within 30' of the trunks. Heritage Tree Protection Plan, Brittany Drive, T. 4073, Dublin February 12, 2001 HortSCience, Inc. Page 7 Tree Preservation Guidelines : The goal of tree preservation is not merely tree survival during development but maintenance of tree health and beauty for many years. Trees retained on sites that- are either subject to extensive injury during construction or are inadequately maintained become a .liability rather than an asset. The response of individual trees will depend on the amount of excavation and grading, the care with which demolition is undertaken, and the construction methods. Coordinating any construction-activity inside the Tree Protection Zone can minimize these impacts. The following recommendations will help reduce impacts to trees from development and maintain and improve their health and vitality through the clearing, grading and construction phases. Design recommendations 1. A TREE PROTECTION ZONE shall be established at the dripline of all trees. No grading, excavation, construction or storage of materials shall occur within that zone. All site development plans shall be reviewed by the Project Arbor, st 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. · Tree Preservation Notes, prepared by the Consulting Arbor,st, should be included on all construction plans. Irrigation systems must be designed so that no trenching will occur within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Surface water from irrigation runoff must be directed away from oak trunks. No landscape improvements such as lighting, pavement, drainage or planting may occur within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE that may negatively affect the health or structural stability of the trees. As trees withdraw water from the soil, expansive soils may shrink within the root area. Therefore, foundations, footings and pavements on expansive soils near trees should be designed to withstand differential displacement." Pre-construction treatments and recommendations 1. Prune trees to be preserved to clean the crown and to provide 1' clearance as required by the Wildfire Management Plan, and to clear the crown. All pruning shall be completed by a Certified Arbor,st or Tree Worker and adhere to the Tree Pruning Guide/ines of th~ International Society of Arbor,culture. Specifications 'for pruning shall be provided after consultation with the Fire Marshall. Brush shall be chipped and spread beneath the trees within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. 2. Fence all trees to be retained to completely enclose the TREE PROTECTION ZONE at the driplines as depicted on the Protection Fencing Plan (see Attachments). It Heritage Tree Protection Plan, Brittany Drive, T. 4073, Dublin February 12, 2001 HortScience, Inc. Page 8 is not necessary to fence trees on the downhill side, away from 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 by the City of Dublin and monitored by the Consulting Arborist. 3. Spoil from trench, footing, utility or other excavation shall not be placed within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE, neither temporarily nor permanently,, 4. If injury should occur to anytree during construction, it should be evaluated as soon as possible by the Consulting Arborist so that appropriate treatments can be applied. 5. No excess soil, chemicals, debris, equipment or other materials shall be dumped or stored within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. 6. 'No tree pruning may be performed by construction personnel. Maintenance of impacted trees Native oaks in proximity to homes require regular maintenance. It is recommended that the future homeowners be provided with a Guide to Maintenance for Native Oaks that describes the care needed to maintain tree health and structural stability. Occasional pruning, fertilization, mulch, and pest management may be required. In addition, provisions for monitoring both tree health and structural stability must be made a priority. As trees age, the likelihood of failure of branches or entire trees increases. Therefore, annual inspection for hazard potential is recommended. HortScience, Inc. / x == x x Tree Survey. Map Brittany Drive Tract 5073 · Dublin; CA Prepared for.' Black Mountain Development San Ramon, CA July 2000 Not to Scale Notes: - Base map provided by: RMR Design Group Concord, CA Driplines and numbered tree locations are approximate, HORTSCI~CE .,, P.O. ttOX754 pLF..ASANTON CA94566 342 341 e34Q 335 - -.r'-.,- "- ' ..,<-,, 336-' 42,39 ..-.'~;,,,,,, - 345 ~ """" Tree Protection \ Fencing x Tree Protection Fencing Plan Brittany Drive Tract 5073; Dublin, CA Prepared fort .Black Mountain Development San 'Ramon, CA February 2001 No Scale Notes: Base map provided by: RMR Design Group Concord, -CA Driplines and numbered tree locations are approximate, HOmSCmNCE7 · · HORT$ E TREE SURVEY · '.. .... x.: ,a %. TREE SPECIES TRUNK CONDITION SUITABILITY No. DIAMETER 1 =poor ,for, (in inches) 5=excellent PRESERVATION Black MoUntain Development Brittany Lane Estates Dublin, CA July 2000 COMMENTS 335 Valley oak 27, 23, 23 4 336 Valley oak 20 2 337 Valley oak 25, 16 4 338 Valley oak 29 3 339 Coast live oak 22 2 Good Poor Good Moderate Poor 340 Coast live oak 40, 26 4 Good 341 Coast live oak 15 2 342 Coast live oak 41 3 343 Valley oak 14, 13, 12, 11, 6 3 33 3 14 2 31 4 25 3 17. 