HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.3 BlackMtSDR Appeal CITY CLERK
File # q / O -3
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 1.6, 2001
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: PA 00-009, appeal of Planning Commission approval of
the Black Mountain Site Development Review for six single-family
residences on six existing lots on Brittany Lane and one sing le-family,
residence on an existing lot on Rolling Hills Drive.
(Report Prepared by: Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner/Zoning
Administrator)
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Project plans
2) Resolution of City Council affirming the December 12,2000 Planning
Commission action with changes proposed by Staff
3) Letter dated December 21, 2000 appealing Planning Commission
decision
4) Heritage Tree Ordinance
5) Tree Protection Plan
6) Dublin Wildfire Management Plan
7) Alameda County Fire Department—Removal Requirements
8) Letter dated September 27,2000,from Jeffrey Gamboni in support of
fire safety pruning
9) Letter dated December 6,2000, from Jeffrey Gamboni approving the
Tree Protection Plan
10) Letter from the Director of Community Development approving the
Tree Protection Plan
11) December 12, 2000 Planning Commission Staff Report without
attachments
12) Planning Commission Resolution 00-71.
13) Portion of minutes of the December 12, 2000 Planning Commission
deliberation on this item .
14) Analysis of Grounds for Appeal with Staffs Response
15) Dublin Planning Commission.Rules of Procedure
16) Study comparing topography profile prior to 1985,the 1985 finish
grade profile and proposed finish floor elevations in relationship to
Brittany Lane
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Hear Staff presentation
2) Open Public Hearing .
3) Question Staff,Applicant and the Public
COPIES TO: PA 00-009 File.
Appellants
ITEM NO. 6.,
4) Close public hearing and deliberate
5) Options for action:
A. Decide that the Planning Commission action be affirmed and
adopt resolution(Attachment 2) approving the Black
Mountain Development Site Development Review for seven
homes on seven existing lots with changes proposed by Staff
B. Decide that the Planning Commission decision be reversed
and direct Staff to prepare a resolution reversing the Planning
Commission decision and deny the Black Mountain
Development Site Development Review for seven homes on
seven existing lots -
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is an appeal of the December 12,2000 decision of the Planning Commission to approve a Site
Development Review for the construction of seven single-family homes on seven existing lots created as
lots 1 and 7— 12 of Block 1 of Tract Map 5073. The lots are located at 11299 Rolling Hills Drive and
11151, 11159, 11167, 11175, 11183 and 11191 Brittany Lane. The appeal shall be considered as required
by Chapter 8.136,Appeals, of the Zoning Ordinance.
The appellants filed a timely appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on December 21,2000.
The appellants gave six grounds for the appeal. This report will address each ground for appeal in
Attachment 14. •
Under Section 8.136.060.D,the City Council may affirm,affirm in part, or reverse the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve the Site Development Review. Staff suggests two options:
A. The City Council could decide that the Planning Commission action be affirmed and direct Staff to
prepare a resolution affirming the Planning Commission decision and approving the Black Mountain
Development Site Development Review for seven homes on seven existing lots with changes proposed
by Staff as further set forth in this Staff Report.
B. The City Council could decide that the Planning Commission decision be reversed and direct Staff to
prepare a resolution reversing Planting Commission decision and denying the Black Mountain
Development Site Development Review for seven homes on seven existing lots
BACKGROUND:
On August 12, 1985,the City Council approved PA 85-035.3, Hatfield Development Corporation
Investec, Inc. Tract Maps 5072, 5073 and 5074. Lots 1 and 7- 12 of Block 1 of Tract Map 5073 were not
built upon'when the rest of the homes were built in 1985. These lots are the location of the seven
proposed residences of this project. City Council Resolution 82—85 set forth the conditions of approval
for the three tract maps. Conditions 4.and 12 of that resolution require that a Site D_ evelopment Review
be processed for the development of these lots.
On May 22, 2000, Jeff Woods of Black Mountain Development applied for this Site Development Review
(Attachment 1). The project proposes seven 3,400 square foot semi-custom homes on existing lots
ranging between 11,635 square feet and 21,942 square feet.
2
General Plan. The proposed residences are located on existing single family lots that were created in
conformity with the Single Family Residential plan designation of the Dublin General Plan.
Zoning. The proposed residences are located on existing single family lots that were created in
conformity with the R-1 Zoning District. The proposed residences conform to all applicable development
standards of the R-l Zoning District.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Planning Commission voted 3 in favor with 2 absent to adopt Resolution 00-71 approving this Site
Development Review. The Minutes from their meeting are in Attachment 13. The following major issues
were addressed in the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 11):
A. Conformity with City Council Resolution 82-85. The project conforms to the following
applicable conditions of approval of City Council Resolution 82-85:
Condition 3. Standards for setbacks, minimum lot size and width and other applicable regulations of the
R-l Zoning District are meJ by this project.
Condition 4. Requires a Site Development Review (SDR) for lots where more than 50 cubic yards of
grading will occur. A SDR was prepared and approved for this project.
Condition 6. Requires a maximum height of 25 feet for residences and requires a maximum skirt height
for undeveloped non-living spaces of 9 feet. Permits a deviation and/or refinement of these standards to
be considered as part of the SDR process covering these lots. The Planning Commission evaluated the
project's proposed deviation and/or refinement using Section 8.36.110.C.2 of the Zoning Ordinance
which permits an addition to height limits for residences of 5, 10, and 15 feet when the natural slope
within the proposed building envelope of the home exceeds 15%,22.5% and 30% respectively. The
proposed residences have slopes exceeding either 22.5% or 30% and can have heights of 35 feet and 40
feet. The homes as proposed are well below the 35 and 40 foot maximums and appear as single story
homes from the street. Design features such as siting the homes as low as possible on the lots, no
chimneys and the use of hip roofs have minimized impacts to views. A Planning Commission condition
of approval prohibits the increase in height of residences in this project beyond that approved in the
subject SDR.
Condition 7. This condition sets forth requirements for fencing. A Planning Commission condition of
approval ensures conformity with this condition.
Condition 12. Requires a SDR for custom lots (including the seven lots of this project). Requires that
grading of these lots be minimized while creating reasonably sized, functional exterior living areas. A
SDR was prepared and approved for this project. Grading will be limited to the placement of the
residences and driveways. The majority of each residence will not be directly supported by the soil but
will be placed on a framework of deep-seated piers and grade beams. Functional padded exterior living
areas are proposed in the front yards and in raised. deck areas.
Condition 16. Requires grading performed within 25 feet of the drip line of existing onsite or offsite
trees to be addressed by a horticultural report and the recommendations and findings of that report
incorporated into the grading and improvement plans of this project. A horticultural report was prepared
in 1985 for the HatfieldlInvestec (Tract Maps 5072,5073 and 5074) project which created these lots. A
Tree Protection Plan was prepared for this project by the Applicant's arborist and peer reviewed by the
City'sarborist, Jeff Gamboni. The recommendations and findings of that Plan are incorporated into the
3
grading and improvements plans of this project. Several Planning Commission conditions of approval
relating to Heritage Trees ensure that the requirements of the Tree Protection Plan will be implemented.
Condition 19. Requires developer to confer with local postal authorities regarding main receptacles. A
Planning Commission condition of approval implements this requirement.
B. Views/Height Limits. The residences have been sited based on the ground surface that was
created in 1985 to create the lots in the HatfieldlInvestec project. As stated above, the residences
have been designed to have the appearance of a single story home from the street, have no
chimneys and incorporate hip roofs to minimize impacts to views.
C. Grading. ENGEO Inc. is the geotechnical engineering company which prepared the geotechnical
engineering reports for the original development which created these lots. ENGEO also prepared a
geotechnical report for this project which was peer-reviewed by K1einfelder, Inc. for the City.
Kleinfelder found that the grading of the subject lots was done properly and meets the current
standard of engineering practice in the Bay Area. Kleinfelder recommended (and the Planning
Commission approved) a condition of approval relating to removal of an area of boulders on Lots
8 and 9.
D. Heritage Trees/Tree Protection Plan. A Tree Protection Plan was prepared as required by the
Heritage Tree Ordinance and was peer-reviewed and approved by the City's arborist after
revisions were made. Twelve of the nineteen oak trees on the project are over 24 inches in
diameter measured 4 feet 6 inches above the ground and are therefore Heritage Trees. No Heritage
Trees are proposed to be removed but the trees are proposed to be pruned to conform to the
requirements of the 1998 California Fire Code. That Code requires trees within 100 feet of a
residence to be limbed up 6 feet from the ground and that grasses be kept mowed to a height of 4
inches. The pruning will take place on all trees within 100 feet of a proposed structure. A
subsidiary trunk of Tree 340 will be removed in compliance with the Fire Code. The removal of
this trunk is permitted by the Director as part of this SDR pursuant to Section 5.60.50.b.1 of the
Heritage Tree Ordinance that allows removal of a Heritage Tree if it presents an immediate hazard
to life or property (the proposed residences). The Heritage Trees will be protected during
demolition, grading and construction operations. All pruning will be completed in conformance
with the guidelines of the International Society of Arboriculture, Tree Pruning Guidelines, current
edition, on file with the City. Several Planning Commission conditions of approval implement the
Pruning Guidelines of the Tree Protection Plan. Pruning shall also conform with an agreement
with the City to not exceed yellow pruning marks placed on Tree 340. Pruning of a major scaffold
pointing toward a residence on Lot 8 shall be only as necessary to elevate the foliage 6 feet above
the ground. Under no circumstances shall that scaffold be pruned further back than as marked in
yellow unless found to be necessary by bpth the Project Arborist and the City's arborist. If the
scaffold projects to within 5 feet of the residence, the residence shall be modified to move it until
it is at least 5 feet from the furthest extent of foliage on that limb. Several Planning Commission
conditions of approval ensure that the requirements of the Heritage Tree Ordinance and the Tree
Protection Plan are met.
E. Project design. The seven proposed 3,400 square foot, four bedroom, residences are well
designed and sited. Two floor plans, one with a "straight-in" garage and one with a "side-in"
garage are proposed. The residences are sited on the lots to minimize impacts to views from other
residences on Brittany Lane. Hip roofs have been incorporated into the design to minimize
impacts to views. The homes will have a street presence of a single-story home. The homes
average 13.16 feet high when viewed from the sidewalk on Brittany Lane and 15.4 feet high at the
4
front porch. Landscaping plans were prepared by Gates and Associates and will provide an
attractive landscape presence on Brittany Lane.
ANALYSIS OF GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
Staff has responded to specific grounds of appeal in Attachment 14 and believes that the Planning
Commission and Staff have addressed concerns adequately.
CHANGES TO PROJECT SINCE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
The following additional conditions of approval to Planning Commission Resolution 00-71 are proposed
by Staff:
Storm Drain Easement on Lot 1. This conditionis proposed to reflect the existence of a"Common
Area Storm Drain Easement" on Lot 1 that was pointed out by a member of the public at the December
12, 2000 Planning Commission public hearing on this issue. The proposed house will have to be
relocated to avoid the easement. The condition reads as follows:
Storm Drain Easement on Lot 1. According to the final map for Tract 5073, an existing 10'-
wide "Common Area Storm Drain Easement" extends across Lot 1 (Rolling Hills Drive flag lot)to
allow storm runoff from the neighboring Lot 2 to discharge downslope to Martin Canyon Creek.
No permanent structures, including the proposed residence, shall be constructed over said existing
easement. Concrete flatwork and landscaping may be allowed if the Applicant demonstrates that
said improvement will not adversely impact the drainage pattern. Alternatively, the Applicant
may demonstrate to the City that permission from the Silvergate Highlands Owners Association
has been obtained for the relocation of the easement and the associated drainage facilities.
Responsible Agency: PW
When required: Prior to issuance of Building Permits.
Heritage Trees on Lot 1. A condition is proposed to ensure that moving the house on Lot 1 does not
impact the Heritage Trees on that lot. The condition reads as follows:
Heritage Trees on Lot 1. The foliage of the heritage trees on Lot 1 shall only be trimmed as
necessary to elevate the foliage 6 feet above the ground. Under no circumstances shall said trees
be trimmed beyond required by the 1998 California Fire Code. If, after pruning pursuant to the
Code, the foliage of said trees projects to within 5 feet of the proposed location of the residence on
Lot 1,the residence on Lot 1 shall be modified to move it until it is at least five feet from the
furthest extent of foliage of said trees.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit.
Perpetuation of Oak Grove/planting of additional oak trees. This condition is proposed because it
was recommended for inclusion by Jeffrey Gamboni in Item 1.7 of his December 6, 2000 letter. The
Condition reads as follows:
Perpetuation of Oak Grove/planting of additional oak trees. Landscape improvements for this
project shall include the planting of additional oak trees.
The following changes to conditions of approval of Planning Commission Resolution 00-71 are proposed
by Staff:
5
Condition 39. Condition 39 of the Planning Commission Resolution of Approval is proposed to be
deleted because it is not necessary.
Condition 87. Condition 87 is proposes to be modified to substitute "1998 California Fire Code" for
"1997 Uniform Fire Code" because the 1998 code has been adopted by the City and has the same
requirements relating to this project.
Condition 106. Condition 106 is proposed to be modified to add the word "unauthorized" to make the
wording identical to the requirements of the Heritage Tree Ordinance. That condition as amended
(underlined) reads as follows:
106. The applicant/developer shall guarantee the protection of the Heritage Trees on the project site
through placement of a cash bond or other security deposit in the amount of$100,000. The cash
bond or other security shall be retained for a reasonable period of time following the occupancy of
the last residence occupied, not to exceed one year. The cash bond or security is to be released
upon satisfaction of the Director of Community Development that the Heritage Trees have not
been endangered. The cash bond or security deposit shall be forfeited as a civil penalty for any
unauthorizeo removal or destruction of a Heritage Tree. .
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
Condition 112. Condition 112 is proposed to be revised to add the word "subsidiary" to make the
condition more clear. The Condition with change underlined reads as follows:
112. Removal of the subsidiary trunk of Tree 340. The subsidiary trunkto be removed and the
remainder of Tree 340 which shall remain are treated as one tree in the Tree Protection Report
because they are located immediately adjacent to each other and form portions of the same canopy
and dripline. The removal of this subsidiary trunk is permitted by the Director as part of this Site
Development Review pursuant to Section 5.60.50.b.2.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
DECISION OPTIONS BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
If the City Council wishes to affirm the Planning Commission action, with changes proposed by Staff, it
should choose Option A. Option A reads as follows:
Option A:
Decide that the Planning Commission action be affirmed and adopt resolution (Attachment 2)
approving the Black Mountain Development Site Development Review for seven homes on
seven existing lots with changes proposed by Staff.
If the City Council wishes to reverse the Planning Commission action, it should choose Option B below.
Option B:
Decide that the Planning Commission decision be reversed and direct Staffto prepare a
resolution reversinKPlanning Commission decision and denying the Black Mountain
Development Site Development Review for seven homes on seven existing lots. The
resolution should identify how the project fails to comply with applicable Site Development
Review findings and/or standards and how the project can be brought into compliance with
such findings and/or standards.
6
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The environmental impacts of this project were addressed under the Negative Declaration prepared for the
PA 85-035 Hatfield Development Corporation Planned Development Rezone, Annexation and Site
Development Review of which the subject lots were a part. The Negative Declaration was prepared in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the City
of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. Further,the project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section
15304, Class 4,minor public or private alterations in the condition of the land, water, and/or vegetation
which do not involve removal of healthy,mature, scenic trees except for forestry and agricultural
purposes. Specifically, Subsection (I) providesprovides, Fuel management activities within 30 feet of
structures to reduce the volume of flammable vegetation,provided that the activities will not result in the
taking of endangered,rare, or threatened plant or animal species or significant erosion and sedimentation
of surface waters. This exemption shall apply to fuel management activities within 100 feet of a structure
if the public agency having fire protection responsibility for the area has determined that 100 feet of fuel
clearance is required due to extra hazardous fire conditions. This project is adjacent to a wildfire area and
the 1998 California Fire Code, as adopted by the City, requires 100 feet of fuel clearance for this project.
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
The proposed Site Development Review is consistent with the Single Family Residential designation of
the General Plan and the PD (R-1)Zoning District.
AGENCY REVIEW
This project has been reviewed by other City departments and interested agencies, and their comments
have been incorporated as conditions of approval in the draft Resolution.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council open the public hearing; question Staff,Applicant and the Public;
close the public hearing and deliberate, and either:
Option A: Decide that the Planning Commission action be affirmed and adopt resolution(Attachment 2)
approving the Black Mountain Development Site Development Review for seven homes on
seven existing lots with changes proposed by Staff, or
Option B: Decide that the Planning Commission decision be reversed and direct Staff to prepare a
resolution reversing Planning Commission decision and denying the Black Mountain
Development Site Development Review for seven homes on seven existing lots. The
resolution should identify how the project fails to comply with applicable Site Development
Review findings and/or standards and how the project can be brought into compliance with
such findings and/or standards.
G:\pa00-009/ccappealsr Jan 4
7
ATTACHMENT I
RECEIVED t2!'
~;
DEG 0 4 zoao
DUBLIN PLANNING \;:'
\..;"\
:(:
(;.~~
~~
..
I
~
r
I
VIEW FROM SOUTH
00011 "-
01 NOVEMBER 2000 DUBUN-SITE-10-03-aO.OllG I
Black Mountain DeV". PAGE 1" ~
~
~
5
~
I
~
ROLLING HILLS &
0 BRITTANY DRIVE LOTS 0
~ ~ lXIXIXIX\XIXIXIlXlXIX lZL ) I
DUBLIN II'" FOR N A
An:blUdure
~
RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA
ED! ARCHITECTURE. INC.
450 SANSOME. SECOND FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310
'F 415.39:1.8116<1
This project consists of seven hillside lots; six in a row on Brittany Drive and one flag lot off of Rolling Hills Drive. All seven
lots have fairly similar topography, the lots along Brittany have a terrace that extends out into the lots approximately 40'
before the topography drops down a slope. This terrace formation follows the up-hill climb of the street On the flag lot the
front terrace is closer to the level in both directions before the land drops off to the rear of the lol All seven lots overlook the
same oak filled valley and creek. The oaks are a valuable asset to the views from the proposed homes and will be preserved.
Our design challenge was to develop seven unique single-family homes that would meet Dublin's guidelines while minimizing
site and view disruptions. To that end~ we studied the topography of each lot as well as the location of neighboring homes.
To meet Dublin's guidelines we are proposing no more than two story high homes. The lower :lloors are a maximum of 9'
above natural grade and the avemge height of the lowest levels are (f off finished grade (or lower). In all cases the maximum
height of the homes is well below the allowable height limil In order to preserve views for the neighbors, the proposed homes
are designed to keep as Iowa profile as possible while retaining street presence. Because car access is governed by the limits
of driveway slopes, we started our design process with the placement of the garages which we placed at the lowest front
comer of each site. The garages are set back 20' from the property line to allow driveWay parking.
The actual house sits behind the garage forming an "L" shaped configuration. This "L" shape lillows a courtyard to be
developed out front where the hillside owners will have the luxuiy of access to a relatively flat grade. The homes attached to
the rear of the garages are what we call "up-side down" plans. This concept places the main living floor at the upper grade
and the smaller secondary bedroom level tucked below, stepping down the hillsides to the rear. From the top, or front, of each
lot the homes appear to be only one story high because the "second" story is actoaIly downhill. . To further open up views the
homes are topped by low slope 4: 12 hipped roofs. In the case of the Brittany lots the street continues to climb up-hill as it
passes, so part of the homes are depressed below the line of the road, again lowering their profile and increasing the view
potential of the existing neighbors.
Another important consideration was that each house appear to be unique. This has been achieved in a variety of ways. We
have provided a variance in the massing of the homes with the location of the garage as well as the garage access which varies
from front to side. In regards to finishes, roof tiles consist of both flat and round tiles with each roof being a different color.
Some homes will be finished with stucco and others with horizontal siding, in some cases the sided homes will have shingle
trim. Each honse will be painted a different color scheme, the colors chosen consist of bold natural based colors inl?luding
green, gold and berry tones. In addition to providing a sophisticated look, these rich shades also help the houses blend into the
lIee filled surroundings. The landscaping schemes for each house are also unique and include varying arrangements of
flowering pear, Chinese elm, crape myrtle and crab apple trees as well as shrubs such as rosemary, lavender and California
iris.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
BRITTANY DRIVE
BRl'ITANY DRIVE
fEEEr ~
'"
C :}
!Ii
""
3
~
-
SILVER z
0
::a '"
i>',! ""
<0
~
rn
- -
580
- -
VICINITY MAP
DEVELOPER:
BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT
12 CROW CANYON COURT. SUITE 207
SAN RAMON, CA 94583
TEL: 925 855 1232 FAX: 925 855 1238
ARCHITECT:
ED! ARCHITECTURE INC.
,450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94111
TEL: 415 362 2880 FAX: 415 394 8767
CIVIL EN(;lNEER:
RMR DESIGN GROUP
1130 BURNETT AVENUE. SUITE A
CONCORD, CA 94520
TEL: 510 686 6300 FAX: 510 686 0707
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:
GATES & ASSOCIATES
2440 TASSAJARA LANE
DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94526
TEL: 925 736 8176 FAX: 925 736 8184
<>
~
~
~
....c..
\.r..
2
PAGE
00011
o 1 NOVEMBER 2000
!lecond 0011 afp2.dlftI
BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT
A
<>
N
R
o
F
L
A
c
.
-........
"""""""""'...
N
L
B
u
D
RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA
ED! ARCHITECTURE, INC.
450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310
T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.8767
x X
Jh t
~ \ ..,. r- ,
?, ~ ~ ~\Lj
I "::v: l'. ~ ';
. "" \" , f. .
x __2/~) t, Jj " ,1"':21,'\\ W - =1\ 11 '" /. 'f. · " X X
t- tt-~ m....3......, , ,
'~I~I~mID~\ Mii741 } ~-:=J \.-1l,,,,,~~~, \" ~. ,
,~ ( MlT581 - - l.G ~ "\ \? ~.( ~ <'
X ~ ~~ ~{ ~Ill! I\. :JJ:~:)I~~ ~-.~_~~ '~ffJ;':J
~l~_,,;. '..ll . '..J ~~~ ". ,,~ (o~. 0-
/ ~12rt.,,^, J' 1.' .1.. , " '<':':: ~./~ ~/ /~. ~ " ~ 'I
'- ./.j,::.f"1' I . 'r- L .,b -\" "/z y/ ~ "' "'", ., .~,,' p/., .'"
]/ p" n' , .e, , I'. 1 ~/ ./ f?: ~ , ><-'jjA '/'.A.~ ///
~11!'T' JoJ. 1'",," .il c::r 6' "'" v r" ~ <~K~)~ r~ ~~~
~ ~ e/..-j; ~ tK ~ ./'"", ( /, r
", Ll --' ^",~ "" .
!(, - - ~. ". S7,,' ." '" ..... ~', .
~-~ "'p~~ =~. ~~) ~ ? ~~~
= '- ~~..... ~;=,- -== ,<.~ Iffi"~:;;;('0(~< .
"" ~-' ~ - ~ , ~ ~ o' '1''''''' > .
. ~">..: - ~ ~x::.~ ;'" ~ ~~~ . "'-"", f~ ~ ~
~~ ~ = . ~ "" '" ii
. . ~~... .~~ ~ ~ ., ~=--+ ~ ~ I,,' <' ~ JG<" <' ,)' 0 z'
~ I~~ ~.. .. '. ~"" . """"'...."" If, .l/
" ~;"=' = ~~ . - ~ ~ . . .
' ~ .~.~c . ~ ~ ' ~ -r~ 1l:
'" E~~. ~ ~. 0' }~, ,
' ,~~~. ~ "'.' ~. ~ '~~~~~\\~\\ ~ \~f ~\\ .' 'I.' '( ,
:":'---:::="\ "'~ ~"',' ~\\\\,\"", 1\ ~I ".,~\~ ~. ~ \ \:~ <
" ." , '. . , ,\\ \ \ '" ...., ", ,,\' 't", ".c..., ,
.. - ,
I "x" x X
T" X " ,
.. SITE PLAN
X x x X OVERALL y' DRIVE
X BRITTAN _
I ,..~'"
I x X
I.,,,,
1 HANDLEN, AlA
'I RICHt~gHlT TUR~'olJriCFLOOR
EDl SANSOME. SECA 94111-3~0
." 450 ..t>RANCISC . 5.394,8787
SAN.p-- 22880 F
T 4'15.36 ,
L .-..
~
~
~
-L.
\.l\.
-"'1
x
~
01 000 DlIllUo-SmHo-2ll-0HO<l.D""
/ PAGE 3
TAIN DEVELOPMENT
)('""
00011
N'~VEMBER
BLACK M'
,,^
x
<>
.
I A
N
R
xII
=~
..............
x
~
~
~
~
~
o 2' 4' eo' 8' 16'
4
00011
01 NOVEMBER 2000
0011 LOTS 7 . l1.dwg PAGE
BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT
o
A
STREETS CAPE
0 BRITTANY DRIVE
. ~ JXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXJ)<
DUBLIN III C'LIF'R'
~
--...
7
RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA
ED! ARCHITECTURE. INC.
450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94111-3310
T 415.362.2660 F 415.394.6767
.--~I'::"-:"~:;~~'::':~!.~'~{;'~J~:~'
1_lr..:J:J~""I~'._._fT'" .....
..-'-,--. I ...~,;.~.____~
- ~ _,~~~~I .~-; r..;;;...rlli~'~r.':", J
...! ~~....."....~ .... ~ Ii. ,Ii_..
.....:!=!.I..I:.~III!.II- -I .'1. ~.'....,.:.......
..,~ :.~. ". ..-.
.p,!'.' ~ ". ........... ' .
I 11- _ "'lI "";:_. PI!'......~
. ~~::.., .. ..:L..~...~tf.t.l11ir.'~I::'~'Ij,~~h..l
'':.. .,.;":<t.;':'~~~' ~:::-_. .;'
10
LOT
11
LOT
12
LOT
. .
.
, :_'.. ~;~i ~~:J=~;~i,~S'~_'i~!,J~"'.-"_1 .
,. ~ 1:~..!J..12;;; ~;~_"'.r''''A.JI!J:!I'!I-'''''
~.,p' .1_. , =--Mr:1. ~.-.r_.,..;.~j'.!i~I:~,.:J';'J-~' .
.4, .. I ~.. I ........jr:; ",:;:.".,' 'i'
.. ......~,."...,," . .=~:........~:! ~''',r~' .':~--,
. ;;. ....,;LAJi1!!Jf.~ . .",1 . - _.r .,
"",,>iii" - ~. ..;.....;:;....-i""';
",-.::;,jl.-_l. : ,-;:?--=;, ,...;~
_ _ "\."~ ,.r-,..:rr:i~,.ir~Si-~".'
....~W:.~~.:..:' '. ".:. ~~:;::~:J;~::~~~..'
- - -, ::."-
7
LOT
lJ\
~
~
-t:::.
~
00011 ~.
01 NOVEMBER 2000
se.ond 0011 alp2.d"I' PAGE 5
BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT
LOT 8
REARS CAPE
<) BRITTANY DRIVE <)
. [ 8J lXIXIXlXlXlXlXIXI;><IXIXIXIX J I
DUB L N _ 'A""" A
"""""""'...
LOT 9
RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA
ED! ARCHITECTURE, INC.
450 SANSOME. SECOND FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310
T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.8767
------------------~~~~~~-----------------
--------------------~---~
-------- ~
-------"""#'
~
~
~
G\
00011 ~
01 NOVEMBER OZ~.~ ·
e.eODd OOIl .lp2.d... PAGE 6
BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT
2000
CORRIDOR SECTION/PLAN
ROLLING HILLS 0
F lXlXlXlxrxl I
fOR N A
.-
---
N
L
B
o
D U
RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA
ED! ARCHITECTURE. INC.
450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94111-3310
T 415.362.2660 F 415.394.8161
1182 BRITTANY
------6
.-----
1182 BRITTANY
0 ~
lXIXJXIXI)< I - l~
FOR N 00011 ,-."r.....r-'I
A 01 NOVEMBER 2000 O:r 4' b' &' 10'
l!l'ltcond 0011 efp2.dws PAGE ~
BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT 7 G\
SIGHT
LINE or
---------------~!~~~~~--------------------
~-----------
I
I
I
1
i
i
..;
~
~
~
VIEW CORRIDOR SECTION/PLAN for
o BRITTANY DRIVE
L
A
c
II
"""""'......-
N
L
B
u
D
RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA
EDI ARCHITECTURE. INC.
450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310
T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.8767
o
....
~C':I
oC':l
01
< ,.;l....l'-
:;;: .t>:......~
U ....0:>
:ia:i@~~
~r.J8<~
Q~lO;:lU""
Z;::lrn ....
~t; .8 fa.
lO;:lrn
.~::;!....o
u....oug!l
Q~~~I\!
O::~<O::~
~<rnt>:..~
u-oz....
_QIl')<'"
O::lO;:l~rn....
P::: IXI :2:
0
Q I"
-
P::: ."
P::: ;:>
00 =
u
~
~
-
:>
~
z
<
E-<
E-< - ...
sao i ~
o:l
~
l'-
~
~
~~ .....
0:;.- ...
<+-t~ to>
zO== .
<0 . I'
s:~ .' .......... II
'z
z<
o Eo-<
-E-<
E-<~
Uo==
~'o:l
~!l
.. CD
.,
., I>l
" ~
.. 100 Eo<
., Z
i:01
::s
Q.,
o
-'l
r"l
>
i:01
!:l
p;; Z
r..:l :;;:
aH' Eo<
:::;L~ z
r..:l.e- ~
:>" 0
0" ::s
.... ;;:
....z'" l<:;
o ." U
0.... g ::i
o 0 ~ i:l:l
o
o
o
C\I
g 05 J.~5
x
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
\
I
I
\
I
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
1
\
I
1
\
I
--.'t""
I
1
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
1
r
\
I
I
I
I
I
\
\
I
I
1
\
~I ~.
1
\
I
I
I
I
1
\
1
1
I
I
\
I
1
\
I
1
~
I
1
I
1
1
I
1
I
~
.-.- '-'3Hl'n:i.iiidOiid'-'-
1
I
I
I
I
I
l
I "I
I 1
l I
I I
1 I
1 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
1 I
I~
I '
I
I
1
1
I
Y
'"
....
1\3
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
i-:
Xl
\!):
-,
\.0:
I
4- :
01
1
ill!
Z:
-,
-1:
1
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
1
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
"'!I
'"'I
0,
"",
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
\
I
1
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
\
I
,1
I
I
I
I
I
1
l
I
,
I
l
I
I
"1
S:
1
E:
f;;:
C1l
iill
"'I
!:I'
5:
!!
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
>-
~
i
t!:
...
...
#,- -----
~------<
ff_. -----
<----
00011
01 NO'lEMBER 2000
....,,'" aatt .fpa."'...' P l\GE
1\Vcl<. \\O\JN'l'f\\N DEVELOp\\EN'l'
1166 131tl1'1' A.N"Y
0
~ ..
i
fOR 1'1 t.
\lIE'" CORRIDOR SEC'flON/P~ fo~
o BRl'f'fi\N'i DRIVE
~ ;,
nUBt.\N
RIC1\ARD c. 1\At.mLEN, AlA
EDI ARCl1l'fEC'rURE. INC.
450 SANSOM-E. SECOND f\.OOR
SAN fRANCISCO. CA 941.11-331.0
'\: 415.:i6Z.Z860 11 415.394.8767
~
U I*c oT S \ &I-\\___-----------~---------------
------------------------------------
x
x
x
AWl1lA9\.Il IIEIIlIIT
---------------------------------------------
---
---
-------
--
(-----~~~~--
~
~
~
lJ\
1158 BRl'l''1'AJfi
0
~~ r
L l' 0 \\ N A
VIEW COR\UDOR SECTION/pLAN for
<:; BRlTTAN'l DRIVE
~
c A
--
11
\) \l 11 L
RiCHA.RD C. llM'lDLEN. A.IA
ED\ A.RCll1'l'EC'1'URE. INC.
450 SANSOM'E. SEcoND fLooR
SAN fR~NC\SCO. CA 94111-3310
or 4-10.36Z.Z660 f 415.3M.676'1
AlJ.OYABLE HEIGHT .
---------------------------------------------
_____________~1~J;__~f__;21~ti][________________~____-----___
12
LOT
~----~------~~~~----------
~ ~------
E.._---------- .....2 LOT 11
'I. ----------.-----------------===---------
....:i
x
x
x
I
~i
~!
..I
0.
i
0..
1150 BRITTANY
o
VIEW CORRIDOR SECTION/PLAN for
o BRITTANY DRIVE
........
'-
~
'\-9
....c
'^
00011 ~
01 NOVEMBER 2000 ox.rr ~
second OOU afp2.dwg PAGE 11
aLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT
A
o R N
F
L
A
c
.
~Cl1'Oll!l!Ul
N
L
B
u
D
RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AIA
ED! ARCHITECTURE, INC.
450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310
T 415.362.288Q F 415.394.8767
~
FRONT
.::;..' ::::-..: '?"--~'::'.: '-:::. ::.:;~:;~~. ~r: ~ ~:~ ~..:~
~rJ/ax6f'0N4- :-:-":':-:-:':"-:-":':-:---'~:'r-:-:-'."':"';.'....-".'.':.':-:''' ....
... I' .... ..._...._.... .1..... _... " _.
$nltXCO(2)(4rCHl - ;;' .:.: ...:.....~:..~:.~: :..... -, .__.~: ..___
$t\U(lol2.'l4I'OHW'1lCtFaNof- . --.--
-;:~~ ~~L~:2':~~":-::Y-:; ~ a:..
RH; 11'I ------...:.-_. ,- "
..........-..
----.....,
-
p.J .. ~......-~...,::i-""-""----
:___-/ I.Ffi
;::~ :~iC: ~;~ .~." :::~~:~=~~~~;~.:;:.:; ~~"~~~~~:~;::.i,.Ll
-- .-
~ilil,i=~~~ -~- :..
! .
-nJ"'!':liin:-'
!w.:.'!i!!!. "
........
~
~
"P
~
Ht.l!RI1U usr.
ROl:lI; 'S"TUIttAi5BCftfll!J'R7fJ
IW.lS ""-"<0 .....
mNt$. 5l'ote\II!tI!eR~
PAlNtl!1 enu.o 0V'fR ,.0N4 "\ltIH
Itf1I.A'II!OVIKtL~
""""-
""""-
p~~set;r.R<<J.-W
-.....
.tIAe~-RU.'f
"""*""
-
REAR
LOT 1
FRONT" ELEVATION
0 ROLLING HILLS DRIVE 0
: :;T~~ ~~~~~r~z;;~~.~.~\ ;~'i~CJ~~~~:
.----- -.-.
[..... ......
!iilli~:!!!
--, :!
mJr.ilr."I . '!IJ!T'!'m'",II"c""",r.mr.-mrn,' .
~~.:,J!l!!:.l:~I-:~lr:~~:!IIIIlI-_J~- -:--.
~.- ~)Em~t
- .'
~
00011 0 I' 2' 3' .' ..
01 NOVEMBER 2000 PACk: 1 2
0011 LOTS 6 10 12.dwg
BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT
A
R N
o
F
L
A
c
II
-~...
&lfNfJQCIa:;~/JC,
N
L
B
u
D
RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA
EDl ARCHITECTURE, INC.
450 SANSOME. SECOND FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310
T 415.362,2660 F 415.394.6767
a4'-3"
"-
~
~
~
-c::.
'^
MAIN FLOOR
2.110 SF
1,300 SF
3,410 SF
~
02'4'&'&' 16'
13
--
!J-~
-,
~I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
-------,
1
I
I
.....
.-
""".-.
MAIN LEVEL
LOWER LEVEL
LIVING TOTAL
00011
01 NOVEMBER 2000
0011 LOTS 8 10 12.d"l PAGE
BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT
RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA
EDI ARCHITECTURE. INC.
450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310
T 415.362,2860 F 415.394.8767
p--------
....
Average Slope = 38.8% ALLOWABLE HEIGHT
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Height = 25' + 15' = 40'
PROPOSED. HEIGHT
.2 ~ 1 0
;::;:
~ I
0
- "t
~I
!>4&:20 ()
- "
~,
i!<G:1O N
- ~!
- .......
10
50% line of oS)
,
lower floor =1
I ________-.:..___ MIP_I?OI~T _of _NAJU~AL_.Q~AD}L~O!'!TA~.I.~
I
I ,
""'''' I ~ 6' . MAXIMUM HEIGHT above finished grade
~I
10 ALLOW ABLE for 50% of LOWER FLOOR "
, 10
In oS)
,
-
"
Q,
in
-'
g' MAXIMUM HEIGHT
above natural
gr~de
'0
I
\T-
.......
~
~
~
-t:.
~
~
00011 0 I' ""4' &'
01 NOVEMBER 2000
0011 LOTS 8 10 12,d"g PAGE 1 4
BLACK MOUNTAlN DEVELOPMENT
LOT 1
CROSS SECTION
0 ROLLING HILLS DRIVE 0
. ~ F 0: ) I
DUBLIN FOR N A
AtihJlIcttt.rw
--...
BllJA:Hf'C~~
RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA
EDI ARCHITECTURE, INC.
450 SAN SOME, SECOND FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310
T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.8767
SCALE:1".20'
~ ,~
U\ P
....
11,..-
. ISI:'-'
1130___"
_CA_
RMR Design Groull.
PI.n".... E.,ln..... L..d...... A..hlta....
~
~
l'
\
/
/
r
I~L'
Ir
il'ico,\iBBiAGiUREA P:
":; AI.,L1
r- BRITT ANY DRIVE GATES
~ ~ GATES & ASSOCIATES I
Z TRACT 5073 ............ I.^NDSCAPE ARC;JITECTURE
OJ ==_::
~ DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA ::-... LAND PLANNINC. URBAN OESICN
..... ::::_:.: 24<10 T^SS^lAR.. U[jE
SCALE:l":20' AUGUST 9, 2000 -.
: ~ ; : : : : : : ~ : ;-: : : DANVILLE. C.ALIFOH~IA 94526
. ... .... . . 't'EL 5)0.1,'6.S176_ FA.\: ,'i.llf. ;"36. 8tB4 J
'.t!t~'.t Ii'
~ii m~m R~~~~i~~' ~~ ~~~ ~m Hff
99999lPilli .. ... ~.~.~. ~.
~::;::; 'io;"iOi~;;;; ~ ~ ~ p.~ F ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~
~ ~ p ~~~;~~~
'"':i
t:'
~
o-j.
l:""
-
r.n
o-j
E2H .01 > riP ~
In ! !lillnl I !{IUlII ! mil
IU iti!fB~li !~Ji..[t i~Hf
n; lIll!l J:il''1 -.R. if It jl r:.
~Il. r f ~ .~ ~ 1 i~
~ I I I I 1
[fmHi Iilff.
ra fl Jt=Jf t ~~
" m i1'[
[ ".
f
~ I ~ D' ~
l'Hf. ~ fHlll if~lll' i
r2~"! P! l...~ [
~jf[' f.J~ t1i-n
i~: [II ~.. I
i( 1-< ~~. n
, . [
. r .
I
H[-F f n nff ~l
f f"1 d'!~ .
. f" J'
~iI'
.~~
.r
~
fgnit:~
8'~H'"!f
~ ;:1-- ~
.. .
!
!
,
I
r;/1t r i/
FRONT
\:!_,~ ;;-\~i~~~r!;~~ )il~:~!~:!~~_;~;~r~~~}/~~-~~~!}
I!-~;;._~
f:}:~-::i::~~;r:~~~~fiJ;-~~/i'~~:~j~:-::::~~:j:~:~i
_ __
".--
--~;~.~=;: ::-
=-_.~-~
....:.............
1m; Ii r ...-.....-......:::._'"
..........:....
'li"
2llI2M!El1UH-
raalH!-+I'T,-
-.
..
"\~!~~:~}~~~~f.~q'T-',:~--~'-'
.. - .'. .
..
.. .--
LEFT
-"-:--~~ -
.
:M .;.>_:.---
'.'lJJil' .. " y-""
. . --_...:;...,./../~
~
.11i!JDi
-- , Jilljm!'uir ~!i:l'" :;J1L!!Hr[J]i[!;
- :~:::~.~
, , Wl.~LI'5T.
- - ROOr'. MTTlJ..e[CLA!l5!1Cl'tetf'T!PJ
"m~i!TIVin;T:rr.ill::i1;irllJfilI' -.. "..-. ~ HORIZC)tfl'}L5IDfl5o
..-. - :oeTMA. INlIlA1EDVltTLI"lItI:lOt'tS
. : - .1:::__..1:" I" :.!.-I~ I. .....!.!I. 1..1. TRIM..mrt:'Ol7
- - PiVt1m~5lSl:t.~
- .....-.....
- - , - .,..~-FIU.
.- """"'-'"
LOT 7 REAR
ELEVATIONS -
~
0 BRITT ANY DRIVE 0
_XIXIXIXIXIXD ~ I - I
00011 ~
DUBLIN C A L FOR N A 01 NOVEMBER 2000 o I' :2' 5' 04' &'
0011 LOTS 7 0 U.d.., PAGE 1 7
BLACK .MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT
r
---
.-
RICHARD C. HAND LEN, AlA
EDl ARCHITECTURE, INC.
450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA94111-3310
T 415.362.2BBO F 415.394.8767
34'-:
-
.........
-
,..,,,
MAIN FLOOR
MAIN LEVEL 2,110 SF
LOWER LEVEL 1.300 SF
LIVING TOTAL 3,410 SF -
~
00011 ~ )\
02'4'6'&' '6'
01 NOVEMBER 2000
0011 LOTS 8 10 12.d", PAGE 1 8 I~
BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT
\1\
N
I
i-
N
----,
I
-l
...
...........
r----
I
ROOF PLAN LOWER FLOOR
LOT 1
FLOOR & ROOF PLANS
0 BRITTANY DRIVE 0
. ~ F lXlXIXIXIXI I
DUBLIN FOR N A
Ati:blIm.rne
-
..---....
RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA
ED! ARCHITECTURE, INC.
450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310
T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.8767
_______~!~~~g~_~~y_~_~_g~~6____________________________________~~~Q!~~~~_HEIGHT
Maximum height = 25' + 10' = 35'
PROPOSED HEIGHT
9
fH
~
<::::
tf"
"t
N
~
to
-,
~
____________ MlP_1:.'OlNT _of _NA.:rU~AL_JI~AD..E_~Ol'{TA~T
&lObi
50% line of
lower floor
,
I
I
L
I
6'lbI
.
-,
2,
inl
\,
2:
~
to
-,
~
t;- 6' MAXIMUM HEIGHT above finished grade
N ALLOWABLE for 50% of LOWER FLOOR
~
to
N
.1
1"'"
9' MAXIMUM HEIGHT
above natural
grade
i
i
r::lj
Z
~
~
~
~
t:l..
o
~
ll.
LOT 7
CROSS SECTION
BRITTANY DRIVE
~
G\
~
(I" ;1' 9'.,' tJ'
PAGE 1 9
BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT
2000
00011
01 NOVEMBER
0011 LOTS 7 9 11.d..,
<>
A
R N
o
F
L
A
c
N
L
Q
<>
u
D
RICHARD C. HANDLEN. ALA
EDI ARCHITECTURE, INC.
450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310
T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.8767
\11101-
. I'trll: tIIII4107
113l_........_A
~CA-.nO
BRITT ANY DRIVE
TRACT 5073
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
SCALE:1":20' AuquST,2000
b
-l
Z
~
~
N
o
RMR Design GroUIl..
Pl......r.. .'".1....... L."d...p.. Arohll.eta
f t#' o~
...."......
./
'"
/'-~~
.</
. ~. 0,#........
.------------
--~-~
--....
,.-
.'
/
"
/
/
/
/
./~.
/
"
./
,n
r- BRITT ANY DRIVE GATES GATES & ASSOCIATES 1
N 5:1 ............ . LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
Z TRACT 5073 ::-:: LAND PLANNING. URBAN DESIGN
~;, P DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA H-U.. 2440 TASSAJ^R^ LANE.
"" SCALE:1":1Q' DANVILf!&', CALIFORNIA 945%6
AUGUST 9, :WOO .. ..... .. .... .. .... . ....
.. ..... . .......... . .... TEL510.136. Sl16. rAl1S10.136. 8184
;~;~F. ~.~.~.~.
~:t~r9~~ii~
~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~
'i;;
~~}>
~h ( JiL:' l'lf
~ ~~~ if
rm
....... iiiiiiii iiiii iiii
ir!
~
~
,..,
!:
c:n
..,
{H un i
'! ~1 >iTf
~ f ~ Ji i
~
HIU
~~ '21
~~u~
I... ;
.J
~i
ilHf
. I~
UJI JJR UJ
111 ! l[ilt~(n ; (fUfIlI
[l~I' ~iiJihr Rlrf~a[~
9 tU I &:"'011 ~ n: ..
~. J 1ft II
lwmUf
rl H nJ!
I~ I
p
t
r2i'H~~
gf.3:i"'~f
'iiir ~~
. i'
iH
~
[aHeJOi
n.f'~ Ii
I; ~ t {n!l~ tnl~ i
~HI[ ~ i~'.!lli i uh f
:!i r :- i 15'..
~ ~ !. < 'r I
B. f .
un'
.3:' 3:
~. ~
"f
.~""'~'- --'.-il.'.'.
:~~.;;.:,
(.' :-..~ ""
"~""ii.' .'==I~r''-' ,;,,(~,=<.;;.
.' 1'-." .-~.,..:'.'
. .
- '
. -'
, -
, . .
...... ..--.---. -- ...-
-' '-i<,..:;.k~:~., ~;":.. .,....,
d. ' ._(~;t.-'":r,;;
....- -- .....:'l!. ~". -
""", ,. .~.
.~.~"',1'IL'!('.N"I'" .
t ~:..,>
'I:;il~
: r."