3 61 '3 344 Valley oak 345 Valley oak -346 Valley oak 347 Valley oak 348 Valley oak 349 Valley oak Poor Moderate Moderate Moderate Poor Good Moderate Moderate Moderate Multiple stems from base; good form; one 23" trunk leans south over creek. Suppressed growth; little foliage; large necrotic area at base. Multiple attachments @ 3'; slightly suppressed with crown to south; some deadwood. Suppressed growth; leaning to south-east; deadwood in crown. Suppressed by tree 340; major dieback in crown; decay fruiting bodies evident. Excellent large specimen; some deadwood; growth cracks along some scaffolds; scaffolds on north lying on ground. Suppressed by 342; poor form; heavy end weight. Good form; some 'deadwood; codominant with included union at 3'. Multiple trunks at ground level; good form. Partially failed; low scaffolds to southeast. Highly suppressed; leaning 45 degrees to north. Highly desirable; excellent form and structure; minor deadwood. Crown slightly suppressed. High crown. Very large; multiple attachments at 3'; number of cavities in trunk; included bark. Page 1 II I HORT$ E TREE SURVEY TREE SPECIES No. TRUNK CONDITION SUITABILITY DIAMETER 1=poor for (in inches) 5=excellent PRESERVATION 350 Valley oak 31 5 Good 351 Valley oak 352 Valley oak 353 Valley oak 17, 13 3 Moderate 28 4 Good 19, 18, 15, 13 4 Good 354 Valley oak 31 4 Good Black Mountain Development Brittany Lane Estates Dublin, CA July 2000 COMMENTS Multiple attachments @ 7'; good form; low canopy on uphill side; moderate deadwood. Codominant @ 1 '; trunk outside property; suppressed form. Highly desirable; good form; minor deadwood. Codominant trunks arising at ground level; one with multiple attachment at 2'; good overall form; minor deadwood. Canopy one-sided; large scaffolds at right'angles; low branches on down hill side. Page 2 CITY OF DUBLIN MEMORANDUM TO: File FROM: Eddie Peabody Jr., Community Development Director DATE: February 13, 2001 lIE: Tree Protection Plan for PA 00-009 submitted on February 12, 2001 for the Black Mountain Site Development Review. I have reviewed the revised Tree Protection Plan submitted on February 12, 2001 and find that it is adequately prepared and will protect the Fire Resistive Heritage Trees as required by the City Council. I hereby approve this Tree Protection Plan. G: pa 00-009/CDD approval ot TPT 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. Staff has used different fonts to help distinguish between grounds for appeal, footmarks, and Staff responses to grounds for appeal. The texts of the groinads 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 (hereinafier "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.a~, of the Zoning Ordinance and Condition 62 Of City Council Resolution 82-85, August 12, 1985." Footnote 1 to this ground for appeal is the definition of "Grade " fi'om the Zoning Ordinance that follows: Grade. The term Grade shah mean the vertical location of the ground surface, as follows: a. Existing or natural grade: The contour of the ground surface before grading. Rough grade: The stage at which the grade approximately conforms to an approved grading plan. 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 ~nished surface of the ground between the exterior wall of a building and a perimeter drawnfive 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 thanfive feet distant from said wall, whichever is lowest. In the case of walls parallel to and within ~ve J'bet 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 ground for appeal is Condition 6 of City Council Resolution 82-85 the full text of which reads as follows: Condition 6. Condition 6 reads as follows: "The height of custom or modified homes shah not exceed twenty-five (25) feet as measuredperpendicularly from natural grade. Skirt heights screening undeveloped non-living space for custom or modified homes (measured from natural grade to ~nished~oor elevations) shall not exceed a maximum of nine 9feet. Deviation and/or refinement of these standards may be considered as part of the Site Development Review process covering these lots." 5 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 clear in 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 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, Staff report3). 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 ground for appeal reads as follows: "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 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, 2000page 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 modij52 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 PA 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, 2000from 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 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." A copy of this letter was proved to the Planning Commission at 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. 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/Invetec 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 at which 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. "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 8.36.110.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/develpper 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 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.s 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 Resolution 82-85 condition 6.6 Staff assertion that Section 8.36.110.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 if there 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 8.04.060g and Section 8.04.060.D.19 clearly show that the 1997 Dublin Zoning Ordinance never intended to rewrite and supersede Resolution 82-85. Footnote 6 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: See footnote 2 supra. Footnote 7 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: See Staff report Agenda Statement page 3 "Deviation and/or refinement" chart showing 15Jbet can be added to the height of a home on a slope over 30percent. Footnote 8 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: Section 8. 04. 