:... . -. - ..
. r:::t ;:
-."----- ,
~..-........-
...........-........,
FRONT
:'/! l;j~:~;?'~[.,'::t;:;:;~,
RIGHT
Ll5T.
. "5"lU~8~een!I'J
. """""......
~ :mlte V!;lUR..-.e:am
pA!HJB' l5n.eGO OVIR fl'N41RlM
fs.tATJD YIM. ~
.....~
.....-
PAIH'I'ED rIOC'O ~T.I2dLl.-IP
....... """"
. ~ f'ROla:mTON" fU,Ll'
"'"""'""
~.~~::-.:~;f.~~~~~ ~:' ~ :'~ ~ ~~- ~~~.;: i-h ~ ~~f~:
;~~~~..I.;:= _ ~:..::-:.;7;;"'.':";";.;-.~~-;:,;::.....:;~..~
: . - I" .. .
, "
'.!i.1r::![~lid~r ~]:J.r:mi!.;
.-_--~I.. ..-..
- .. . - '_4_
'~-;:"'f:':;~;:"~~~i::~::~~:l
.- . .:~: :. "#-'~;~-::-:i ~=;~~ ~.
I'
--...
. ~ f!l, ill
~U~1i1)lli!I' ----->-
---
--~---
.I;cn;.u.m:
Jimr.m!r1l1l!rnt:i1{if,lf!
~
~
)\
~
~
REAR
LOT 8
ELEVATIONS
BRITTANY DRIVE
~
o " :t 3' 4' &'
22
2000
PAGE
BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT
00011
01 NOVEMBER
0011 LOTS 8 10 12.4"'1
<>
A
R N
o
F
L
A
c
II
-...
8lCAIll:MI&~1M:.
N
L
B
u
<>
D
RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA
ED! ARCHITECTURE. INC.
450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310
T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.8767
:34'-:3"
~
""
-
.,-
==:a::
..-
~ ~I
-
~
......""" -- ......
C=--=>-
- -
MAIN FLOOR
!
- -
MAIN LEVEL 2.122 SF
LOWER LEVEL 1.300 SF
LIVING TOTAL 3.422 SF
-
00011 ~
0:2' 4' 6' 0' Ib'
01 NOVEMBER 2000
0011 LOTS 8 10 12.d"'l PAGE 2 3 I~
BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT
...c:...
~
-,
I
I
I
I
I
I
_J
"""
LOWER FLOOR
..~
LOT 8
FLOOR & ROOF PLANS
BRITTANY DRIVE
...
r
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
ROOF PLAN
A
<>
R N
o
F
L
A
c
.
N
L
8
<>
D U
RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA
EDI ARCHITECTURE. INC.
450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310
T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.8767
Average Slope = 29.3% ALLOWABLE HEIGHT
----------------------------------------------------------
<(;
in
(I)
~
.a
I
in
N
PROPOSED HEIGHT
Maximum height = 25' + 10' = 35
~
::s
',..0
.
::n
$'1'
N
I
<0
!
I
I
i
i
i
!
I
I
!:J;;li
z
::3
~
JZJ
P..
o
~
ll.
~.Q~AD_~~Ol'!T A~.L
N!
,
<0
LOT 8
CROSS SECTION
BRITTANY DRIVE
~
00011 ~ ~
01 NOVEMBER 2000 01' "29' 4' &'
0011 LOTS 8 io 12.d"l PAGE 2 4
BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT
~
o
A
~ 6' MAXIMUM HEIGHT above finislked grade
~ ALLOWABLE for 50% of LOWER FILoOR
N
R
o
F
I
L
A
c
&1&.0
-
50% line of
lower floor
1
I
6OT.Il J
- -r---
- ~ ~
=
---
- - -
0
XIXIXl g
DUB L N
in!
I;
Q
~
~
in
9' MAXIMUM HEIGHT
above natural
grade
RICHARD C.. HANDLEN, AlA
EDI ARCHITECTURE, INC.
450 SANSOME. SECOND FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94111-3310
T 415.362.2BBO F 415.394.B767
.'01__
. Fax: eee.0701
1130~___A
Coftcoo<l. Cl.lMIi>>4lI10
BRITTANY DRIVE
TRACT 5073
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
SCALE:1.~20' AU~UST, 2000
r-
o
-I
Z
P
co
~hr
tv
c.Jl
RMRDesiu.n 'Graue
I".liner., '1I.,lnee.., Llndlcape ...'.IIIt....
./
/,/' ..../
::-'/;>../ /
~g~
~/rtf; /,./ -~~
,--_." ,--" ......----
~---'-- '. /,/' // / .," "/,,, /,""',,---
"q- " .-'~ ..../,,;/ ,,/
- - ~ .......- "",,'" " ./'~ .,~
_\ .---.----- :-____..!.._ .__..".. '60.'g~'''-' ,/,/ / /. ././~ '...." '-.-
--'----- 36 OAK 14 -- " .....,/ / " '" / ..--- ,/
_ __ ~I}' ,j..------:--- // /30' ,,-O'AK .../.--- ......./
-_______. ,;);7' ---, ............. - ,/.. ~ ./ ,-- .,.,..... /,-'..
.. - --~._- _...~----.. //'" -.. ,,/ //,........ ..... .',..................
. '-.- - - - ~- .' /.// /....... ..' ...".,
/- --'.. 18 OAK - -- --1--... ------ . ....:fi;" ~ - -./ ../ . ./ " .
__ __'__.. -"'" ~r .....-:;/ ,../ ../
~--- ----.- /' //.... - /.' ...-// .--.,.-:-
_ ~_ _ __ .. o-A:~ ---.-.- -----::.....----- /' .. ./...-'" .... ....
~ __- _ _. r.J:. -__ ____ . ___------ - .-----::::--.- /./ p-(.r/.,.W...OA"(
____ ____ --4i!:liA.c'2~, .- ---.-- . /./ .. ..------ ./,/ 7';'/ /. ----..'
_____ 3.0".::tr,A _ :::::::::=:::-- =--=-~/- .-/ ",/ /" ./ /.--;/ ---..,. .'
--.- -_.~ / ." /-;,.. .." .."
-:-;-~_.--::-. ____~ _=::~=---.. __. :_~. _'" _ .~__ _,/./ . ____ _M ___ / ~ /:.:.~-;::~..~_~~.
... _ __ _ ". .. -- .........-- ....-6 '/../' ~ ->4,,/ --.~
__ __.... _,___.____ -- ----~ ''''" . .-"/r- .' ..',./' ........ / / ,</~~_. / ..-'--'-
__ -... --. I. -:-:-- ", --" 9' ---...- ./// /.' /,/ ,~
~ _~--=~ -=~ ~,.~_ ~- _'i .,,-/ '/;:'/". ././ /.>'.<.:,'.
~ ....------- . --.:-----... ---- '--- ---- ~~;.,,/"'. -.-::..---" .....'/ ...,....",-",--,
--' - . -- --... ----- -- --.....-- / /'./ .....,- /'
:----- /:;; '~---..... ......... --------- ------..:------- ./ /' / /---.---.-
'~ ,,' -- .. .. ~~.,;":<,,, ........., ......~--'....... - .-.-...------ ..../.- ~ ~-;:::::-_/..//
. "- =.~~~'~<... ", . . --...---- './ / j /' ". ,/ /--- -.-..-.- .
, _.____ ........ ~...' -"-.. .""...._......- I.. /' ." ,J' }" //.... .......... . -~ '
.~_ \ ,,,:,:~~ "<.'-.. _ ""..:/)_'-- .k--"'//~,/~'/'/ /--..-..-.-.-,......-..
'" .__~ _,", '" '.:-:.. '.<-_.____:.....~....._ ,..ov-----~/../ /'./:/ e . -
"....... ....., '....~... .........~ -. ".. .~. -.n..."I-o_. ... ........ . ~~ -'- ""
~ '... "~,, '.. 1'\., '.'". ___ '... '-.~ _____.-f::....-_ .... /~/ ~1h /-.--~ .--..----........
"" ',........." '''" '''..'' J(...,"".<,<~~~:--,~:::, --:_.~"'C7'::::..';='-:_./<_/ ,/:?;~ci-:'(f./ ," - .~...- '..-.."..- -... '''-,
___ ......, '" ~... '" \'.. '. 'C"'--.....- -------....-.. :/:~'..(/"~""""""
~. "... -. . ......... -., . --, ...... - .....,..,.. ( . / "-'\ -"'-:. . -..;;
"~. --.,........ ..... ......"-. "". ~..'..,. .... ___ __/'-/--; ,/ I / .,,\,\ ....,....... "'-
. ..... ...,..11...-...- ,,'// / /' t-- \.-,,",1 ) "'\~l"
G~ AVq. NATl/IfAL s!.o,Pe~ (~"'Z.L"2.-~c(,,'''Tc..t1-.0-~....!'>\/ / ...' ,J ..' "...
\ s-z.. 3'Z- '}/'2-" 2.'1.~./o
/
//
/
,//
/
/-
,../,.
-",/
~!!~'.'=- t4~~~~F:;i
GATES &; ASSOCIATES
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
LAND PLANNING. URBAN DESIGN
2440 TASS~JAR^ L^NE
DAI'lVlla. CALIFORNIA 94526
, ':.:-GATES
.~ . .. .... .. .. . . .. . .. .
::::-::
::;:-::
::::-::
BRITT ANY DRIVE
TRACT 5073
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
l\) \Q
OJ ~'
<J~
~'~.~ ~
C:==>
~
~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~R~ ~~~~
~.~. ~~ ;" ;'
~9~':}~9'"'i9
~~~~~~~ 8~~~~'~~~
~~~;~;~
.".. m'
Uti
~
t'"
.~
o-J
t""
-
rn
o-J
({[HUI
r .iJth
,i I
f
~~~
~!" P
~H
~. M~ [f!'j:j", ~~ r:a~ rn n ~
tLI~ ..~n rLJ!a ~.lUJ~ ~ ~. i
l'r ~ '~-~"'I>r 2 Ur'li'''F~ ~ .<. ~ :' n;r~ ~
ili: i Ui[fJ J~ I ndlfrl ~ HUt ~ !;h ~ Hilll ..nu ~
J~I ~! i lfi il t ~ R~iH ~ B [if fi-ilil i
~. f tl~ i ]: H i: r r 1 .:.~ I
· 1" l,l l ~, r~
fir[~ rill 'n ,. I;~r I"
!lU"-! ;:~. ! ~ ii, I
fr . >. n~ '
.' I J u~; 1
f .' J' .
rEHif~
..!~r"'ff
'i[ir "
.. ~,
~ff
, !l
691S~
FRONT
r'~-'-
.~;"~'t!,~\,i{i.';;)W.2.~2~'*~~]'"-- --
-- .~
_....::: === .. :-
"""'..........- '
""'"'"""'"
LcGAtlOM
.--_:~-;;;'~'";-,,,-;.; :,;;.;c{~0i:f7J;~i~
-~
.-...------.
.. _. --..
;::=-..: ..___.;.. . ~]i!rr.'11119'
" __._.___'" .... . uJw.,
.'. . '3 ~.'--;_::-- .-,~
--. ..
. -
"""""...'. -~~
" J!iJ.!.Juw.
LEFT
..~_.
---
-~~I~iiii~~T
RIGHT
L
~:~':-I'':, ~I ~ :~::~.~:i;'~'l;~}:~.:~~;+.~;~.~:~~~~?;~;;~~~;;g.~~':!! :P' .,~: ':.~~!
- .~.~ .--. '-' '.. ';':' ~
'.. : IU;1Ii .ill~~J!!;t -....:. : : _ !!I!.;II.I,i1L'.~I(i![
--- .., .. .-
;- --
~li~l :.
------
t1A~U5T.
~l I'\.AT1'l.EttlA!!l!l'IOftBETltPJ
I"WJ.!fi fORI:1)::Iftt',lL5It:fMt
WAUo.It4!!lI.Io1!D''W'RttLJ1IClOte
.--
lRtM~2Mri:lOC1
PAINIS I'tXID 5I:t<f. RaLo\J"
-""'"
.f'IItI!f'lft1fEGmoR-Al.LY
"""""'"
::Tjr.'!~gl~:
:-::;r.
---
~
~
REAR
LOT 9
FRONT ELEVATION
BRITTANY DRIVE
~
o I' 2' 9' "'. 8'
PAGE 2 7 ~
BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT ~I
2000
00011
01 NOVEMBER
second 001l I!lfpl.dwg
<)
A
N
o R
F
L
C A
N
L
B
<)
u
D
RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA
ED! ARCHITECTURE, INC.
450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310
T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.8767
34'-3'
--
-
A-tJ
-.
N
II
i-
N
,----,
I I
.....""'"
,----,
I I
MAIN FLOOR
2.127 SF
1.300 SF
3.427 SF
MAIN LEVEL
LOWER LEVEL
LIVING TOTAL
LOWER FLOOR
LOT 9
FLOOR & ROOF PLANS
BRITTANY DRIVE
ROOF PLAN
~
~
01'4'6'&' 16'
00011
01 NOVEMBER 2000
0011 LOTS 7 9 lI.d"l PAGE
BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT
<>
A
R N
o
F
L
A
c
.
IDHlQlftim1lIl.te.
N
L
U Jl
<>
D
RICHARD C. HANDLEN. AlA
EDIARCHITECTURE. INC.
450 SANSOME. SECOND FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA94111-3310
T 415.362.2660 F 415.394.8767
ALLOWABLE HEIGHT
Average Slope :::: 43.4%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Height :::: 25' + 15' :::: 40'
Q
I
b
"t
PROPOSED HEIGHT
~
"
tflIo
.q.
I
in
N
6Zl.a
~
~
9
Q
____________ MIJLI..'OIt'lT .of _NA.:rU~L_..Q~ADJL(:OI'{TA(:T~
~Q 6' MAXIMUM HEIGHT above finished grade =
~I ALLOWABLE for 50% of LOWER FLOOR ~,
"t ~
()
I
g
~
.....0
00011 ~
01 NOVEMBER " " .'.' 4' &'
0011 LOTS 7 9 l1,dwl PAGE 2 9 'P
BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT
2000
rz:l
Z!
::31
I
>oi
E-o'
J:l::!
r:.::I'
lJ.,
o
J:l::
lJ.,
T
g!
50% line of
lower floor
I
I
I
624:1
61"
in
I
g
MAXIMUM HEIGH
above natural
grade b
I,
~l
LOT 9
CROSS SECTION
<> BRITTANY DRIVE <>
. I8l lXCxJXIXIXJXIXfXIXIX~ ) I
DUBLIN .'.LlF..' A
--
...
!Dl~~M:l.
RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA
EDI ARCHITECTURE, lNC;
450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310
T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.8767 .
lt1lII__
."""~
ll30___-.SIlIItA
eoo-.~_lQ
BRITT ANY DR i VE
TRACT 5073
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
SCALE:1":20' AUGUST f 2000
oe
W'I~
o ~
U)
RMR Desig.,n GrOUIl
p..'.io.,., In'8an..,.. L.......p. A,ohlt.ote
~ .. -- -=~=~;::~:=::~~ _:~~~.'~~.. '.-:-'~~' .~.
'"=:~~!?:-~>( ~::>
/ ':...-.:~-::-~.---_. '-"~''..,,,,, ...""~" ^..." -. :',';."
.. -.:;.,"'-::-~: "', '~~..::. .. . \ .",'-..::....... .... ," .' . ...... '-'" . , .
'-" - ~ "- , " ','" ~,-
~, . 'c- " .::, -- '_'. '_, 'r-. <.: '.
' " " ". .."..:.....
' ..." /. " -.:.:: "
.... '.. . '. ...... ''', .....,i. "", ":" .
" "...''-....'''. ~).;"i -(,~.~)/: 4~ ,4"io
.2.'?J.. -G,d.. +. . &4- 1/2.-
32..
"-----.,.:;..,
.__,. <.~;-::::-=~~~.=:~...~~~~.:~::..... -'~'-=~~~- .-1dJ...
.__w_....._.__"...._____._~.
.~._...
./
.~.-
.
OA-K.....WO-~
--_.-~ -~~_._----
.--' --.--......
.- ----...----
-'- -"
-_.__....~-
,............
01 :
:t\,.
J'-::,~"""
'-
~. ~;
').
I.AND PI.ANNINC' URRA' :'I:'ICN
2440 TASSAJ It. ~.:\ L"~
DAHVI(LE. CAl.lf(ll(~:P. '\~
T~S)Q' 736.8176- f'.~X SlOe ': ;.,. (J184
: ::: :: : :: : :: :
BRITT ANY DRIVE
TRACT 5073
PUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
SCAlE:~n .1p' AUGUST 9, 200ll
r-
o
-l
~
!=>
CD
w
~
GATES & ,USOCUTES
.LANDSCAPE ARClllTf.':T~
:.: GATES
................
~Hf=ii
;~ ;:;; ; ;;;
"llll""i"ll>;
~~~=~~F~
ii9o;=;o;Oi~
$I Sl" Q Q 0'0
1'1!' it to !o ~to
~q;;
~~~
I~
..~~~ /I'
iW
~RRRIR~ iiiiiiii IliiE liii
m
'"':I
~
J-j.
t"'
fij
J-j
. -
~
~ ----===
~
:=---'
~klJ' 0 ~ I.J~1!o~' !l. .9 I
U[ I uf~rflllllil!Il!11I!m l !Ill 1 fllll'lllll
~i,. ."i ... ilft H . iiJh ~ I .!t Iii'l f
fH ~1-'f iJI . If. ~ i W I -< f i ."~ i
~t i H~f ff. (I . I," rl ~
~ 1 . .
. [fn:~Jn run UtI. f ~l . Hrl~ i
r HI~~'! 'il'i~ Of j 1-t d'l- r
q I ! ii' . f .' JI ~
f
!~i'!~!~
iffI'" "f.
'ii' ~
-~w
,;
~
~
HOl'l""'"
--
::::JCC:::::::JC[::::
~
p~C~
--
t>lllll<6ILtVltlO
......
0,,""
..,-
FRONT
6SIM
): JE[II?::J;~::~;;~'I!~~:'~~~:
...."""'=. = .- - - -""-..- ,~- ----.:
-== .~~ ~--
-.... , ..............
: :: .~.:~~.:;;~~: ~~~J~t~.; ;.i~ ~Ji;~l;~;)l~_:.;J~::; ~;'~lt.l
...--..-......
.::;:~!::::..I. .
~::~
r
IHI;
k-
\))
~
00011 n...n..r--"'1
01 NOVEMBER 2000 o.x~. w
0011 LOTS a 10 I~.d"g PAGE 3 2 '\->
BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT ~I
UST,
"S"mJ!{a..A9580f(~
&'""'" .....
pAJt('f!Q ~ QVtR FOAM ntlM
QEI.lAT!!Pvtm.1'IfClrOre
"""''''''''''''''
"""'-
P'NNIW IQX1 ~r. RGtJ....tf"
-""""
rt:;lOD.!i'EDl9H~
.2"IlV:~TJJON-F\.U..Y
.........
REAR
LOT 10
ELEVATIONS
<> BRITTANY DRIVE <>
. JSl JXJXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXlXlXIXIXJXJ
DUBLIN III C,LI"" A
_I,..,.,.
~CIl'OMl!U:
1!I:It~'/ZI:~lM:..
.f. :;;~ ~i;!~;L::;;~Ei.~;'!i~.l~~;i:.~~:'~;;: ~:. ;~.::; :'~Y~~~~~:.:i ~~t:.;:._, ;.~;,
. I, .., ...
:. -. . . . . . ~
I; : ~ ~ I !..
-'--rlTl'-T:Fmi" 1-.- I ri'--II-r-- I .T.:iITrn...-...,....
~,b;!' lJ.hl, ~,;)I!L. :. I..-:-J' I Jlih i1,IJ!i1, ;~ill:
.. -,"
___ ..a
-. .
'jja!irillJ~tjllJliilili![!!iiiili ~:~J:
. .
~--- -
r
I'
. iiJ:IT!!!i;.
---
lib~;UJ.
-11iI
",-
RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA
ED! ARCHITECTURE, INC.
450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310
T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.8767
N!
I'
T-'
N!
-
........
;34'_~n
"""""""
..,.
deck be"'"
~
......
~
l
J
I
I
I
I
I
J
"""
-.--
-----~-""'l
I
J
I
"'2
r-------
I
I
I
oW
r
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
L
MAIN FLOOR
2,136 SF
1,300 SF
3,436 SF
MAIN LEVEL
LOWER LEVEL
LIVING TOTAL
00011 ~,
01 NOVEMBER 2000
0011 LOTS 8 10 12.4"1 PAGE
BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT
RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA
EDI ARCHITECTURE, INC.
450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310
T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.8767
Q
I
o
'<t
Average Slope == 45.3% ALLOW ABLE HEIGHT
--------------------------------------------------------~--------~--
Maximum height = 25' + 15' == 40
PROPOSED HEIGHT
N
::::"
r=
\
~
N
~
<:::
(I)
-.t>
-'
____________ MlP_I.:'OI~T _of _NAJ'U~AL_~~ADJL~Ol'{TA~1..
-.t>
<:::
,(I)
~ ~
- Z
=I'~
l><
~
~
0..
o
~
0..
CJCJCJCJ
CJc=JCJc=J
IiCJCJc:=J
c:::J c:::::J c:::Jc:J
t!W
-
~I
50% line of
lower floor
I
I
I
I
(0
\,
=1
~ 6' MAXIMUM HEIGHT above finished grade
? ALLOWABLE for 50% of LOWER FLOOR
'T
in
'-'DO
9' MAXIMUM HEIGHT
above natural
grade =
91
tri
~
~
0" 2';'" e'
PAGE 34 ~
BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT .
00011
01 NOVEMBER 2000
0011 LoTS 8 10 12.dwl
LOT 10
CROSS SECTION
<) BRITTANY DRIVE <)
. ~ D<IXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXI>: J I
DUBLIN ~ "",.., A
AnIt_
-- ...
1'DIJoIIGt~1IN.-'
RICHARD C. HAND LEN, AlA
EDI ARCHITECTURE. INC.
450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94111-3310
T 415.362.2660 F 415.394.6767
11101__
, I'olc eee.olll7
1130_-'_"
c..-a. CA841i2N81O
BRITT ANY DRIVE
TRACT 5073
DUBLIN. CALIFORNIA
SCALE:1"=20' AU~t.lST, 2000
.....
o
RMR Design Groull.
1"."Il.".. ill........ L.lldu.p. A..hlt..U
~
z
p
w
U1
Avq NATt/RAL SLOPE .=
f;f2
;~
~( i
~ -(
\-h
\~-
il\,
\
/t
----
-
---
/..~
.:.:-GATES
...............
....- ..
;:::-.::
.... ..
::::-::
BRITT ANY DRIVE
TRACT 5073
QUBLlN, CALIFORNIA
SCALE:1"" 1 Q' .. AUGUST9,2000
5
-t
:z
9
-"
o
w
OJ
GATES & ASSOCIATES
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
LAND PLANNINC. URBAN VESrCN
2440 TASSaJARA LANE
DANVILI<'E. CALIFORNIA ~ I
TE:L~Q~!M1:~..fAX 510.73~
..............
~~i~ Cjt;
n~~
?'-;:iii
~C\9~9~~~
~~~~t.~t.~
OiOiiiiiii-;'i<;
,,<) ~ SI 9 Q S'
'"!> ~!'It' pJ'l
~~~
~H
~ ~~~ ~
tW
~~~~~i~ ~~~~~i€~ i~if~ i~~~
~H
riP []~ ~ ~ ~ [Qj ~ 61 o. ~
qllllillm I 11111 ill r~f~ ~ I'~i a
t .. j; L L" i '.Flli I Jili ~ d1i t ffifl fnu i
il ~! hI't iH~ i if r~b ~ 1 . !:~fl ~ l[f~ 2
~. ~ tf~t I { lZ I {i ,t r [
I . [
. ~ .
nrf n"il ! '"tl
11 f~ri ~c:~ InUUJ ~ . B ~ ~ tltl~ n ~
rI!~~lf · .U~I ~! i ~ r. 11~ I n[ ~ z
f[ ~ 2 of ~"g . ..,
i . ~~ I ; ." if~' jii' i' t"'
r i. ' · ....
en
..,
~
f<~~~C~1~0~~:~~~~~~~g::~;~~~1
~_~ fl'; ll1-ril'J!i'-!I-' .:III5t:: ,=:: ...~I. ;1-';'-' ..~., .~;c1 .:.11.:/1',-" ~'~'.'.' ~.:' '. ~[r-":'1
;:.;' . .':' ~ ~'~I""_ ..IiE:. --il. :', "";" . ,;~_..l:.::;.:z;~'-;';;; .:-... . ~. ': ..-':;
!: '';:'' '.;.~; _.:.~~~.!._..;. .;,: _ _'...~T~~.~.l!j,;:..: ','Y; ""-~ ....1
.:,.,r _....<.":~...-:~:':"'!::;.:..;g.._7;.L: ;rof.. -./ ,. '.:: . ~. :.: I _<-,,~ -"'" ....... - :--. .' .:': ,,: i
FRONT
c
MlJ1
=~;~{!"!;~~~:~~~~~f:~t~f'A'
---'-<:;.::~~
........... -
...--
1/IVrr......
....."'"
2laeMa:1JUH -
Faa-lRE..4-n:; ---
RIG
L_
'>~:~~~ ;'.\!:-~,::::'-: :,:,~:-
.
)i1iIf~J1]ji!m Qj[wI'
,. .-..--
--:--<:~~:~:-~!::.~~ ~r~t:~--
LEFT
c
-
~~E{~iW~~?:~~f~~{~~~j
- -:::..=:_:~ _....: - .. ..
-,.-.,
!TiliirO:' _ " - . 7l1i: .;-'- ---~.-'
-:!::...d!:i/f,. ..,;.,...:---,'
,///
/....
,/'/
"'-'fl!RIAL.SU5T1
fIeiOI"t f'l.AT1U~"'OltI!llmlPJ
tw.15 ~,it.SlDttt
Pl!T/l1UIt I!W.A1!DVIIm.~
"""''''''''''''
1"RlM-:zlC4~
PAlI(R!1rtXVs.r.IIXlU.-U"
-""'"
.f'Vl!~..NJ.Y
-..,
-.....:.~lW.i ;Wi/:Ii:!!!I.'
.---...
. "-~'Dii' .'Ir....,....lIiH!i~.n :0-'
~:Yii{~ "!!I.:!:!.I~!i.:~.h4
~
~
00011 ~
01 NOVEMBER 2000 0 " " 9' .' e'
0011 LQ1"S 7 · lI.dwg PAGE 3 7 1-3
BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT
LOT 11 REAR
FRONT ELEVATION
0 BRITTANY DRIVE 0
. [gJ lXlXIXlXIXIXIXIXIXlXlXlXJ)< I
DUBLIN _ ,'LIFO" A
--
l!DI~~m.
RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA
EDI ARCHITECTURE, INC.
450 SANSOME. SECOND FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310
T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.8767
ROOF PLAN
RICHARD C. HANDLEN, ALA
ED! ARCHITECTURE. INC.
450 SANSOME. SECOND FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94111-3310
T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.8767
~
0_1'2'9'4' &' ~
PAGE 3 9
BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT
~
--.()
b
.
bi
"'I""
~
"
10
T
in
N
00011
01 NOVEMBER 2000
0011 LOTS 7 9 11,11"'(
rz;li
Z!
:::3'
I
>oi
E-<i
~.
rz;ll
~
o
~
p..
~
~
n-
-'
n-
~
~
n-
-'
n-
__~_________ MIP_fOINT _of _NA.:rU~L_.QIJADJL~Ol'!TA~.:L'
~ 6' MAXIMUM HEIGHT above finished grade
r- ALLOWABLE for 50% of LOWER FLOOR
,
(n
LOT 11
CROSS SECTION
<> BRITTANY DRIVE <>
. [g] JXIXJXIXIXIXIXI I I
DUBLIN _ "'''0'' A
---
l!ElI~Ml!.'"
6<<.'
50% line of
lower floor
I
I
I
"'''
-,
RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA
ED! ARCHITECTURE, INC.
450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310
T 415.362.2BBO F 415.394.8767
=
~I
~I
QI
~
"
d;:)!
9' MAXIMUM HEIGHT
above natural .
grade
.101_
,., 886G7G7
11*l.......NMoa. SulltA
ConcoIa. CA MI2Oa10
BRITT ANY DRIVE
TRACT 5073
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
SCALE:1".20' AUqUST, 2000
oj,
~~
ol~
....
....
~/7t
RMR Design Graue
'.a"..-.',., Intln..r., L~nd.o.p. Arohlt..t.
:'.5"i:~~:/:. ~:~:..
.... ,n' ._
"-. w~~~~_...~__.~--:. M .. .
--- ....
"" '. . -. ~
'\.
\..,
//
~ . "-,
-
.,.r..-.....'.
....
-
Il:'''''~ ~\ \\
"":~ ". J., ,\
-=- B#~ INUI <I PfN. "%.
',~ .,:.:$i~ .
'f:
.C.' ....
'",,:,i: ~
.,~: f
..-: ..
~ 5 BRITT ANY DRIVE ' . '.:~-GATES.- GATES & ASSOCIATES
-I ::::I!iiiii:: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
Z TRACT 5073
~ 9 n~~H LAND PLANNINC . URBAN !lESleN
.... DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA 2440 TASSAJARA LANE
.... SCALE:1"=10' AUGUST 9, 2000 . .. .. .. .. .. .. '. ..- . .. ~ . DANVILta. CALIPORNlA 94526
.................. ttL 510.136 .a176_ rAX SIO.136- 8184
.co...........
~ ~ ~ ~
'ili'ilili'f'i"i
H~Hn~
(~//7
~~,~~~
~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~
~n
l'l;l
t""
~
,..,
t""
....
00
>-'l
~H [OJ I i!(l ~
Inn ~ HfI i l'W~- IfHr I
_ ~~& 11. ......if. il~i ~j-ll:; l
i~f'=l ~Al.!. + ..~\lll H;.{!a i
I ~ I ~ ., .. ~ !. f '. .
~l i. t i =~ i
'.f ; .. [
i. '. f .
I"l~n 'IIi ~ i~ 1~~~1 [,.
~ h~ [ .. ~ tt "i. I
all.' ~ oJ · =
P' 0 i Ylii m
't ~~~ Ii'
~W
EiP [jj ~ l1P
itll tUIHU t 'UUtil i
ii' . (tfililt I~!.I il
901 !! I-fill ~ ti, ..
"Ii. I r" T ~ i
i 1,' II
;.
UH!H[
~ tli..h
i~ I
i
rg~fl'~~
ntf.~li
. ..
-~t
~11
..
,;,"!..
64U'I
FRONT
~i.:-i:~ ~~:;~~~J.;?~~(;\t~f~~ ~:-~
:- 'j{~!Ii4.~~;i:i,
.............. ~.!.:
~
'= rf~f-~.)t~~;~;~'fl'
~~- ._...~-::..:'.__.
\1I1.ITr~~llOM-..
~ute~.Ff.- ......._.... ... II.
~1'IUHeNii!- ..------.
RIGH'
~-
~~-r,;::F!:':~:~-{;~\~~~I; :;:~~;;;':.~;:_;~~-::;:.~"~', .:
._ f .. ..
. ~:. i ..
iilll!illlli!!:li U!!Im:' ~. ~ . . . -'~,;;rr!~I;;:Jji)i!li('
- - . ..-- ...- ~;;::J~-:~-::' -.. -. -......
__ '=;.i"j:.J"" I
'-:j:in"'ifl'nrr.r...-r;iill"-I.inl.!~i;"'.ij.iD ;:!It r.':1 :..-: "Ifo!'llgp'rr~-1 !
.;.Il,I.I,\.1.~;o..;~,.:.J! I-=-~ ill:)..LI\;;;"~,!. .,bl.n!t!!-Id!!,1J.=.' .._!~b!u
.. .. - ".
LEFT
:/~7it~:~~i=;'-~~~;: ~t(:T~~.;~;:~'?-\~I~~~: ~~.: :~.~;
Ecrr!lii.il; - ;....;::.:..'~._- -- .
._'.1_-" . . .----
...-.- .--...-: :.:...: .:.. :::
_ . ill..n ?;='-...:_._..::...~.
:i~r.'[' ~
/''-'~
r
HA~U5T,
1'l:OOP. "-AT t11.E (Gt.M5" aft f3E1"reR)
rW.L5. 00Ia1J:lH'r.-.L. 501N6
'PETAl\.!. ~ AeC:aO'5
IHelt.AreoVIK'fL~
"""'..........
"""'''''''''''''
""""'" ""'" !leGr. ROU......
6AAM/J """"
.l"iJtE!flJ.oT1$moH- N.l.Y
-
"'-c::
)-.:.
00011
01 NOVEMBER 2000
0011 LOTS 8 !U 12.d". PAGE
BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT
REAR
LOT 12
ELEVATIONS
0 BRITTANY DRIVE 0
. I2?J JXlX!XlXlXJXJXIXIXIXIXIXI)< ~
DUBLIN III CALt.... A
AmM_.",
-."""""""
I!lIAAeMm:;nIfe.~
RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA
EDI ARCHITECTURE, INC.
450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94111~3310
T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.8767
~
-
"""''''''''''
- """
- -
-,,- ".
,:::::::::
-
~ ~I
~ -'
~ r'
.... \"'l!
!;;.:: -
:::::::.-- - -
\ -- ~ -
~ -
{ - -
M.AIN FLOOR,
MAIN LEVEL 2.136 SF
LO,<<ER LEVEL 1 300 SF
LIVING TOTAL 3,436 SF
- - -
00011 ~.
01 NOVEM.BER 2000
0011 LO'fS 8, 10 12.d",g pA.GE
BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOP~ENT
~
~~I
01' 2'" 4' 8'
PAGE 44. '"
BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT '\.3
(:)
I
G
"<t
~
~
"<t
I
in
HEIGHT
2000
= i
.Q .
" I
('() i
9 !
- I
o .
- I
_ MID POINT of NATURAL GRADE CONTACT i
--~------------------------------------ ,
~;::; 6' MAXIMUM HEIGHT above finished grade ~:
.Q ALLOWABLE for 50% of LOWER FLOOR , i
I ('() i
m 0 i
I .
- I
o .
- I
1
r:J!
z!
~I
I
~i
~.
J:;r;ll
ll.
o
~
lJ,.,
PROPOSED HEIGHT
Average Slope = 52.6% ALLOWABLE
-------~----------------------------------~-----------------------------
Maximum height = 25' + 15' = 40
00011
01 NOVEMBER
0011 LOTS 8 10 12.dll'1
CJc::JCJCJ
CJ c:=::J c:=::Jc::J
CJc::Jc::JCJ
CJCJCJCJ
LOT 12
CROSS SECTION
0 BRITT ANY DRIVE 0
. I2l D<IXlXIXIXIXlXlXlX1XIXJXI)< ) I
DUBLIN III C'LlFO', A
--,
-""""...
M~1\llP,1lC.
50% line of
lower floor
,
I
I
64eDO
"'2
RICHARD C. HAND LEN, AlA
EDI ARCHITECTURE. INC.
450 SANSOME. SECOND FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310
T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.6767
~I
S2!
bi
I
0-,
..
9
9' MAXIMUM HEIGHT
above natural
grade
l&10l_
folc __
1130_____A
eo.-d.CA_O
BRITT ANY DRIVE
TRACT 5073
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
SCALE:1":20' AU QUST, 2000
....
N
RMR Design Groull.
PI'.....r.. Ea......'., ".nd..ap. .Arohlt..t.
~
Z
P
c;;j,
.......--...-
~
CJ1
~t
~(,:
, p
11.....
-'
fiE1iSA(1:)
/JRi4IN4/b! INter F Ph
GATES & ASSOCIATES
LANDSCAPE ARCHITE.CTURE
LAND PLANNINC' URBAN OESICN
2440 TASSAJARA LANE
OANYILJCI:. CALIFORNIA 9'526
............
..............
.:~'GATES::
....................
..::-::..
::-::
::-::
BRITTANY DRIVE
TRACT 5073
QUBLlN, CALIFORNIA
<:r.AI 1='1";~/l\' AUGUST 9. 2000
1C~ If
~ s
OJ p
....
..,
~~.. iI'
iiii ~
~
~
~
t'
tiJ
~
[oH m Cl" ~
un f flUI fHif i
.:Rl[ 1 l-qi i UEli .
&" D r II i i' i
{t F 1 -.~ll
'. J .
im l? ~f~ ~911~ ~
te: ,. i of IfH I
f ~. " ~ ~ii f
f' !
;P;;o;;o;;;;
~~~~~~~
~~~
PO.
p
~m
H~~~
:~::~::~ ;; ;~;
-:!1:!1
l?a~
-""
~. ~.~.~.
n~
t! '11
r"-fh
~i
t:{
[H[w
.u~[
if~
~ir
~i~~~ ~~~
~~i~~~~
[ErnHI .
l'~"~\'~h
J~ i
~
f
~~ir~H
Hil~tr
.. -
~
~ff
.
w~ ,[j]> .'Uj
q! IIIllUII i iIIil!l!
. id ~!rilih ~ tUftiil
"I f i.1 if ~ ~
1;- s r~-; 1l
.. t.. i.l
C=====
\
\\
\1
\1
\ \
'\1
\ \
II
II
II
\ \
\ \
\
GNV
RECEIVED
!
\
\
\
!
l
\
\
1 r~---C~
_-----. ~~O? O\{
:J ~f If
__ __."_-- ,_,,_-'-' f i)
~ . ,,-<:,'.:;;c._.._..~.-rt I
- ~ \
\
"-
~
~
~
~
00011
02 JANUARY 2001
.econd oOli a/p2.d"l PAGE 1 3
BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT . a
i
1
:4
II
'.!::.i
\:;::,:
!
4
i
i
I ,
i [ '\>; /0'/ ./'
. /. /
. . .' /.' /
! -"rv---.., . .. .. ,/
~ I' '-., ,/ / /
. \ L. )"
I (: .) . / ,/ .'
I '-;0.......-.7-..-..-..-.. .._.._.._____;_. :_:.. . ../ /. ./
I ../ '-.j- fXI$T1N6 ORAl . ..- , .... . .. ' ./" < .v~
. ".--"._..-..-.._.~ -. . /' ,.! . ~_.-
i ./., ..,,"" fA5EMfNr - ----..-..-, 'f' - "-'0 -.-..-...../ / I ~)(,'.....-.,.--_._~._.~..
: ..". .." ,...-..-..-..-..-. -..-..-..-.._....9 . .../.' ~ r r.r-r ._.._..--- '-
r "." ../.. Cl "-"_.'_" ~".._.._"-"-'
. ,/ ,..,. N __._
t;>--" __~ \ ___ ___----------- -- ---------------- --------
L-.._..~.. ..-..']
{
20"
30" 0
.
--
o
LOT 1
AL TERNA TE SITE PLAN
0 BRITTANY DRIVE 0
. ~ F , I I
,
DUBLIN FoR N A
-........
~=1I!i2
RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA
EDI ARCHITECTURE, INC.
450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310
Ifgr ~ )Y5
RESOLUTION NO. 01 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 12,2000, .
APPROVING P A 00-009 BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR SEVEN SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES
ON EXISTING LOTS ON BRITT ANY LANE WITH CHANGES PROPOSED BY STAFF
WHEREAS, Black Mountain Development has requested approval of a Site Development Review for
seven single family homes on existing lots on Brittany Lane; and
WHEREAS, a completed application for Site Development Review is available and on file in the Dublin
Planning Department; and
WHEREAS, The environmental impacts of this project were addressed under the Negative Declaration
prepared for the P A 85-035 Hatfield Development Corporation Planned Development Rezone, Annexation and
Site Development Review of which the subject lots were a part. The Negative Declaration was prepared in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the City of
Dublin Environmental Guidelines. Further, the project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15304,
Class 4, minor public or private alterations in the condition of the land, water, and/or vegetation which do not
involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry and agricultural purposes. Specifically,
Example "I", Fuel management activities within 30 feet of structures to reduce the volume of flammable
vegetation, provided that the activities will not result in the taking of endangered, rare, or threatened plant or
animal species or significant erosion and sedimentation of surface waters. This exemption shall apply to fuel
management activities within 1 00 feet of a structure if the public agency having fire protection responsibility for
the area has determined that 1 00 feet of fuel clearance is required due to extra hazardous fire conditions. This
project is adjacent to a wildfire area and the 1998 California Fire Code requires 1 00 feet of fuel clearance for
this project; and
WHEREAS, a Site Development Review is required for this project by Conditions 4 and 12 of City
Council Resolution 82-85 approving P A 85-035.3, Hatfield Development Corporation Investec, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, the project is consistent in all respects with the Heritage Tree Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the project is consistent in all respects with Dublin General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the project is consistent in all respects with the conditions of approval of City Council
Resolution 82-85; and
WHEREAS, the project is consistent in all respects with the Heritage Tree Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on December 12,
2000; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
ArrACHMENT ~
'-19 ~ )~:5
WHEREAS, a staff report was submitted to the Planning Commission recommending approval of the Site
Development Review subject to conditions prepared by Staff; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgement and considered all
said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth; and
WHEREAS, on December 12,2000, the Planning Commission did by a vote of 3 - 0 - 2 approve PA 00-
009.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby make the
following findings and determinations regarding said proposed Site Development Review:
A. The approval of this application (P A 00-009) is consistent with the intent/purpose of Section
8.104 (Site Development Review) of the Zoning Ordinance.
B. The approval of this application, as conditioned, complies with the policies of the General Plan,
the Zoning Ordinance, the Heritage Tree Ordinance and City Council Resolution 82-85.
C. The approval will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the
vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare because all applicable
regulations will have been met.
D. Impacts to views have been addressed by sensitive design and siting ofthe proposed single-
family residences.
E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed in the project through the use
of pier and grade beams and by minimal grading to site the homes and front yards.
F. The approval of this application, as conditioned, is in conformance with regional transportation
and growth management plans.
G. The approval ofthis application, as conditioned, is in the best interests of the public health,
safety and general welfare as the development is consistent with all laws and ordinances arid
implements the requirements of the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, the Heritage Tree
Ordinance and City Council Resolution 82-85.
H. The proposed physical site development, including the intensity of development, site layout,
grading, vehicular access, circulation and parking, setbacks, height, walls, public safety and
similar elements, as conditioned, has been designed to provide a desirable environment for the
development.
1. Architectural considerations, including the character, scale and quality of the design, the
architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, signs, building materials and colors,
screening of exterior appurtenances, exterior lighting and similar elements have been
incorporated into the project and as conditions of approval in order to insure compatibility of this
development with the development's design concept or theme and the character of surrounding
development.
J. Landscape considerations, including the locations, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant
materials, provisions and similar elements have been considered to insure visual relief and an
2
504 )~j
attractive environment for the public.
NOW, THEREFORE HE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does hereby
find that:
A. The Black Mountain Development Site Development Review is consistent with the intent of
applicable subdivision regulations and related ordinances.
B. The design and improvements of the Black Mountain Development Site Development Review is
consistent with the Dublin General Plan polices as they relate to the subject property in that it is a
single-family residential development consistent with the Single-Family Residential Designation of
the Dublin General Plan.
C. The Black Mountain Development Site Development Review is consistent with the Heritage Tree
Ordinance, City Council Resolution 82-85 and with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
D. The project site is located adjacent to Rolling Hills Drive and Brittany Lane, on seven existing lots.
Six shallow building pads face on Brittany Lane and on one flag lot on Rolling Hills Drive. The
homes will be supported by the shallow building pads, but the maj ority of each residence will be
placed on a framework of deep-seated piers and grade beams. This will minimize grading impacts to
the lots. Functional padded exterior living areas are proposed in the front yards and in raised deck
areas. Therefore the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of single-family residential
development proposed.
E. The environmental impacts of this project were addressed under the Negative Declaration prepared
for the P A 85-035 Hatfield Development Corporation Planned Development Rezone, Annexation
and Site Development Review of which the subject lots were a part. The Negative Declaration was
prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA
Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. Further, the project is Categorically
Exempt pursuant to Section 15304, Class 4, minor public or private alterations in the condition of the
land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except
for forestry and agricultural purposes. Specifically, Example "I", Fuel management activities within
30 feet of structures to reduce the volume of flammable vegetation, provided that the activities will
not result in the taking of endangered, rare, or threatened plant or animal species or significant
erosion and sedimentation of surface waters. This exemption shall apply to fuel management
activities within 1 00 feet of a structure if the public agency having fire protection responsibility for
the area has determined that 1 00 feet of fuel clearance is required due to extra hazardous fire
conditions. This project is adjacent to a wildfire area and the 1998 California Fire Code requires 1 00
feet of fuel clearance for this project.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby affirm
the decision of the Planning Commission on P A 00-009 on December 12, 2000, and hereby conditionally
approves the Site Development Review Application for P A 00-009 to develop seven single family residences on
seven lots with the Assessors Parcel Numbers 941-2775-30, 941-2775-36, 941-2775-37, 941-2775-38, 941-
2775-39,941-2775-40 and 941-2775-41 as generally depicted by materials labeled Attachment 1, stamped
"approved" and on file in the City of Dublin Planning Department. This approval shall conform generally to
the project plans submitted by EDI Architecture dated "received December 4, 2000", the Heritage Tree
Protection Plan for this project stamped "received December 4,2000", the Site Development Plan by RMR
Design Group dated "received December 4,2000", the Colors and Materials Boards submitted by EDI
Architecture dated "received June 12,2000", and a revised Lot 1 Site Plan submitted by EDI Architecture dated
"Received January 3, 200 I "by the Department of Community Development, unless modified by the Conditions
3
;5/ ~ ;.~j
of Approval contained below.