060 "Interpretation.' Of City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 1997provides 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 ground for appeal reads as follows: Section 8.04.060. d I 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 apply. (Emphasis added) Staff response to Ground 2-3. As stated above, Staff is of the opinion that Section 8.36.100.'C.2 is applicable to this project as permitted by Condition 6 of Resolution 82-85. Furthermore the application of Section 8.36.100.C.2 in this situation is appropriate because there is no conflict between Condition 6 and Section 8.36.100.C.2: This is because Section 8.36.100.C.2 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 8.36.100.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 8.36.100.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 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 1620 of Resolution 82- 85, August 12, 1985 and .... Footnote 10 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: Resolution 82-85 Condition 16: grading performed within 25feet of the drip line of existing onsite or of~ite 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) "Project 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 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) of the Heritage Tree Ordinance 29-99, December 21, 1999u (hereinafter the "Heritage Tree Ordinance") and .... 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) 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 Ordinance~2, 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 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..." 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 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 condition~3. 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 ground for appeal reads as follows: Encarta® Worm English Dictionary © & (P) 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. 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 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. 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 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. ]0 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 pruning~4. Footnote 14 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: See letter from Jeffrey Gamboni, December 6, 2000paragraph 1.6: "Potential negative impacts resulting from pruning: the pruning of tree # 340 is major surgery requiring the removal of a 27 inch trunk fi'om 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 HeritageTrees 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 removed~s under the tree limbs to prevent their removal creating larger wounds to the tree than preferred? Footnote 15 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: 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 ')9oppycock". We have attached his resume and recent work experience as Attachment #3for reference. 11 Footnote 16 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: See HortScience Inc., Heritage Tree Protection Plan, T. 5073 page 7paragraph 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 bond~7 for the protection of the Heritage Trees where there is major surgery is not adequate and the reasonableness of a longer time period needs to be addressed. Footnote I 7 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: 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 5.60.100(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 When Required: Ongoing" Ground 3-9. Another issue that needs to be addressed is what time of the year is best for pruning~s. 'Furthermore, building structures should not be allowed within the drip lines of any Heritage Trees. Footnote 18 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: 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 Batcheider, recommendedpruning for heavy lateral branches be performed daring 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 access~9 to the proposed Custom Lots adjacent to open space and/or undeveloped land outside the current Dublin Urban Limit Line. Footnote 19 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: Seepage 9 Dublin Wildfire Management Plan: "OPEN SPACE ACCESS". Staff response to Ground 4-1. 13 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 vegetatio,n 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 requirements2° for building on lots adjacent to undeveloped land. Footnote 20 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: See p'age 5 of Dublin FFildfire 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 I 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. , 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 not form a means of rapidly transmitting fire to any structure. The Alameda 15 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 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 17 height of the 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 Mantenande2L Footnote 21 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: See page 8 Dublin H~ild~re 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? Jerry Weis yes Susan Bewley yes David Bewley yes Richard Bond yes Charles Breed no Pete Body no Time spoken 6 minutes 5 minutes 41 minutes with Richard Bond 41 minutes with David Bewley 3 minutes 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: 11G o 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. terminated by the Chairman. Ground for Appeal 5. Ground 5-1. Denial of Due Process22 No other speakers had their presentations 18 Footnote 22 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: See Letter to Guy S. Houston dated . December 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 of the 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 ground for appeal reads as follows: 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 CITY OF DULBIN APPROVING PA00-009 BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR SEVEN SINGLE-FAMILY 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