CONDITIONS OF APPROV AL
Unless otherwise stated. all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to final occupancy of anv
building and shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval. The following codes represent those
departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance with the Conditions of Approval: rPL 1 Planning,
[B] Building, [POl Police, rpW] Public Works, rADMl Administration/City Attorney, rFINl Finance, rpCSl
Parks and Community Services, [F] Alameda County Fire Dept.. [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District,
rCO] Alameda County Flood Control and water Conservation District Zone 7. The bolded words at the
beginning or each condition of approval identify the general topic of the condition of approval or constitute the
condition if not followed by explanatory text.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. Standard Conditions of Approval. Applicant/Developer shall comply with all applicable City of
Dublin Standard Public Works Criteria (Attachment A). In the event of a conflict between the Public
Works Criteria and these Conditions, these Conditions shall prevail.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Approval of Improvement Plans through completion
2. Modifications or changes. Modifications or changes to this Site Development Review approval may
be considered by the Community Development Director, if the modifications or changes proposed
comply with Section 8.104.100, of the Zoning Ordinance.
Responsible Agency: PL
Required By:: Approval of Improvement Plans through completion
3. Term. Approval of the Site Development Review shall be valid for one year from approval by the
Planning Commission. If construction has not commenced by that time, this approval shall be null and
void. The approval period for Site Development Review may be extended six (6) additional months by
the Director of Community Development upon determination that the Conditions of Approval remain
adequate to assure that the above stated findings of approval will continue to be met.
(Applicant/Developer must submit a written request for the extension prior to the expiration date of the
Site Development Review.)
Responsible Agency: PL
Required By: On-going
4. Fees. Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance,
including, but not limited to, Planning fees, Building fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District Fees,
Public Facilities Fees, Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees, City Traffic Impact fees, City
Fire Impact fees; Noise Mitigation fees, Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu fees; Alameda County Flood and
Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees; and any other fees as noted
in the Development Agreement. Unissued building permits subsequent to new or revised fees shall be
subject to rc;calculation and assessment of the fair share of the new or revised fees.
Responsible Agency: Various
When Required: Various times, but no later than Issuance of Building Permits
5. Revocation. The SDR will be revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8.96.020.1 of the Dublin
Zoning Ordina..">}ce. Any violation of the terms or conditions of this approval shall be subject to citation.
Responsible Agency: PL
4
5~ ~ )~5
Required By:
On-going
6. Required Permits. ApplicantlDeveloper shall comply with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance and
obtain all necessary permits required by other agencies (Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7,
California Department ofFish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control
Board, State Water Quality Control Board, Etc.) and shall submit copies of the permits to the
Department of Public Works.
Responsible Agency: Various
When Required: Various times, but no later than Issuance of Building Permits
7. Building Codes and Ordinances. All project construction shall conform to all building codes and
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit.
Responsible Agency: Bldg.
When Required: Through Completion
8. Compliance. ApplicantlDeveloper shall comply with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance, City
Council Resolution 82-85, the Tree Protection Plan for this project and the City of Dublin General Plan.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Issuance of Building Permits and On-going
9. Conditions of Approval. In submitting subsequent plans for review and approval, each set of plans
shall have attached an annotated copy ofthese Conditions of Approval and the Standard Public Works
Conditions of Approval. The notations shall clearly indicate how all Conditions of Approval and
Standard Public Works Conditions of Approval will be complied with. Improvement plans will not be
accepted without the annotated conditions and standards attached to each set of plans.
Applicant/Developer will be responsible for obtaining the approvals of all participating non-City
agenCIes.
Responsible Agency: PW, PL, Bldg,
When Required: Building Permit Issuance
10. Solid Waste/Recycling. Applicant/Developer shall comply with the City's solid waste management and
recycling requirements.
Responsible Agency: ADM,
When Required: On-going
11. Refuse Collection. The refuse collection service provider shall be consulted to ensure that adequate
space is provided to accommodate collection and sorting of petrucib1e solid waste as well as source-
separated recyclable materials generated by the residents within this project.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Occupancy of Any Building
12. Water Quality Requirements. All development shall meet the water quality requirements of the City
of Dublin's NPDES permit and the Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program.
Responsible Agency: PW, PL
Required By: Issuance of Grading Permit
13. NPDES Permit. Pursuant to requirements of federal law, a NPDES permit shall be obtained from the
RWQCB, and any terms of the permit shall be implemented, if applicable.
Responsible Agency: PW
Required By: Finaling Building Permits
5
5:3 ~ ;.Yj
14. Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental Assessment Studies. Applicant/Developer shall supply the
Director of Community Development and Public Works Department with a copy of the Developer's
Phase 1 and Phase 2 (only as required by Phase 1 ) environmental assessment studies. All remediation
required by those studies shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works prior
to Improvement Plan approval.
Responsible Agency: PL, PW
Required By: Issuance of Grading Permit
15. Rodenticides and Herbicides. The use of roden tic ides and herbicides within the project area shall be
performed in cooperation with and under the supervision of the Alameda County Department of
Agriculture and will be restricted, to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, to
reduce potential impacts to wildlife.
Responsible Agency: PL
Required By: Issuance of Grading Permit
16. Dust Control/Cleanup. Applicant/Developer shall ensure that areas undergoing grading and all other
construction activity are watered or other dust control measures are used to prevent dust problems as
conditions warrant or as directed by the Director of Public Works. Furthermore, Applicant/Developer
shall keep adjoining public streets, sidewalks and driveways free and clean of project dirt, mud,
materials and debris, and clean-up shall be made during the construction period as determined by the
Director of Public Works. In the event that the Applicant/Developer does not complete the clean-up
within 48 hours of City's direction, the City has the option of performing the clean-up and charging the
costs of such clean-up to Applicant/Developer. The use of any temporary construction fencing shall be
subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Director and the Building Official.
Responsible Agency: PW
Required By: Ongoing
17. Hold Harmless/Indemnification. Applicant/Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the
City of Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the
City of Dublin or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the
City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board, Planning Commission, City Council, Director of
Community Development, Zoning Administrator, or any other department, committee, or agency of the
City the Site Development Review to the extent such actions are brought within the time period required
by Government Code Section 66499.37 or other applicable law; provided, however, that the
Applicant/Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the City's
promptly notifying the Applicant/Developer of any said claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full
cooperation in the defense of such actions or proceedings.
Required By: Through completion of Improvements and Occupancy of the last
Building
DRAINAGE/GRADING
18. Grading, drainage and improvement plan. The Applicant/Property Owner shall submit a grading,
drainage and improvement plan for each residence subject to review and approval by the Public Works
Director.
Responsible Agency: PW
Required By: Grading Permit
19. Compliance. The Applicant/Property Owner shall comply with the. City of Dublin Public Works
Department grading permit process and Plan Check-List. An information packet outlining the grading
6
:5'1 ~ )~?
permit process and Plan Check List is attached.
Responsible Agency: PW
Required By: Grading Permit
20. Undocumented fill. Any undocumented fill on the project site shall be removed during the grading for
this project.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permits.
21. Drainage. All rain water leaders from roof gutters, balconies, and patios shall be connected to a pipe
network that discharges to the abutting public street via through-curb drains. Foundation or retaining
wall sub drains that must discharge towards the rear of the properties due to their lower elevation in
relationship to the street shall terminate with City-approved energy-dissipation devices or per a design
that prevents erosion of the natural downslopes. No water from subdrains or from earthen swales shall
discharge in a concentrated manner over and across the natural slopes below the proposed building
envelopes. No surface storm runoff shall be directed towards or across the neighboring sideyard lot
lines.
Responsible Agency: PW
When required: Prior to issuance of Building Permits.
22. Lots 8 and 9. The cluster of boulders that exist on Lots 8 and 9 shall be removed to allow for
construction on the existing slope and to eliminate the hazard they may present to people. Other surface
boulders that may be discovered on the existing slopes shall be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer to
determine whether a hazard potential will exist if left in place. The Director of Public Works shall
concur with the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer with respect to any boulders or other
topographic features proposed to remain.
Responsible Agency: PW
When required: Prior to issuance of Building Permits.
23. Storm Drain Easement on Lot 1. According to the final map for Tract 5073, an existing 10'-wide
"Common Area Storm Drain Easement" extends across Lot 1 (Rolling Hills Drive flag lot) to allow
storm runoff from the neighboring Lot 2 to discharge downslope to Martin Canyon Creek. No
permanent structures, including the proposed residence, shall be constructed over said existing
easement. Concrete flatwork and landscaping may be allowed if the Applicant demonstrates that said
improvement will not adversely impact the drainage pattern. Alternatively, the Applicant may
demonstrate to the City that permission from the Silvergate Highlands Owners Association has been
obtained for the relocation ofthe easement and the associated drainage facilities.
Responsible Agency: PW
When required: Prior to issuance of Building Permits.
DEDICATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS
24. Site Drainage and Erosion Control Plan. The project site shall drain in accordance with City of
Dublin Grading Ordinance and State Regional Water Quality Control standards. A Site Drainage and
Erosion Control Plan and "Best Management Practices" erosion control measures must be reviewed and
approved by the Public Works Department prior to approval of improvement plans.
Responsible Agency: PW
Required By: Approval of Improvement Plans
7
;5"S ~ ;i5
25. Mitigation Measures/Drainage Impacts. Applicant/Developer shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the Director of Public Works that all mitigation measures that need to be improved as a result of
drainage impacts of this project will be constructed prior to occupancy of any building. All drainage
improvements shall be constructed to the satisfaction to of the Director of Public Works.
Responsible Agency: PW
Required By: Occupancy of any Building
26. Retaining Walls. Where finish grade of this property is in excess of twelve (12) inches higher or lower
than the abutting property or adjacent lots, a concrete or masonry block retaining wall or other suitable
solution acceptable to the Director of Public Works shall be required.
Responsible Agency: PW
Required By: Issuance of Building Permit
27. Joint Utility Trenches/UndergroundinglUtility Plans. Applicant/Developer shall construct all joint
utility trenches (such as electric, telephone, cable TV, and gas) in accordance with the appropriate utility
jurisdiction. All communication vaults, electric transformers, and cable TV boxes shall be underground
in designated landscape areas. Utility plans showing the location of all proposed utilities (including
electrical vaults and underground transformers) shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of
Public Works and Director of Community Development. Location of surface or aboveground items shall
be shown on the Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan and screened from view.
Responsible Agency: PW, PL
Required By: Occupancy of Affected Buildings
28. Driveway approaches. The driveway approaches for each residence shall be constructed in accordance
with City Standard Detail CD-306, and said work shall be performed per an Encroachment Permit issued
by the Public Works Department. Driveways shall be constructed of portland cement concrete or similar
material in accordance with City Standard Detail CD-305. For Lots 7-12, the driveway slopes shall not
exceed 12%.
Responsible Agency: PW
When required: Prior to issuance of Building Permits.
29. Grading, site development, and foundation work. All grading, site development, and foundation
work shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report
prepared by Engeo titled "Foundation Exploration, Bordeaux Estates, Dublin California" dated April 6,
2000. The responsible geotechnical engineer shall certify on the building plans that all proposed grading,
site development, and foundation work conforms to the recommendations contained in the geotechnical
report.
Responsible Agency: PW
When required: Prior to issuance of Building Permits.
30. Plans for each residence. The plans for each residence shall include a site-specific plot plan prepared
by a licensed Civil Engineer in a format acceptable to the City. Said plans shall be based on an accurate
topographic survey of each lot, showing existing contour lines at one-foot intervals, prepared by a
licensed Land Surveyor. All proposed improvements including the house footprint, proposed contour
lines, drainage system, fences, retaining walls, building setbacks, street addresses, water/sewer/joint
trench utilities, etc. shall be shown on each plot plan.
Responsible Agency: PW
When required: Prior to issuance of Building Permits.
31. Steep inclines. Grading which results in slope inclinations that are steeper than presently exist will not
be allowed, unless the grading results in slopes no steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical.
Responsible Agency: PW
When required: Prior to issuance of Building Permits.
8
s~ ~ J.~j
PHASED OCCUPANCY PLAN
32. Phased Occupancy Plan. If occupancy of residences is requested to occur in phases, then all physical
improvements within each phase shall be required to be completed prior to occupancy of buildings
within that phase except for items specifically excluded in an approved Phased Occupancy Plan, or
minor hand work items, approved by the Department of Community Development. The Phased
Occupancy Plan shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development, and Public Works for
review and approval a minimum of 45 days prior to the request for occupancy of any building covered
by said Phased Occupancy Plan. No individual building shall be occupied until the adjoining area is
finished, safe, accessible, provided with all reasonably expected services and amenities, and separated
from remaining additional construction activity. Subject to approval of the Director of Community
Development, the completion of landscaping may be deferred due to inclement weather with the posting
of a bond for the value of the deferred landscaping and associated improvements.
Responsible Agency: PL, B
Required By: Prior to Occupancy for any affected building
Construction Noise Management Prot:ram/Construction ImDact Reduction Plan
33. Construction Noise Management Program/Construction Impact Reduction Plan.
Applicant/Developer shall conform to the following Construction Noise Management
Program/Construction Impact Reduction Plan. Construction shall be conducted so as to minimize the
impacts of the construction on the existing community and on the occupants of the new homes as they
are completed.
Responsible Agency: PL
Required By: During any construction
34. Construction Noise Management Program/Construction Impact Reduction Plan. The following
measures shall be taken to reduce construction impacts:
Responsible Agency: PL
Required By: During any construction
a. Off-site truck traffic shall be routed as directly as practical to and from the freeway (1-580) to the
job site. Primary route shall be from 1-580 along, San Ramon Road, Dublin Boulevard,
Silvergate Drive, Rolling Hills Drive and Brittany Lane. An Oversized Load Permit shall be
obtained from the City prior to hauling of any oversized loads on City streets.
b. The construction site shall be watered at regular intervals during all grading activities. The
frequency of watering should increase if wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Watering should
include all excavated and graded areas and material to be transported off-site. Use recycled or
other non-potable water resources where feasible.
c. Construction equipment shall not be left idling while not in use.
d. All construction equipment shall be fitted with noise muffling devises.
e. Erosion control measures shall be implemented during wet weather to assure that sedimentation
and erosion do not occur.
f. Mud and dust carried onto street surfaces by construction vehicles shall be cleaned-up on a daily
basis.
g. Excavation haul trucks shall use tarpaulins or other effective covers.
h. Upon completion of construction, measures shall be taken to reduce wind erosion. Replanting
and repaving should be completed as soon as possible.
9
5? ~;2-~5
1. Houses will be constructed in phases such that most of the construction traffic can be routed into
the subdivision without traveling in front of existing homes that are occupied.
J. After grading is completed, fugitive dust on exposed soil surfaces shall be controlled using the
following methods:
k. Inactive portions of the construction site should be seeded and watered until grass growth is
evident.
I. Require that all portions of the site be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
m. On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 mph.
n. Use of petroleum-based palliatives shall meet the road oil requirements of the Air Quality
District. Non-petroleum based tackifiers may be required by the Director of Public Works.
o. The Department of Public Works shall handle all dust complaints. The Director of Public Works
may require the services of an air quality consultant to advise the City on the severity of the dust
problem and additional ways to mitigate impact on residents, including temporarily halting
project construction. Dust concerns in adjoining communities as well as the City of Dublin shall
be addressed. Control measures shall be related to wind conditions. Air quality monitoring of
PM levels shall be provided as required by the Director of Public Works.
p. Construction interference with regional non-project traffic shall be minimized by:
q. Scheduling receipt of construction materials to non-peak travel periods.
r. Routing construction traffic through areas ofleast impact sensitivity.
s. Routing construction traffic to minimize construction interference with regional non-project
traffic movement.
t. Limiting lane closures and detours to off-peak travel periods.
u. Providing ride-share incentives for contractor and subcontractor personnel.
v. Emissions control of on-site equipment shall be minimized through a routine mandatory program
of low-emissions tune-ups.
w. Radios and loudspeakers shall not be used outside of the residences. during all phases of
construction.
x. Construction vehicles and worker's vehicles shall not be parked on the north side of Brittany
Lane or in any driveways on the north side of Brittany Lane.
y. No double-parking shall be allowed along Brittany Lane.
z. Fencing of construction site shall be to the satisfaction of the Building Official.
10
Sgab :L~5
PARKS
35. Public Facilities Fee. Applicant/Developer shall pay a Public Facilities Fee in the amounts and at the
times set forth in City of Dublin Resolution No. 195-99, or in the amounts and at the times set forth in
any resolution revising the amount of the Public Facilities Fee.
Responsible Agency: PCS
Required By: As indicated in Condition of Approval
ARCHITECTURE
36. Exterior colors and materials. Exterior colors and materials for the structures shall be subject to final
review and approval by the Community Development Director and shall be shown on construction
plans.
Responsible Agency: PL
Required By: Prior to building permit
37. Exterior lighting. Exterior lighting shall be of a design and placement so as not to cause glare onto
adjoining properties. Lighting used after daylight hours shall be minimized to provide for security needs
only.
Responsible Agency: PL
Required By: Ongoing
38. Fencing, and of all retaining walls. The design, location and materials of all fencing, and of all
retaining walls installed by the developer, shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning
Director. Provision of common fences for all side and rear yards shall be the responsibility of the
developer. Fencing installed by the developer at the bottom or top of slopes higher than ten feet, and/or
fences of rear yards with a high visibility from adjoining down slope areas, may be designed with an
open mesh material, subject to review and approval by the Planning Director as regards the location and
material utilized.
Responsible Agency: PL.
When Required: Prior to approval of Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plans.
39. Pad levations. All residences shall be built at the pad elevations shown on the project plans by EDI
Architects dated received December 4,2000.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to occupancy.
40. Increase in height of residences prohibited. The increase in height of residences in this project
beyond that originally approved by the City is prohibited.
LANDSCAPING
41. Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan. Applicant/Developer shall submit a Final Landscaping and
Irrigation Plan, conforming to the requirements of Section 8.72.030 of the Zoning Ordinance (unless
otherwise required by this Resolution), stamped and approved by the Director of Public Works and the
Director of Community Development. The plan should generally conform to the landscaping plan and
must reflect any revised project design shown on the Site Development Review with a later date.
Responsible Agency: PL
Required By: Prior to building permit
11
S9 ~ )Y5
42. Wildfire Management Plan. The Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan shall be in accordance with the
City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan.
Responsible Agency: F
Required By: Prior to building permit
43. NPDES. The final landscaping and irrigation plan shall address erosion control as an ongoing
prevention program that will meet the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
requirements.
Responsible Agency: PW, PL
Required By: Ongoing
44. Installation. Prior to final occupancy approval, all required landscaping and irrigation, shall be
installed.
Responsible Agency: PL, B
Required By: Prior to occupancy
45. Drought-tolerant and/or native species. The landscape design and construction shall emphasize
drought-tolerant and/or native species wherever possible.
Responsible Agency: PL
Required By: Prior to occupancy
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
46. DamagelRepairs. The Developer shall repair all damaged existing street, curb, gutter and sidewalk
along Brittany Lane and Rolling Hills Drive, lot frontages that exist now, or that result from
construction activities to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
Responsible Agency: PW
Required By: Prior to Occupancy of first residence
POLICE SECURITY
47. Residential Security Requirements. The development shall comply with the City of Dublin
Residential Security Requirements (attached). Security hardware must be provided for all doors,
windows, roof, vents, and skylights and any other areas per Dublin Police Services recommendations
and requirements.
Responsible Agency: B, PO
Required By: Prior to Occupancy of first residence
48. Projected Timeline. Applicant/Developer shall submit a projected timeline for project completion to
the Dublin Police Services Department, to allow estimation of staffing requirements and assignments.
Responsible Agency: PO
Required By: Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
FIRE PROTECTION
49. Applicable regulations and requirements. The Applicant/Property Owner shall comply with all
applicable regulations and requirements ofthe Alameda County Fire Department (ACFD), including
payment of all appropriate fees.
Responsible Agency: F
Required By: Ongoing
50. Fireground operation area. The rear yard shall have a minimum 10 foot offireground operation area.
Responsible Agency: F
Required By: Ongoing
12
/;, D 06 ).'15
51. Rear yard accessibility. The rear yard shall be accessible from both sides of the structure.
Responsible Agency: F
Required By: Ongoing
52. Roofing material. The roofing material shall conform to the City of Dublin Fire Area specifications
which require Class A or better.
Responsible Agency: F
Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits
53. Wildfire Management Plan. Site development shall be in accordance with the City of Dublin Wildfire
Management Plan.
Responsible Agency: F
Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits
54. Water supply. Water supply shall be adequate to support required fire flow.
Responsible Agency: F
Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits
55. Fire Hydrants. The Developer shall construct any required new fire hydrants in streets to City and
Alameda County Fire Department standards. The Developer shall comply with applicable Alameda
County fire Department, Public Works Department, Dublin Police Service, Alameda County Flood
Control District Zone 7 and Dublin San Ramon Services District requirements.
Responsible Agency: F, PW
Required By: Prior to Occupancy of adjacent building
56. Delivery of any combustible material. Prior to the delivery of any combustible material for storage on
the site, fire hydrants, water supply, and roadways shall be installed and sufficient water storage and
pressure shall be available to the site. Approved roadway shall be first lift of asphalt.
Responsible Agency: F
Required By: Prior to delivery of any combustible material
ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, ZONE 7
57. Wells. Any water wells, cathodic protection wells or exploratory borings shown on the map that are
known to exist, are proposed or are located during field operations without a documented intent of future
use, filed with Zone 7, are to be destroyed prior to any demolition or construction activity in accordance
with a well destruction permit obtained from Zone 7 and the Alameda County Department of
Environmental Services or are to be maintained in accordance with applicable groundwater protection
ordinances. Other wells encountered prior to or during construction are to be treated similarly.
Responsible Agency: Zone 7, PW
Required By: Prior to any demolition or construction
58. Salt Mitigation. Recycled water projects must meet any applicable salt mitigation requirements of Zone
7.
Responsible Agency: Zone 7, PW
Required by On-going
59. Requirements and Fees. Applicant/Developer shall comply with all Alameda County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District-Zone 7 Flood Control requirements and applicable fees.
Responsible Agency: Zone 7, PW
Required by Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
13
6/ e( ;tV'
DSRSD
. 60. Requirements and regulations. The ApplicantlProperty Owner shall comply with all applicable
requirements and regulations of the Dublin San Ramon Services District.
Responsible Agency: DSRSD.
Required By: Ongoing
61. Improvement plans. Prior to issuance of any building permit, complete improvement plans shall be
submitted to DSRSD that conform to the requirements of the Dublin San Ramon Services District Code,
the DSRSD "Standard Procedures, Specifications and Drawings for Design and Installation of Water
and Wastewater Facilities", all applicable DSRSD Master Plans and all DSRSD policies.
Responsible Agency: DSRSD.
Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits
62. Sewers. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity flow to DSRSD's existing sanitary sewer
system. Pumping of sewerage is discouraged and may only be allowed under extreme circumstances
following a case by case review with DSRSD staff. Any pumping station will require specific review
and approval by DSRSD of preliminary design reports, design criteria, and final plans and
specifications. The DSRSD reserves the right to require payment of present worth 20 year maintenance
costs as well as other conditions within a separate agreement with the applicant for any project that
requires a pumping station.
Responsible Agency: DSRSD.
Required By: Ongoing
63. Fees. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, all utility connection fees, plan check fees, inspection
fees, permit fees and fees associated with a wastewater discharge permit shall be paid to DSRSD in
accordance with the rates and schedules established in the DSRSD Code.
Responsible Agency: DSRSD.
Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits
64. Signatures. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, all improvement plans for DSRSD facilities shall
be signed by the District Engineer. Each drawing of improvement plans shall contain a signature block
for the District Engineer indicating approval of the sanitary sewer or water facilities shown. Prior to
approval by the District Engineer, the Applicant shall pay all required DSRSD fees, and provide an
engineer's estimate of construction costs for the sewer and water systems, a performance bond, a one-
year maintenance bond, and a comprehensive general liability insurance policy in the amounts and
forms that ~e acceptable to DSRSD. The Applicant shall allow at least 15 working days for final
improvement drawing review by DSRSD before signature by the District Engineer.
Responsible Agency: DSRSD.
Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits
65. Utility Construction Permit. No sewer line or water line construction shall be permitted unless the
proper utility construction permit has been issued by DSRSD. A construction permit will only be issued
after all of the items in the condition immediately before this one have been satisfied.
Responsible Agency: DSRSD.
Required By: Ongoing
66. Hold Harmless. The ApplicantlProperty Owner shall hold DSRSD, its Board of Directors,
commissions, employees, and agents of DSRSD harmless and indemnify and defend the same from any
litigation, claims, or fines resulting from completion ofthe project.
Responsible Agency: DSRSD.
Required By: Ongoing
67. Limited construction permit. The Applicant/Property Owner shall obtain a limited construction
permit from the DSRSD prior to commencement of any work.
Responsible Agency: DSRSD.
Required By: Prior to commencement of any work
14
b~ ~ J~?
68. Construction by Applicant/Developer. All onsite potable and recycled water and wastewater pipelines
and facilities shall be constructed by the Applicant/Developer in accordance with all DSRSD master
plans, standards, specifications and requirements.
Responsible Agency: DSRSD.
Required By: Completion of Improvements
69. DSRSD Water Facilities. Water facilities must be connected to the DSRSD or other approved water
system, and must be installed at the expense of Applicant/Developer in accordance with District
Standards and Specifications. All material and workmanship for water mains and appurtenances thereto
must conform with all of the requirements of the officially adopted Water Code of the District and shall
be subject to field inspection by the District.
Responsible Agency: DSRSD.
Required By: Completion of Improvements
70. Fire flows. The applicant shall coordinate with the District and Alameda County Fire Department on
required fire flows. .
Responsible Agency: DSRSD.
Required By: Approval of Improvement Plans
MISCELLANEOUS
. 71. Compliance. The Applicant/Property Owner shall comply with all applicable Alameda County Fire
Department, Public Works Department standard conditions, Dublin Police Services, Alameda County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the Dublin San Ramon Services District regulations
and requirements. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits or the installation of any
improvements related to this project, the Applicant shall supply written documentation from each such
agency or department to the Community Development Department, indicating that all applicable
conditions required have been or will be met.
Responsible Agency: B, PL.
Required By: Ongoing
72. Compliance. The Applicant/Property Owner shall comply with all applicable regulations and
requirements ofthe Uniform Building Code and the Building Inspection Department.
Responsible Agency: B
Required By: Ongoing
73. Building permits for the proposed project shall be secured and construction commenced within
one (1) year after the effective date of this approval or said approval shall be void. This one (1)
year period may be extended an additional one (1) year after the expiration date of this approval (a
written request for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration date) by the Community
Development Director upon the determination that the Conditions of Approval remain adequate to
assure that the above stated Findings of Approval will continue to be met. [B, PL]
74. Building permits. To apply for building permits, the Applicant shall submit thirteen (13) sets of full
construction plans for plan check. Each set of plans shall have attached an annotated copy of these
Conditions of Approval, including any attached Special Conditions. The notations shall clearly
indicate how all Conditions of Approval will be complied with. Construction plans will not be accepted
without the annotated conditions attached to each set of plans. The Applicant will be responsible for
compliance with all Conditions of Approval specified and obtaining the approvals of all participating
non-City agencies prior to the issuance of building or grading permits. Responsible Agency: B, PL,
PW. Required By: Prior to issuance of building permits
15
~3 ~ ;~5
75. Construction plans. Construction plans shall be fully dimensioned (including building elevations)
accurately drawn (depicting all existing and proposed conditions on site), and prepared and signed by an
appropriately design professional. The site plan, landscape plan and details shall be consistent with each
other. . Responsible Agency: B, PL, PW. Required By: Prior to issuance of building permits
76. Hours of operation. All construction shall be.limited to take place between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and
6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except as otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works. .
Responsible Agency: PW. Required By: Ongoing
77. Compliance. The Applicant/Property Owner shall develop this project and operate all uses in
compliance with the Conditions of Approval of this Site Development Review and the regulations
established in the Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions specified may be subject
to enforcement action. Responsible Agency: PL. Required By: Ongoing
78. Postal authorities. The developer shall confer with the local postal authorities to determine the type of
. mail receptacles necessary and provide a letter stating their satisfaction with the type of mail service to
be provided. Specific locations for such units shall be to the satisfaction of the Postal Service.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit.
HERITAGE TREES:
79. Tree Protection Zone. A Tree Protection Zone shall be established 30 feet north of trees #340 - 342,
and at the driplines of trees #335,345 - 346,353 - 354. No grading, excavation, construction or storage
of materials shall occur within this zone.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit.
80. Plot plans to be reviewed by project arborist. All plot plans shall be reviewed by the project arborist
for evaluation of impacts to trees and recommendations for mitigation.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit.
81. Rock outcropping. The rock outcropping within 30 feet of trees #335 and 342 shall be retained.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
82. Underground services. No underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer lines
shall be placed in the Tree Protection Zone.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
83. Tree Preservation Notes. Tree Preservation Notes, prepared by the consulting arborist, shall be
included on all construction plans. Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit
84. Irrigation systems. Irrigation systems must be designed so that no trenching will occur within the Tree
Protection Zone. Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit.
16
~ Lj ~ ;~?
85. Landscape improvements. No landscape improvements such as lighting, pavement, drainage or
planting may occur which may negatively affect the health or structural stability of the trees.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
86. Foundations, footings and pavement. Foundations, footings and pavement on expansive soils near the
Heritage Trees should be designed to withstand differential displacement due to expansion and shrinking
of the soil.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit.
87. Pruning. Heritage Trees shall be pruned in conformance with the 1998 California Fire Code. All
pruning shall be completed by a Certified Arborist and Tree Worker in the presence of the City's
arborist and be in conformance with the guidelines of the International Society of Arboriculture, Tree
Pruning Guidelines, current edition, on file in the Community Development Department. In addition,
pruning shall be in conformity with the provisions of the Pruning Specifications of the Tree Protection
Plan for this project.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit.
88. Tree Protection Zone for trees on lots 1, 7, 8, and 9. The Tree Protection Zone for trees on lots 1, 7,
8, and 9 shall completely surround those trees to the satisfaction of the City's arborist. A fence shall
completely surround and define the Tree Protection zone to the satisfaction of the City's arborist prior to
demolition, grubbing or grading. Fences shall be 6 feet tall chain link or equivalent as approved by the
consulting arborist. Fences are to remain until all grading and construction is completed.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit.
89. Meeting to review work procedures, access routes, storage areas and tree protection measures.
Prior to work the contractor must meet with the consulting arborist at the site to review all work
procedures, access routes, storage areas and tree protection measures.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit.
90. Grading, construction, demolition or other work within the Tree Protection Zone. No grading,
construction, demolition or other work shall occur within the Tree Protection Zone. Any modifications
must be approved and monitored by the consulting arborist.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit.
91. Spoil. Spoil from trench, footing, utility or other excavation shall not be placed within Tree Protection
Zone. Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit.
17
•
92. Damage. -If damage should occur to any tree during construction it shall be immediately reported to the
Director of Community Development so that proper treatment may be administered. The Director will
refer to the City Arborist to determine the appropriate method of repair of any damage. The cost of any
treatment or repair shall be borne by the developer/applicant responsible for the development of the
project. Failure to do so may result in the issuance of a stop work order.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
93. Dumping or storage within the Tree Protection Zone. No excess soil, chemicals, debris, equipment
or other materials shall be dumped or stored within the Tree Protection Zone.
Responsible Agency: . PL
When Required: Ongoing
94. Additional pruning. Any additional pruning needed for clearance during construction must be
performed by a certified arborist with the approval by the City's arborist and not by construction
personnel.
Responsible.Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
95. Tree Pruning Guidelines. All pruning shall be in accordance with the Tree Pruning Guidelines •
(International Society of Arboriculture) and adhere to the most recent editions of the American National
Standard for Tree Care Operations (Z133.1) and Pruning (A300).
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
96. Pruning: Where possible, pruning shall be confined to small diameter wood at the ends of branches.
Interior branches shall not be stripped out. •
Responsible,Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing .
•
97. Pruning. All trees shall be pruned to provide a minimum of 6 feet of clearance between the ground
surface and foliage, to remove dead branches to a minimum of 2 inches in diameter, and to reduce end
weight on heavy,horizontal branches by selectively removing small diameter branches,no greater than
2 to 3 inches, near the ends of the scaffolds.
Responsible Agency: PL -
When Required: Prior t issuance of Building Permit.
98. Aerial inspection. While in the tree,the arborist shall perform an aerial inspection to identify defects
that require treatment. Any additional work needed'shall be reported to the Project Arborist.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
99. Chipping and hauling of brush. Brush shall be chipped and chips shall be spread underneath trees to a
maximum depth of 6 inches, leaving the trunk clear of mulch. Wood shall be hauled off the site. ,
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
18
•
t,t l7f5 ;~?
100. Trees shall not be climbed with spurs.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
101. Thinning cuts are to be employed rather than heading cuts, Trees shall not be topped or headed
back.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
102. Vehicles and heavy equipment. Vehicles and heavy equipment shall not be parked beneath the trees.
If access by equipment is required to accomplish the specified pruning, the soil surface shall be
protected with 6 inches to 8 inches of wood chips before placing equipment or vehicles.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
103. Servicing and fueling of equipment.. Equipment shall be serviced and fueled outside the tree canopy to
avoid accidental spills in the root area. Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
104. Certified arborist. A certified arborist shall be present on the project site during grading or other
construction activity that may impact the health of the Heritage Trees in this project.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
105. Guide to Maintenance for Native Oaks. The consulting arborist shall prepare a Guide to Maintenance
for Native Oaks that describes the care needed to maintain tree health and structural stability including
pruning, fertilization, mulching and pest management as may be required. In addition, the Guide shall
address monitoring both tree health and structural stability of trees. As trees age, the likelihood of
failure of branches or entire trees increases. Therefore, annual inspection for hazard potential should be
addressed in the Guide. A copy ofthis Guide shall be provided to each purchaser.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to occupancy
106. Cash bond or other security deposit. The applicant/developer shall guarantee the protection of the
Heritage Trees on the project site through placement of a cash bond or other security deposit in the
amount of$100,000. The cash bond or other security shall be retained for a reasonable period oftime
following the occupancy of the last residence occupied, not to exceed one year. The cash bond or
security is to be released upon satisfaction of the Director of Community Development that the Heritage
Trees have not been endangered. The cash bond or security deposit shall be forfeited as a civil penalty
for any unauthorized removal or destruction of a Heritage Tree~
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
107. Overhead wires or underground pipes or conduits. Any public utility installing or maintaining any
overhead wires or underground pipes or conduits in the vicinity of a Heritage Tree in this project shall
obtain permission from the Director of Community Development before performing any work, which
may cause injury to the Heritage Tree.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
19
o tJ ~ ;45
108. Removal of Heritage Tree. No heritage Tree on the project site shall be removed unless its condition
presents an immediate hazard to life or property. Such Heritage Tree shall be removed only with the
approval of the Director of Community Development, City Engineer, Police Chief, Fire Chief or their
designee. The Fire Marshall has indicated the Heritage Trees conform with the Wildfire Management
Plan and that no Heritage Tree on the project site will be removed pursuant to the Wildfire Management
Plan.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
109. Designation of oaks as Heritage Trees. All nineteen Oak trees on the project site addressed by the
Tree Protection Plan are designated as Heritage Trees by this Site Development Review and shall be
protected by the provisions of the Heritage Tree Ordinance pursuant to Section 5.60.40.b, Heritage Tree
Definition.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
110. Major scaffold on Tree 340. The major scaffold on Tree 340 pointing north toward the proposed
residence on Lot 8 shall only be trimmed as necessary to elevate the foliage 6 feet above the ground.
Under no circumstances shall that scaffold be pruned further back than as marked in yellow unless so
much foliage had to be trimmed that, in the opinion of the consulting arborist and the City's arborist, it
was necessary. If said major scaffold projects to within 5 feet ofthe residence, the residence shall be
modified to move it until it is at least five feet from the furthest extent of foliage of said limb.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit.
111. Heritage Trees on Lot 1. The foliage ofthe heritage trees on Lot 1 shall only be trimmed as necessary
to elevate the foliage 6 feet above the ground. Under no circumstances shall said trees be trimmed
beyond required by the 1998 California Fire Code. If, after pruning pursuant to the Code, the foliage of
said trees projects to within 5 feet of the proposed location of the residence on Lot 1, the residence on
Lot 1 shall be modified to move it until it is at least five feet from the furthest extent of foliage of said
trees.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit.
112. Cuts on Tree 340. All cuts on Tree 340 shall be as marked in yellow on that tree and as agreed upon
with the City of Dublin. Any changes to the pruning of the tree can only occur with the concurrence of
the arborist and the City's arborist and the City of Dublin.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit,
113. Removal of the subsidiary trunk of Tree 340. The subsidiary trunk to be removed and the remainder
of Tree 340 which shall remain are treated as one tree in the Tree Protection Report because they are
located immediately adjacent to each other and form portions of the same canopy and dripline. The
removal of this subsidiary trunk is permitted by the Director as part of this Site Development Review
pursuant to Section 5.60.50.b.2.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
114. Perpetuation of Oak Grove/planting of additional oak trees. Landscape improvements for this
project shall include the planting of additional oak trees.
20
b tz at ;~5
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 16th day of January, 2001.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST
City Clerk
G:paOO-009/cc reso sdr
21
I of6 12/21/00
Notice of Appeal ofPA 00-009
b1 ~ ~~~
December 21, 2000
To:
City of Dublin
c/o Dublin City Clerk
RECEIVED
DEe 2 1 2000
CiTY OF DUBLIN
Re: Notice of Appeal pursuant to City of Dublin
Zoning Ordinance Section 8.136.050 et. Seq.
P A 00-009 Black Mountain Development Site
Development Review.
We the undersigned Appellants, are notifying the City of Dublin of our
intent to appeal Item 8.4, PA 00-009, Black Mountain Development Site
Development Review on the December 12,2000 Regular Meeting of the
Dublin Planning Commission held in the City of Dublin Council
Chambers, 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, California 94568. We note that there is
no established filing fee and no specific information required by the
Director of Community Development for this Appeal.
We request and are hereby appealing the entire Public Hearing Item 8.4,
P A 00-009 on the following grounds and issues as set forth below and as
incorporated by reference in the attached documents that are submitted
with this Notice of Appeal.
Ground for Appeall. Unequal enforcement of 1997 Dublin
Zoning Ordinance and Condition 6 of Resolution 82-85.
Issue: Natural Grade and conformity with Condition 6:
lE4e.Ol>~1)
l-\
Proposed housing on Brittany Lane lots 1 and 7-12 of Block 1 of Tract
Map 5073 located at 11299 Rolling Hills Drive and 11151, 11159, 11167,
11175 11183 and 11191 Brittany Lane (hereinafter "Custom Lots") should
be lowered from the current proposed siting to reflect a siting on "Natural
Grade" as defined in Section 8.08.020G.aI of the 1997 Dublin Zoning
Ordinance and Condition 62 ofthe Dublin City Council Resolution 82-85,
1 8.08,020.G Definitions states: Grade. The term Grade shall mean the vertical location of the ground
surface, as follows:
a. Existing or natural grade: "The contour of the ground surface before grading."(Emphasis
added)
b. Rough grade: "The stage at which the grade approximately conforms to an approved
grading plan."
c. Finish grade: "The rmal terrain contour of a site that conforms to an approved grading
plan.".. ..
2 Resolution 82-85 Condition 6: "The height of custom or modified homes shall not exceed twenty-five
(25) feet as measured perpendicularly from natural erade. Skirt heights screening undeveloped, non-living
I
A1TACHMENT 3
2 of 612121/00
Notice of Appeal ofPA 00-009
10 ~ ).~?
~ru>U;.J .t
1-7-
REceIVED
The Dublin Planning Commission (hereinafter D
"Commission") and Dublin Planning Department (hereinafter "Staff') have E C 2 1 2000
without proper authority created a heretofore-unknown definition of "New DUBUN PLAN
Ground Surface" to replace natural grade in both the 1997 Dublin Zoning NING
Ordinance and Condition 6 of Resolution 82-85 (page 3, Staffreport3).
This constitutes an impermissible revision or amendment of both the 1997
Ordinance and Resolution 82-85 and is beyond allowed reasonable
deviation and/or refmement in Condition 6, resulting in an increase in the
heights of homes developed on these Custom Lots. No evidence of an
established or measurable Dublin City Standard for such a revision was
introduced iri.to the record at the December 12, 2000 hearing and therefore
is an unequal enforcement as applied to this development.4
G {2t::.vJVb
2-\
Ground for Appeal 2. The heightlimit on these custom or modified
homes should not exceed 25 feetifthe impacts to the views are to be
properly minimized.
Issue: Section 8,36.1l0.C.2 of the 1997 Dublin Zoning Ordinance is
being applied to this Site Development Review resulting in unequal
enforcement,
~~}...)\)
2.-A
Staff and Commission state in paragraph page 3 of the Agenda Statement
that impacts to views are being minimized because these homes could be
35 and 40 feet high, This creates the possi1>i1ity and potential that this
developer or his successors, or future owners could assert a right to
space for custom or modified homes (measured from natural grade to finished floor elevations) shall not
exceed a maximum of nine (9) feet. Deviation and/or refinement of these standards may be considered as
part of the site Development Review process covering these lots. (Emphasis added)
Agenda Statement 12-12-00, Page 3 "Common engineering practice is to define the ground surface before
grading as ground that has never been graded or ground that has been graded pursuant to an approved
grading permit so that there is a 'new' ground surface." The fact is that common engineering practice is to
define this "new" ground surface as the rough grade. Proof of this is seen in the 1986 engineering reports
and current Peer Review for this development. See Kleinfe1der letter to City of Dublin, dated October 13,
2000 page 2, paragraph 4: "The January 9, 1986 (ENGEO Inc) report provides documentation concerning
the general geote'chnical observations and compaction testing performed during the rouJ!h f!radine
performed in 1985..." (Emphasis added) see Attachment #1. The phrase "rough grading" is used repeatedly
by the civil engineers demonstrating that "rough grade" is the accePted standard.
Additionally, adopting a standard of "new" ground surface via approved grading, could be used to
redefine the height limitations of Condition 6 on a repeated basis, rendering the height limitation
impossible to establish because you would modify it with each new grading permit. For example, will the
height limits be changed again based on the new gr,ading being allowed by proposed development P A 00-
009? This is why the height must be measured from the Natural Grade, otherwise the height limits in
Conditiori 6 are meaningless.
4 See attached letter dated December 12,2000 from the Residents of Brittany Lane, paragraph I and
paragraph IT as Attachment #2. It should be noted that Resolution 82-85 was passed before any approved
grading permits were issued for this development. Subsequent grading therefore will not change the
wording of Resolution 82-85 Condition 6. The grading has resulted in an increase in the elevation of the
ground surface by over ten feet on some of the Custom Lots; which will result in an increase in the height
of the homes if used as a "new" ground surface standard.
2
3 of6 12/21/00
~ now).oJ))
2-3
6\Zo'-> }..1 '\:) 2.. -If
b(k.u)J~ <:1..-5
Notice of Appeal ofP A 00-009
'll ~ )-~5
ReCeIVED
DEe 212000
OUBLlN PLANNING
increase the height of these homes.1The'height limit should be 25 feet from
natural grade according to Resolution 82-85 condition 6.6 Staff assertion
that Section 8.36,llO.C.2 of the 1997 Dublin Zoning Ordinance applies to
this Site Development Review is incorrect. This Ordinance states in simple
and direct language that it is not to be applied to other existing regulations
or ordinances such as Resolution: 82-85 ifthere is a conflict, If a conflict
exists between the 1997 Dublin Zoning Ordinance and other regulations
then the most restrictive shall apply. Resolution 82-85 is more restrictive
because is allows for only 25 feet height whereas the 1997 Dublin Zoning
Ordinance Section 8.36.110.C.2 allows for heights up t040 feet on the
Custom Lots7. Section: 8.04.0608 and Section 8.04.060.D,19 clearly show
that the 1997 Dublin Zoning Ordinance was never intended to rewrite and
supersede Resolution 82"'85.J The Dublin City Council went into specific
detail to require severe height limitations for only 1210ts (the Custom Lots)
in a development of over 200 homes.} Staff does not challenge Condition 6
of the 1985. Resolution but instead incorrectly applies the 1997 Ordinance.
This constitutes an impermissible revision of both the 1997 Ordinance and
Resolution 82-85 and is beyond reasonable deviation and/or refmement in
Condition 6, resulting in an increase in the heights of homes developed on
the Custom Lots and a potentiall()ss of protected views for the current
..residentsof,BrittanY.bane;....'.This-Council...should-rulethatthe.homeson..the
Custom Lots cannot go any higher than 25 feet as mandated in Condition 6.
&t l'li>v "" \? "'5-1
. ~;d2V(/~ 17 '3-?-...
Ground for Appeal 3. Staff and Commission failed to preserve
tree 340 as required by Condition 1610 of Resolution 82-85, August 12,
1985tand Section 5.60.40(b) of the Heritage Tree Ordinance 29-99,
December 21, 199911 (hereinafter the "Heritage Tree Ordinance") and
5 See General Condition 2: Modifications or changes. ;'Modifications or changes to this Site Development
Review approval may be considered by the Community Development Director, if the modifications or
changes proposed comply with Section 8.104.100 of the Zoning Ordinance."
6 See footnote 2 supra.
7 See Staffreport Agenda Statement page 3 "Deviation and/or refinemenf' chart showing 15 feet can be
added to the height of a home on a slope over 30 percent.
s Section 8.04.060 "Interpretation." of City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 1997 provides the rules for
resolving questions about the meaning or applicability of any part of Ordinance. Definitions and the
meaning of words and phrases are set out in this section. For example, Section 8.04.060A.3 states: " 'Shall,
May, and Should.' 'Shall' is always mandatory and not discretionary. 'May' is permissive and
discretionary. 'Should' is advisory and not mandatory."
9 Section 8.04.060.D.l states: Conflicting Requirements.
1. Other Municipal Code Provisions. "If conflicts occur between requirements of this
Ordinance, or between this Ordinance and other regulations of the City, the most restrictive shall aDDlv."
(Emphasis added) .
10 Resolution 82-85 Condition 16: "Project grading performed within 25 feet of the drip line of existing
onsite or offsite trees shall be addressed by a horticultural report and the recommendations and findings of
that report Incorporated into the grading and improvement plans of this project." (Emphasis added)
11 Section 5360.40(b) Heritage Tree Ordinance Deftnition states: "A tree required to be preserved as part
of an approved development plan, zoning permit, use permit, site development review or subdivision map."
(Emphasis added). . "
3
1J. ~ )4?
Staff is of the opinion that the project has been designed in compliance with Condition 6. The
heights of the residences are being measured from the proper elevation, The deviation and/or
refmement of the standards is appropriate. The project is well designed, well sited and minimizes
impacts to the views of neighbors on the north side of Brittany Lane.
.
Point 2-5.
~ the response to Point 2-3 above, With regard to the words "a potential loss of protected views"
within Point 2-5, it should be pointed out that it was always intended that lots approved pursuant
to Tract Map 5073, that were not built upon, would be built upon eventually with the potential that
views would be modified.
/'
Ground for Appeal 3.
G 3 \\ Staff and Commission failed topreserve tree 340 as required by Condition 1610 of Resolution 82-
\2{)vVP .- 85, August 12, 198:{aiiQSection 5.60.40(b) ofthe Heritage Tree Ordinance 29-99, December 21,
1999II (hereinafter the "Heritage Tree Ordinance")land Section 8.04.020(F) for the City of Dublin
Zoning Ordinance12, September 1997 for the health and welfare ofthe citizens of Dublin. All
three of these ordinances taken together require preservation of tree 340. Ii
,,/
/
Issue: Staffand Commission failed to address and enforce Condition 16 of Resolution 82-85,
Section 5.60.40(b) of the Dublin Heritage Tree Ordinance, and Section 8.04.020(F) of the City of
Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
Under these sections, Staff and Commission were required to establish a tree preservation plan
instead of a tree protection plan.
Appellants contend that preservation is defmed as follows: 2. a keeping of something unchanged:
maintenance of something, especially something of historic value, in an unchanged condition13.
Tree protection plans are more suitable for Heritage Trees defined under Section 5.60.40(a)
Heritage Tree Ordinance, which addresses trees ofa certain size but does not mention any
requirement of preservation.
Tree 340, was not preserved by proposed Resolution approving P A 00-009 and no effort was
made to investigate tree preservation which is the spirit of the Heritage Tree Ordinance as stated in
Section 5.60.20 Purpose and Intent. For example, housing could be sited a sufficient distance
from the trees to prevent unnecessary and severe pruning14, No investigation was made to
determine if the ground surface could be removed1S under the tree limbs to prevent their removal
creating larger wounds to the tree than preferred. 16 Establishment of a one-year bond1? for the
protection ofthe Heritage Trees where there is major surgery is not adequate and the
reasonableness of a longer time period needs to be addressed. Another issue that needs to be
addressed is what time of the year is best for pruning18. Furthermore, building structures should
not be allowed within the drip lines of any Heritage Trees.
Footnote 10 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: Resolution 82-85 Condition 16: "Project
grading performed within 25 feet of the drip line of existing onsite or offsite trees shall be
addressed by a horticultural report and the recommendations and fmdings of that report
incorporated into the grading and improvement plans of the project." (Emphasis added)
~
/}& 01 ?-~7
Footnote 11 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: Section 5.60.40(b) Heritage Tree
Ordinance states: "A tree required to be preserved as part of an approved development plan,
zoning permit, use permit, site development review or subdivision map." (Emphasis added)
Footnote 12 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: Section 8.04.020(F) Purpose: "Protect and
preserve the natural environment of the City of Dublin." (Emphasis added). "To promote and
protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort, convenience and general welfare and to preserve
and enhance the aesthetic quality of the City..."
Footnote 13 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: Encarta@ World English Dictionary @ &
(P) 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury
Publishing Pic.
Footnote 14 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: See letter from Jeffrey Gamboni,
December 6, 2000 paragraph 1.6: "Potential negative impacts resulting from pruning: the pruning
of tree # 340 is major su~ery requiring the removal ofa 27 inch trunk from a 40 inch diameter
trunk. .." (Emphasis added)
Footnote 15 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: Staff noted on page 6, paragraph 1 ofthe
12-12-00 Agenda Statement, that removal of existing soil to natural grade could potentially
destabilize Brittany Lane. Appellants contacted Dr. Robert Pyke, B.E., PhD, to look at the
Custom Lots to assess if the current grading is necessary for the geological stability for Brittany
Lane, Dr. Pyke is an expert in the area of geotechnical analysis and has extensive experience with
landslide problems in the East Bay and other regions of California. He told us that any notion that
the grading ofthese Custom Lots is necessary to support the stability of Brittany Lane is
"poppycock". We have attached his resume and recent work experience as Attachment #3 for
reference.
Footnote 16 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: See HortScience Inc., Heritage Tree
Protection Plan, T. 5073 page 7 paragraph 3. "This pruning will create larger wounds than
preferred. . ..."
~o>.w~
~3-1. <\~
Staff and the Planning Commission have preserved 340 as required by Condition 16 of City
Council Resolution 82-85. Condition 16 requires t~at project grading performed within 25 feet of
the drip line of existing onsite or offsite tre~e addressed by a horticultural report and the
recW1!:.endations and fmdings of that repo~~corporated into the grading and improvement plans
of~roject. A horticultural report dated July 5,1985, was preE!!fed by Douglas Hamilton for
Tracts 5072, 5073 and 5074. A Tree Protection Plan (AttachmenP#) dated received December 4,
2000, was prepared by Nelda Matheny ofHortScience for this project, The project was designed
pursuant to the Tree Protection Plan. Conditions of approval of the SDR will ensure that the
requirements of the Tree Protection Plan are imp1emented)including the preservation of Tree 340.
A subsidiary trunk of Tree 340 will be removed as part of the pruning of all trees within 100 feet
of proposed structures to a height of6 feet above the ground. The requirements of the Tree
Protection Plan have been included as conditions of approval ofthis ~t..s17i2...
Point 3-2.
Staff and the Planning Commission have preserved Tree 340 as required by Section 5.60.40(b) of
the Heritage Tree Ordinance. That Section defines a Heritage Tree as a tree required to be
preserved as part of an approved development plan, zoning permit, use permit, site development
9
?'I,cr6 ). V5
4 of 6 12/21/00
Notice of Appeal ofPA 00,,:009
RECEIlIED
DEe 2 1 2000
DUBLIN Pi "1\.
IJi'wN1NG
t;eov"iD
3-3
Section 8.04.020(F) for the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance12, September
1997 for the health and welfare of the citizens of Dublin. All three of these
ordinances taken together require preservation of tree 340.
Issue: Staff and Commission failed to address and enforce
Condition 16 of Resolution 82-85, Section 5,60.40(b) of the Dublin
Heritage Tree Ordinance, and Section 8.04,020(F) of the City of Dublin
Zoning Ordinance.
E>iAJUtJY
3- Y
Under these sections, Staff and Commission were required to
establish a tree preservation plan instead of a tree protection plan,
Appellants contend that preservation is defined as follows: 2. a keeping of
something unChanged: maintenance of something, especially something of
historic value, in an unchanged condition 13 . Tree protection plans are more.
suitable for Heritage Trees defined under Section 5.60.40(a) Heritage Tree
Ordinance, which addresses trees of a certain size but does not mention any
requirement of preservation.
G f20\.) l\.J 1)
3-5
&t Qoo )..) '\) ~-~
<Cl fZov J'.l'\) ?; ~ 7
(;zQo~ 1VD 3-- e
Tree 340, was not preserved by proposed Resolution approving P A
00-009 and no effort was made to investigate tree preservation which is the
spirit of the Heritage Tree Ordinance as stated in Section 5,60.20 Purpose
and Intent. ( For example, housing could be sited a sufficient distance from
the trees to prevent unnecessary and severe pruning14. No investigation
was made to etermine if the ground surface could be removed15 under the
tree limbs to prevent their removal creating larl1er wounds to the tree than
preferred. 16 I Establishment of a one-year bond for the protection of
Heritage Trees where there is major surgery is not adequate and the
reasonableness of a longer time period needs to be addressed.l Another
12 Section 8.04.020(F) Purpose: "Protect and preserve the natural environment of the City of Dublin."
(Emphasis added). "To promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort, convenience and
general welfare and to preserve and enhance the aesthetic quality of the City..."
13Encarta@ World English Dictionary @ & (P) 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Pic.
14 See letter :from Jeffrey Gamboni, December 6,2000 paragraph 1.6: "Potential negative impacts resulting
:from pruning: the pruning of tree #340 is major surgery requiring the removal of a 27 inch trunk :from a
40 inch diameter trunk..." (Emphasis added).
IS Staff noted on page 6, paragraph 1 of the 12-12-00 Agenda Statement, that removal of existing soil to
natural grade could potentially destabilize Brittany Lane. Appellants contacted Dr. Robert Pyke, B.E.,
PhD, to look at the Custom Lots to assess if the current grading is necessary for the geological stability for
Brittany Lane. Dr. Pyke is an expert in the area of geotechnical analysis and has extensive experience with
landslide problems in the East Bay and other regions of California. He told us that any notion that the
grading of these Custom Lots is necessary to support the stability of Brittany Lane is "poppycock".
We have attached. his resume and recent work experience as Attachment #3 for reference.
16 See HortScience Inc., Heritage Tree Protection Plan, T. 5073 page 7 paragraph 3. "This pruning will
create larger wounds than preferred..."
17 General Condition 103.
4
fvavl.n.>\)
3-4
IJ 5 ~ .,2'/5
5 of6 12/21/00
Notice of Appeal ofPA 00-009
ReceIveD
DEe 2 1 2000
DUBLIN PLANNING
Ground for Appeal 4. City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan
Resolution 84-96, July 9, 1996 was not fully considered, resulting in a
denial of Due Process.
issue that needs to be addressed is what time of the year is best for
pruning18 , Furthermore, building structures should not be allowed within
the drip lines of any Heritage Trees.
~ (Zol> l0j)
4-}
Issue: Staff and Commission failed to consider the necessity of two
roads and proper fire access19 to the proposed Custom Lots adjacent to
open space and/or undeveloped land outside the current Dublin Urban
Limit Line.
6 Dbu"-'\:) ..
4- '"2-
Issue: Staff and Commission failed to consider the proper
construction requirements20 for buildings on lots adjacent to undeveloped
land.
6 6.2-bU JV 't:>
Lf-3
These issues were not allowed to be discussed or addressed before
the Dublin Planning Commission by verbal order of the Chairman of the
Planning Commission. This is a denial of Due Process and therefore, is a
proper issue in appeal for the Health, Safety and Welfare of the residents of
the City of Dublin in this appeal. Tree 340 as it sits today before
development, is not in violation of the Wildfire Management Plan. Only if
housing is placed within 100 feet of the tree do the provisions requiring tree
trimming apply. We are not aware of any Development Agreement
mandating the particulars of this proposed development. Confusion exists
as to what standard is being. used to determine what grade or ground level
is being applied to determine the height of tree limbs. It is unclear if Staff
and the Commission are using "natural grade" or "rough grade" or
undocumented fill to apply the Standards For Vegetation Establishment
And Maintenance21.
Gl lli/ll\.l9 .5- \
Ground for AppealS. Denial of Due Process22
b&?coJ....lt> 5-2- Issue: Appellants were not allowed to present Issues and Points for
Review of the Agenda Statement. 23
18 We noted that development adjacent to San Ramon Road in San Ramon, included fencing beyond the
miD lines of the existing oak trees. Consulting Arborist Stephen Batchelder, recommended pruning for
heavy lateral branches be performed during the months of August or September. See letter dated May 5,
2000 to City of San Ramon as Attachment #4. See also photos of protected trees in Dublin as Attachment#7
19 See page 9 Dublin Wildfire Management Plan: "OPEN SPACE ACCESS".
20 See page 5 Dublin Wildfire Management Plan: "CONSTRUCTIONREQUIRElvffiNTS FOR
BUILDINGS ON LOTS OR PARCELS ADJACENT TO OPEN SPACE AND UNDEVELOPED LAND".
21 See page 8 Dublin WildfIre Management Plan: Vegetation Establishment Guidelines 10% to 20% Slope.
22 See Letter to the Mayor Guy S. Houston dated December 17,2000 by Richard and Christina Bond as
Attachment # 5.
23 See attached Issues and Points for Review sections 1 through 9, and exhibits referenced therein (Pages 1
though 8) Attachment #6.
5
6 of 6 12/20/00
Notice of Appeal of P A 00-009
1)6 ~ l-~5
The issues and points contained in the attached Issues and Points for
Review are hereby incorporated by reference.
kr. \l..ov r->j)
b-\
Ground for Appeal 6. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING P A 00-009
BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT SITE DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW FOR SEVEN SINGLE-F AMIL Y HOMES ON EXISTING
LOTS ON BRITTANY LANE IS NOT CONSISTENT IN ALL
RESPECTS WITH:
ReceiVED
DEe 2 1 2000
DUBLIN PLANNING
A. The Heritage Tree Ordinance
B. The Dublin General Plan and Zoning Ord~ce
C. The City Council Resolution 82-85
D. City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan Resolution 84-96
Appellants respectfully request that the above grounds and issues be
considered and that appropriate changes be made to proposed Resolution
for P A 00-009 or that the P A 00-009 be denied and sent back for further
review and refinement.
Signann:,es of residents/appellant
A-
I
~,/ !
/,... ./
/' I
....,,' Ji /
.?:?-c'f"-- ; ~/" I' ,
r II ')0 f?t^t~,~ L0
lduh Cp reef- q47{;f
~/ ',':d-, ", .
~.., - --- - """'&.-
w# '
;; /513 ~t:.77/JjV'7L.v
/Ji/b, L/1'-",' / tt'"fi, " };9%':s~ 1\,
f/ /-111 .
._~//,,,j)/) " \ / .~~
PP"1\~/
If{:,--a~~~
~(ler:f1d
6
;JIp~,
! ) / 'l:J--, f:,h'+f~ 4-
m{j~ Y\ c; c.; S(p 'l
Ru4~ .
rJll.PlP !3y;tt ,- L
~)hl;fVl CA ?~JCY
'~~.
III (00 bflffctuy Lau.a
Dd!ln{ C4 91-f5G8
--C~~
I;; 7'1 8R...17Tjj,IV)/ ~tJ6
vugL/A.!/ G, ?51->r?6'
Rece~ved: 10/13/2000
. 10/13/QO lS: S1 FAX
IS :2ISPM; ->C:l.1:Y 01' cub:!.:l.n PW/F:l.re; *415; Page 2
71'1f ;.1-)5
1aI0021005
..
A rrA~h~E~T
-
.4.. (QA)E)
1ft
KlEINFELDER
Art fllnpl"YH ownmf i;'onlQ.lny
October 13,2000
Klcinfelder File No. 10-3008-181009
City of Dublin Finance Control No. S24
City of Dublin Department ofBnginccring
100 Civic Plaza
P.O, Box 2340
Dublin, California 94568
REceiVED
DEe 2 1 2000
DUBLIN PLANNING
Attention: Michael Stella. P .E.
Associate Civil Engineer
Subject:
Supplemental Review of Geotechnieal Engineering Reports for Brittany
Loe and RollingHiDs Estates by Blaek Moantain Development, Tract 5073,
Lot 1 and Lots 7 throagh 11 of Block 1, in Dublin, California
Dear Mr, Stella:
Introdu.ction
As requested in your letter dated September 27, 2000, we have reviewed three additional
geotechnical engineering reports pertaining to the subject proposed residential development.
Review of these additional reports was suggested in our August 31, 2000 letter to you, which
presented results of our review of geotechnical-related documents submitted at that time to the
City of Dublin Public Works Department ("City") by Black Mountajn Development, in support
. of its permit applications for the project,
The documents that we reviewed initially are listed in our August 31 letter. Based on the results
of that review, we recommended in our August 31 letter that ENGEO Inc. ('''ENGEO''), the
Geotechnical Engineer of Record to Black Mountain Development for the project. should
provide further documentation concerning two geotechnical aspects of the s1rip of fill that is
located along the south side of Brittany Lane on the upper portions of Lots 7 through 12:
1) Based on the subsurface exploratory soil probes performed along the :till strip by
ENOEO, as presented in its April 6, 2000 Foundation Exploration report, it appeats
that some preexisting, undocumented fill may have been present along the strip prior
to the grading that was performed in 1985; (the fill could have been placed during
grading for Old Farm Road, wbich is now Brittany Lane). Also, ENGEO's April 6,
2000 geotechnical report does not provide documentation of the placement and
compaction of this strip of fin.
10-0008-181009 (lOlOI;..902YJb Page 1 of4 Od'ober 13, 2000
@ 2000 Kleiafelder, me.
K L EI N FEr. D ER 7133 KolI Center Parkway, Suite 100, Ple;sanlon, CA 9"156&-3101 ('325) 464-1700 ('325) 484-.:iR38 fax
~eceived: 10/13/2000 5:28PM; ->City o~ Oub~in PW/Fire; *415; Page 3
,?g- ~ ).1/5
IlJOO:l/005
..10/1:1/00 15: 51 FAX RECEIVED
DEe 212000
DUBLIN PLANNING
".As stated in Comment No.2 on page 4 of our August 31, 2000 letter: .....there are
three additional reports by ENGED Inc, that should provide' further documentation
concerning the condition of the strip of fill located along the south side of Brittany
Lane on the upper portions of the subject lots. The typi.cal section shown for the fill
withkeywayand subdrain at Lots 9) 10 and 11, on Sheet 9 of Wilsey & Ham's June
26, 1990 as-built drawing, S"'.lggests that all or most of the preexisting fin on those lots
may have been removed and replaced with compacted fill during the 1985 grading.
This should be verified by ENGBO Inc....
2) ENGEO's April 6, 2000 geotcchnical report for the proposed project does not address
the static stability of the .filled slope and provides only a brie~ generic discussion of
stability under seismic conditions. As stated in Comment No.4 on page 4 of our
August 31, 2000 letter: "Presumably, ENGEO Inc.' s additional reports listed above,
will discuss the stability of the subj ect hillside . lots with the existing .fill, under static
and seismic conditions. This should be verified by ENOEO Inc. 0'.
Supplemental Review CommeDts
The three earlier ENGEO reports that were refenmced in ENGEO's April 6, 2000 report and
provided to us by the City for this review are the following:
1) ENGEO Inc.; Report on Soil Exploration, Neilson Ranch; Project No. 0756~B5; April
14, 1981.
2) ENGBO Inc.; Report on Testing and Observation Services During Grading, Progress
Report No.1; Project No. N6-0756-Bll; January 9, 1986.
3) ENGEO Inc.; Review of Current Lot Conditio1lS, Tract 5073, Lots 6 through 12,
Brittany Lane, Dublin, California; Project No. 0756-E24; January 25, 1993.
We have reviewed these three reports for information pertinent to the two geotechnical questions
discussed above. The January 9, 1986 report provides documentation concerning the general
geotechnical observations and compaction testing perfonned during the rough grading performed
in 1985 for a total of 82 residential lots in Subdivisions 5072 and 5073, including the subject
Lots 1 and 7 through 12 of Block 1 of Subdivision 5073. While the report does not specifically
address either of the two questions discussed above, the report does state that (page 2 of 3):
"Based upon the results of our testing and observations through January 3, 1986, it is our opinion
that the rough grading at Bordeax Estates in Dublin, California, is proceeding in accordance with
the recommendations and specifications included in the referenced report." (Note that the
""referenced report" is ENGEO's April 14, 1981 report, which contains geotechnical gradilJg
recommendations for an approximately 50-acre property that includes the subject Lots 1 and 7
through 12 of Block 1, Subdi.vision 5073.)
10-0008-181009 (1010L902)/Jb Pag<<::.2 of4 October 13.2000
@ 2000 T<lcinfeJder. Inc.
KL EI N F ElO ER 7133 KolI Ce-nter Parkway, SuitE:' 100, Pleasanton, CA 94566-3101 (9.25) 464-1700 (925) 484-5638 fax
Received: '0/'3/2000
5:26PM;
->Ci~y o~ oub1in PW/Fire; H4'5;
PBPrECEIVEO
Ut"C 212008
DUBLIN PLANNJNG
17 ~ ;J-~5
tal 0041005
. lO/u/on 15: 51 FAX
Based on our review of these three additional reports, we have found no :further SCOteclmical
documentation. concerning our two questions discussed above. Therefore, we recommend that
ENGBO should be contacted to provide its opinions and recommendations concerning these
questions.
Additionally, BNGEO's January 25, 1993 report identifies two additional geotechnical
conditions that should be addressed for the proposed development of Lots 1 and 7 through 12:
1) ~ page 1 of the report, ENGBO states: "At the time oftbe site visit on January 22,
clusters of boulders filled a ravine on Lot 9. Some settlement of the boulders and soil
had occurred on the lot. The thickness and extent of the boulders on the lot in the
ravine is uIucnown. The clustered boulders beneath portions of the building pad could
impact the development of the lot.n Concerning this condition. ENGEO recommends
on page 8 of its April 6, 2000 report: "The clusters of boulders at Lots 8 and 9 will
have to be removed to allow for construction on the existing slope and eliminate the
hazard they may present to people".
2) On page 1 of the January 25, 1993 report. ENGEO states: "A cursory check of the
south facing slope found some hummocky and irregular terrain. Subsurface
exploration of the slope is recommended.". This condition does not appear to have
been evaluated in ENGEO's subsequent Apri16J 2000 report, and we recommend that
ENGEO should be contacted to provide its evaluation and recommendations, as
appropriate.
Limitations and Closure
This review has been performed at the request of request of the City of Dublin. Our role has
been to provide technical advice to assist the City in its discretionary pe:rmit decisions. Our
services have been limited to the review of the documents identified in this letter. We have
employed accepted geologic and geotechnical engineering procedures, and our professional
opini.ons and conclusions are made in accordance with generally accepted geologic and
geoteclmical engineering principles and practices that exist in the San Francisco Bay Area at the
time this letter was written. No other wmanty is expressed or implied.. Our review did not
include any field explorations or analysis, other than a cursory site reconnaissance. Also. our
review did not include checking of the documents for conformance with state or local
governmental codes or client requirements. This review does not relieve the geotechnical
engineer for this project from his sole responsibility as Geotechnical Engineer-of-Record for the
project.
] 0-0008-181009 (1010L902)fjb Page 3 of 4 October 13.2000
@ 2000 Kleinfclder, Inc.
KLEl N F El D!: ~ 7133 KolI Center Parkway. Suite 100. PleasiUllon, CA 94566.3101 (915) 484-t700 (925) 484-563& fiX
R.ce:Lved: 10,/13/2000 5:28PM. ->C:L1:y 01' OubJ.:Ln PW/F:Lre; ##4115; Page 15
go ~ ;;.."1::;
IaJ 005/005
'19YUt/(f0 lS : 51 FAX
We tru.st that the information provided. above will assist you in your on-going evaluations of the .
proposed project. Please call us at (925) 484-1700 if you have questions concerning this letter
our associated services. It is a pleasure to be of continuing consulting engineering service to the
City of Dublin.
Sincerely.
RECEIVED
DEe 2 1 2000
KLEINFELDER, INC.
~q)1,,~cq';< /J.
Lawrence R. Houps. C,:e,. G.E.
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
DUBliN PLANNING
cc: Donald Bruggers. C,E., G.E. J ENGEO, Ine,
LHljb
1 ().()()os-t 81009 (101 OL902)1jb Page 4 of 4 October 13. 2000
. 0 2000 KlciDfc:ldu. Inc.
KL El N F E '- 0 ER 71 JJ Koll CenTer Parkway, Suite. 100, Pleasanlon, CA 94566-3101 (92.5) 484-1700 (925) 484-5838 fax
December 12, 2000
To: The Dublin Planning Commission
From: The residents of Brittany Lane
RE: PA 00-009 BlackMountain Site Development Review for seven single-
family residences on existing lots on Brittany Lane, Request for
postponement and reconsideration.
..
A 17ACh.MEi'ff
Z -
RECEIVED g I .crf ). (5
DEe 2 1 2000
DUBLIN PLANNING
Condition 6, 82-85 has not been met.
Tree preservation has not been addressed and only given a one-year
guarantee by placement of a one-year bond.
We recommend that this SDR application P A 00-009 be referred back to
council for'reconsideration for the following reasons:
l The thrust of the Staff Report is that the Conditions of Resolution
82-85 have been properly addressed. This properly places the Conditions in
82-85 as the controlling standards for development of these custom lots as
envisioned and set in place in 1985 when the zoning creating these custom
residential lots was created by the Dublin City Council. The 1997 Dublin
Zoning ordinance known as Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is not
applicable where the Conditions in Resolution 82-85 are more restrictive. It
is inappropriate to apply Section 8.36.110.C.2 of the 1997 Zoning Ordinance
to this SDR which would allow these homes to be 35 and 40 feet high where
the conflicting requirement in Condition 6 setting heights to 25 feet
perpendicular to natural grade is more restrictive and shall apply as set forth
in Section 8.04,060.D.1. To change this rule now would be changing the
rules in middle of the game. These conditions were known to the developer
at the time of purchase and run with the land. These conditions also created
view shed rights to the Dublin Citizens and the neighboring community.
There are no valid reasons for stating that these rules should not be followed
and Dublin Citizens should not be deprived of their benefit. More effort
should be made to address these conditions without modification and
determine development under the existing standards,
Section 8,04.060.D.1 of the 1997 Dublin Zoning Ordinance states:
1
Request to postpone Dublin Planning Commission Hearing on P A 00~009
December 12, 2000 to allow the City Council to reconsider the Heritage Tree Ordinance
1. Other Municipal code provisions. If conflicts occur between
requirements of this Ordinance, or between this Ordinance andDUBLlN PLANNiNG
other regulations of the City, the most restrictive shall apply.
(emhasis added)
$:!- ~ ).~5
RECEIVED
DEG 2 1 2000
II. There are no definitions or mention of "Common Engineering
Practice" in the 1997 Ordinance or Resolution 82-85 that modify or defme
Natural Grade and therefore the 1997 Ordinance definition of Natural Grade
in Section 8.08.020 applies because there are no other standards that are
more restrictive. The definitions clearly state the current grade on these
. custom lots today, is the Rough Grade a~ defmed in Section 8.08.020.G.b
and not the natural grade as defined in Section 8.08.020.G.a. But Condition
6 clearly requires that height measurements be made from the natural grade.
. Section 8,08.020.G.a of the 1997 Dublin Zoning Ordinance states:
a. Existing or natural grade: The contour of the ground surface
before grading. (emphasis added)
b, Rough grade: The stage at which the grade approximately
conforms to an approved grading plan.
ITI. The Heritage Tree Ordinance 29-99 has not been properly
addressed to consider tree preservation. Instead, tree protection has been
addressed. There is no attempt to address tree preservation plan under this
ordinance, The Staff report is incorrect because:
Staff has applied the incorrect definition to these Heritage Trees by applying
Section 5,60.40(a) when they should apply Section 5.60.40(b) of the
Heritage Tree Ordinance 29-99, It should be noted that staff has designated
all 19 trees as Heritage Trees by a condition of approval of this SDR even
though only 12 trees are over 24 inches in diameter 4 feet 6 inches above
natural grade. This is appropriate and we agree with Staff because all 19
trees are "protected" trees under definition "b" of a Heritage Tree. Staff is
in error however, when they state that these are Heritage Trees under
definition "a".
2
Request to postpone Dublin Planning Commission Hearing on P A 00-009
December 12,2000 to allow the City Council to reconsider the Heritage Tree Ordinance
Section 5.60.40-Defmitions states:
. DUBLIN PLANNING
"Heritage Tree" means anv of the following: (emphasis added)
(a) Any Oak, Bay, Cypress, Maple, Redwood, Buckeye and
Sycamore tree having a trunk or main stem of24 inches or
more in diameter measured at 4 feet 6 inches above natural
grade;
(b) A tree required to be vreserved as part of an approved
development plan, zoning permit, use permit, site development
review or subdivision map; (emphasis added)
(c) A tree required to be vlanted as a replacement for an unlawfully
removed tree. (emphasis added)
%:3 % JL/5
RECEIVED
DEe 2 1 2000
All nineteen trees on these custom lots are "preserved Herita2e
Trees" due to Condition 16 in Resolution 82-85 which states "Project
grading performed within 25 feet of the drip line of existing onsite or
offsite trees shall be addressed by a horticultural report and the
recommendations and fmdings of that report incorporated into the grading
and improvement plans of this project." (emphasis added) Condition 16
clearly requires that these trees were to be preserved in 1985. (See Douglas
Hamilton letter dated 7-5-85, tract 5073, tree group 4 "The blue and live
oaks are magnificent specimens, worth preserving.") Therefore definition
"b" is the appropriate definition, which requires that these trees be
preserved. Because there is no section in the Heritage Tree Ordinance 29-
99 that properly address a tree preservation plan but only a tree protection
plan which is appropriate for a Heritage Tree under definition "a" there is a
need for the Dublin City Council to further consider tree preservation under
definition "b" and make refinements of this ordinance including further
definitions and requirements for tree preservation before the Dublin
Planning Commission adopt any proposed Resolutions on this matter.
General Condition 1 06 (page 18) of proposed General Conditions
correctly notes that all of the trees are subject Section 5.60.40.b Heritage
Tree Definition but omits any reference to tree preservation. Tree
preservation is required by this section, tree protection applies to 5.60.40.a.
3
Request to postpone Dublin Planning Commission Hearing on P A 00-009
December 12,2000 to allow the City Council to reconsider the Heritage Tree Ordinance
yet ~ J~5
RECEIVED
DEe 2 1 2000
We request that this matter be postponed and sent back to the Dub..... ~
City Council for further refinements and direction on the Heritage Tree
Ordinance before any decisions or rulings are made by the Dublin Planning
Commission. In our opinion a ruling ignoring Heritage Tree preservation
would destroy the stated intent of the Dublin City Council and the Dublin
Planning Department, and the entire Ordinance. Therefore is urgent and
appropriate that this matter be sent back to the Dublin Council to define and
refine the. Heritage Tree Ordinance 29-99 consistent with their stated intent
before applying it to this Site Development Review P A 00-009.
1.:1..../:.- .,0
~ 1;;'/1'100
~ ~y~
1').../ ('" t:rD
'... (l!Jl M)
...f..-t3~ - Iz-I.z/rre-
-..
'-~~sr . 10~/~o
~ ~ I'J./''J./OD.
4
Request to postpone Dublin Planning Commission Hearing on P A 00-009
December 12, 2000 to allow the City Council to reconsider the Heritage Tree Ordinance
..
Robert Pyke, Consulting Engineer
RESUME
A1TA4~,,~)
.3
%5 ~ ?-~5
RECEiVED
DEe 2 1 2000
DUBUN PLANNING
EDUCATION
B.E. in Civil Engineering, University of Sydney, 1963 Ph.D. in Civil Engineering,
University of California, 1973 [major in geotechnical engineering; minors in rock
mechanics and environmental planning]
EXPERIENCE
Australian Department of Works. 1964 to 1968
Staff Engineer engaged in investigations, design and construction of a major earth-and-
rockfilldam and trunk water supply pipelines.
University of California, Berkeley - 1969 to 1973 ..
Teaching and Research Assistant; conducted research for Ph.D. thesis on settlement and
liquefaction of sands during earthquakes.
Dames & Moore, San Francisco - 1973 to 1976
Project and Senior Engineer on a variety of projects involving the behavior of
foundations and earth structures subjected to wave and earthquake loadings including
nuclear power plants, earth dams, pipelines, harbor facilities and offshore platforms.
Self Employed - 1977 to present
Individual consultant on special geotechnical problems.
REGISTRATIONS
Civil Engineer, California, 1976
Geotechnical Engineer, California, 1987
PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES
American Society of Civil Engineers
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
Seismological Society of America
United States Committee on Large Dams
Structural Engineers Association of Northern California
1076 Carol Lane, Suite 136, Lafayette, CA 94549
Telephone 925/283-6765 Fax 925/283-7614 e-mail bobpyke@attg10bal.net 0
g6 d ).1?
RECEIVED
DEe 21 2000
DUBLIN PLANNING
SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE
AT, Ac.J\ M f.NT
..3 .
11 ~)..~,
RECEIVED
DEe 2 1 looa
DUBLIN PLANNING
SLOPE STABILITY PROBLEMS
Various Foster City Levees - Static and seismic slope stability analyses for Dames and
Moore and TransPacific Geotechnical Consultants.
Blackhawk Country Club - Review of causes of past landsliding and recommendations
for improved practice, for Blackhawk Corporation.
Memorial Hospital, San Leandro - Review of proposed and final landslide repairs of
slope
adjacent to the Hayward fault which had failed during a previous repair, for Harlan-
Miller- Tait.
Abalone Cove Landslide, Palos Verdes Peninsula - Consultant to R. T. Frankian and
Associates on methods of analysis for large, natural. landslides.
Bollinger Canyon, Moraga - Consultant on interim repair of access road to Lawrence
residence.
The Geysers Power Plant No. 21 - Analyses of seismic stability of reinforced earth berm,
for Cooper Engineers and Pacific Gas & Electric Company.
Candelaria Landslide, Central Andes, Peru - Consultant to Ing Jose Luis Velarde on
repair of landslide threatening hydro-power plant.
West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill and Hazardous Waste Management Facility-
direction of consolidation and stability analyses for landfills and levees overlying Bay
Mud.
Sky Valley Country Club, Vallejo - Consultant on design analyses and remedial
construction for utility corridor crossing large active landslides.
Calabasas and Puente Hills Landfills, County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
- In association with Herzog Associates, analyses of static and seismic stability of lined
landfills.
Sunol Quarry - Consultant on evaluation of static and seismic stabilty of gravel pits
adjacent to the Calaveras fault.
Anderson Ranch Subdivision, Danville - Third party review of dispute regarding possible
ancient landslide. Expert witness in litigation resulting from subsequent landslide.
Supervision of ultimate repair. Investigation of separate cut-slope failure.
Proposed Portola Valley Estates Subdivision - Member of four person review panel
evaluating opposing opinions on feasibility of constructing parts of subdivision over
ancient landslides.
Proposed Quarry Hills Subdivision, Los Altos Hills - Review of differences regarding
occurrence and mitigation of debris flows.
RECE,vf! ~,-4
DEe 2 1 2000
Strawberry Vista Subdivision, Tiburon - With Phoenix Geotechnical, geotechnical DUBLIN PLANNING
engineer for grading recommendations in area of 1andsliding upslope from proposed
development.
TerraBay Subdivision, South San Francisco - Conduct of slope stability analyses of
alternatives for long term stabilization of Landslide D which had failed during a previous
repair, for. GeolResource Consultants~
Avalon Subdivision, Fremont - Consultant on long-term stabilization of deep-seated
landslide partially activated by grading, for Earth Systems Consultants.
Santa Lucia Preserve, Monterey County - Consultant on evaluation of static and seismic
stability of ancient landslides, for Cleary Consultants.
The Greens Condominiums, Simi Valley, California - Expert witness regarding opposing
views regarding evaluation of slope stability.
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant - Consultant to Harding-Lawson Associates and
Pacific Gas
& Electric Company on slope stability analyses for ASW pipelines replacement.
The Lido, Redwood Shores - Consultant on evaluation and repair of failure caused by
temporary fill over Bay Mud, for Geo-Resource Consultants.
Tasman Light Rail Project, Santa Clara County - Consultant on evaluation of stability of
new levee, for GeolResource Consultants.
San Jose Highlands Area, City of San Jose - Participant in sub-regional geologic studies
of three parcels for Gill Properties.
Genoa Drive Landslide, San Diego - For Jeffrey A. Johnson and City of San Diego,
consultant on evaluation of failure of a previously repaired slope.
San Juan Capistrano, Orange County - For Eberhart & Stone and Western Pacific
Housing, consultant on feasibility of development on ancient landslide.
See major project experience for dams, landfills and harbor facilities for additional
experience relative to the evaluation of slope stability.
Additionally, Dr Pyke has supervised the development of the slope stability computer
programs
TSLOPE, TST AB, TSLOPE3 and TELSLOPE and serves as a consultant on their use. D
Deborah Raines, AICP
Senior Planner, City of San Ramon
2222 Camino Ramon
San Ramon, California 94583
;-.
A1J~~ 4- _
%? ''If' ~tJj.
Stephen Batchelder, Consulting Arborist
1534 Rose Street
Crockett, California 94525
State Cont. lie. (C-27)<'533675
Phone (510) 787-3075
Fax (510) 787.3065
FlECEIVIE/J
DEe 21 2000
DUSLlN PLANNING
DATE: May 4, 2000
SUBJECT: Tree Protection Fencina
Dear Ms. Raines,
This letter is to eonfinn that the Henry Ranch tree protection guidelines have been followed thus
'ar. I was in attendance at the pre-clearing meeting with Ken Manning, Soli Enterprlse.lnc..
Also In attendance was Fred Romer, Senior Engineering Inspector with the City of San Ramon.
.....
All at-risk trees have been encircled with orange, pla.tic coristroction fencing. Chain link
fencing was used for the residence of Mr. Mrs. Philip Henry.
I have been monitoring the demolition and clearing operation which is now in progresses. Up to
this point. there has been no impact upon trees designated for pres.lVation and aU is going in
accordance with plans and our last discussions.
Photo et Iigh( $bows the
c1Hring opfHBtiDn il
progre$$, F.noed".. at
Ie" II the E~ tAle
being t~rIy kept due
to neating birds.
Trees t 34 & 35
These trees were impacted
by exploratory excavation
prior to the beginning of the
Clearing operation. As a
result, these trees will require
supplemental watering and
care to mitigate the Ioat
roots. The disturbed area
will require the application of
RECEIVED
DEe 2 1 2000
Henry Ranch, SIn Ramon
WlUiIrILyon Homea.lnc.
Tree ProtecUon Fencing
DUBliN PLANNING .
pi' ). 1-1<5
Batcheldet. Arborist f p llZJ
514100
,
tWo inches of good quality compost, covered with lIIx Inches of the organic mulGh being
generated by the clearing operation. Nitrogen fertilizer may also be required.
Photo to Iif1ht shows ,,", 113<1 and
<<J5 suTrOUltd<<l by protectNe
fem:lng. 80th t,.." WBntlmp8ded
by eatflr, un-monItontd.
eKPkWtory aJtC8\18'ioII. These
trees" AJqIIft extta C8I8 to
~ they do not dectfJe In he""
fIB a 18811I of any root IoIs they
may bav.lUflenKI.
G.n..... T.... Mitigation
.....ur.. to begin with
SU. Grading
Due to the avallabHity of
water and equipment, it is
not practical to begin any
tree mitigation measures
until the grading begins.
This Is expected in about two
weeks.
Mulchina - All larger oak trees on the site are to be mulched with six inches of the organic
mulch being generated by the clearing opel1ltion,
EarlY Root Prunina - Trees which wiHbe impacted from grading or other construction activities in
cut slopes will require root pruning prior to grading. An root pruning II to be under the direct
supervision of the arbot1st. At the time roots are pruned, additional mitigation measures wilt be
pr:escribed based upon the amount of tree root loss.
SUDDlemental Watering - Supplementa' water shal' be availabfe at the st. prior to any root
pruning. If required, a tank (200 to 500 gaBons) can t)e put in place near the t.... impact areas.
The tank will be ref1Jled as required by a water truck, Water can be applied by . sprinkler, 8
soaker hose, drip emitter, or any other method deemed practical under the circumstances and
approved by the arboriat. Soil moisture i8 to be monitored by arborist throughout the summer
months. Soil moisture information will be recorded and recommendations will be provided for
the summer of 2001.
Prunina - Little pruning Is required at this time. Valuable trees hiVing heavy lateral branches or
poor structural stem attachments should be pruned during Auguet-September of 2000. Other
necessary pruning is to provide necessary clearances. .
This report is submitted by:
.5,~.~~ . A5~/Ab
Stephen Batchelder, Consulting Arborist
Certified Amorist .226
2
~
-.
Mayor Guy S. Houston
Dublin City Council
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin CA 94568
RECEIVED
nE.e 2, 1 LOOO
oua\..\N pl.ANN\NG
AT I-A""~
b -
9~ ~)4:5
17 December. 2000.
Sir.
Planning Commission of 12th December 2000
We and many of our neighbors attended this commission to present our case regarding PA 00-009, a site review
for homes proposed in Brittany Lane.
Dennis Carrington produced an excellent and lengthy report for the City. covering many points at issue and also
addressing many items we had raised with the Planning Department since this new development was first
proposed. The commission, chaired by Mr. Johnson, sat through a full reading of this report and paid careful
attention to its many details. This took some considerable time.
The residents of Brittany Lane also prepared a very detailed report, addressing not only many points in the staff
report, but also items in the COAs and the Resolution. This was a necessarily long report because it was very
thorough, covered most of the items in Staff's lengthy report and more besides. This single report was produced
through several meetings of all residents and agreed by all residents as representing a common view. Rather
than have upwards of 12 people presenting random infonnation we chose to have two people present this single
report, written carefully to follow the Staff Report. COAs and Resolution in order to make it easy to follow for
all present.
. We were initially denied the right to present the report this way. Eventually we were allowed to commence our
presentation; however fairly early on we were told we had three minutes and then we were told five minutes to
finish the whole thing. Significant comments regarding construction fire codes, tree preservation issues and the
construction period itself were never heard.
Serious concerns regarding drainage issues and fire access, raised by other local residents, were heard but were
ignored and ridiculed respectively. Subsequently the resolution was passed without addressing these important
issues.
This public hearing was held to hear details and comments regarding a construction project that affects the
safety, the quality of life, the finances and the environment of concerned residents of Dublin. It turns out that
much more time and discussion were allocated to the review of a freeway auto-mall sign.
We witnessed commissioners debating on the basis of hearsay and conjecture; experts being used to browbeat
non-skilled residents rather help unravel technically difficult material; decisions being made on the basis of
opinion rather than fact; and a chairman behaving in a rude and dismissive manner throughout.
We, the residents of Dublin, elected you to appoint balanced, effective, polite commissioners who will act in the
best interests of Dublin; we the tax payers pay for the commissions with same expectation. We expect and
deserve significantly better service and respect when participating in a public hearing.
Although we have authored this letter, you can be assured that every resident we spoke with after the hearing felt
the same way.
Sincerely,
i~1 ~~
-~\~
Richard and Christina Bond
11182 Brittany Lane
Dublin CA 94568.
cc. Vice Mayor Janet Lockhart, Council Member Tony Oravetz,
Council Member Claudia McCormick. Council Member George Zika.
. <
w..
.--
_ ATTAQA,ME.Nr
~
f:j 2; ~ J.~ 5
REceivED
OEe 2 11.000
DUBUN PLANNiNG
Issues and Points for Review
at the
Public Hearing
held by
City of Dublin Planning Commission
regarding
Proposed Development
Planning Commission Agenda Statement
Public Hearing Item 8.4
PA 00 - 009
Black Mountain Development Site Development Review
12th December 2000
prepared by
RESIDENTS OF BRITTANY LANE
~' - ~ "
CONTENTS
RECEIVED
DEe 2 1 2.000
1 Preamble
2 Staff Report PA 00-009
2.1 Conformity with resolution 82-85
2.2 Condition 3
2.3 Condition 6
2.3.1 Natural Grade
2.3.2 Grading done properly
2.3.3 Flexibility
2.3.4 Deviation & RefInement
2.3.5 Bryce Davies Home
2.3.6 Impacts to views
2.3.7 Condition 6 Complied With
2.4 Condition 12
2.5 Condition 16
2.6 Views/Height Limits re-iterated
2.7 Natural Grade re-iterated
2.8 Shall v. May
2.9 Improper placement of soil.
2.10 Soil Placed Within Drip Lines of Heritage Trees
2.11 Heritage Tree Ordinance
2.12 Tree Protection Report
2.13 Tree 340
2.14 Cash Bond
2.15 Project Design
3 COAs
4 Proposal Resolution
5 Land Values
5 .1.1 Valuation
5.1.2 Purchase Price
6 Silvergates Homeowners Association
6.1.1 Membership
6.1.2 Compliance with requirements
6.1.3 Fire Hydrant Lot12 and 9
7 The Construction Period
8 Future Issues
8.1 Compliance
8.2 Lot 6
8.3 Vehicles
8.4 Signs
9 Conclusion
DUBLIN PLANNING
2
9'111 )'/5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
RECEIVED
DEe 2 1 2000
DUBLIN PLANNING IJ I J5
1 Preambler 5 ~ ~ '7
Establish that all regulations are established to provide benefIts and duty [burden]. In this review, the benefIciaries
are the residents ofDublinlBrittany Lane/HomeOwners association, the burden is on developers in Dublin.
Weare here primarily here to discuss preservations of our views; would not be here unless we were already
provided with protection.
2 Staff Report PA 00-009
2.1 Conformity with resolution 82-85
It is explicitly stated that 82-85 condition 6 "exists and has been complied with....all of its conditions" <page 5>
this can only mean that condition 6 is the controlling regulation this development
82-85 has 23 separate conditions or the entire development over 200 homes; of that 200 only 12 lots are subject to
special restrictive conditions and seven of these lots are covered the subject of this review and seven of these lots are
on Brittany Lane. Thus they are mandated to be treated differently than any others in the city.
Only conditions 3, 4,6,7, 12, 16, 19 are covered in Staff's report.
2.2 Condition 3
Observation shows that this condition for side yard set back allows houses to be placed closer together than our
homes.
2.3 Condition 6
Condition 6 is more restrictive than the 1997 ordinance that allows a maximum height of 40 feet on steep slope
developments.
Staff agrees that condition 6 applies. BUT they do not follow condition 6. Staffs interpretation and application of
condition 6 uses such severe "deviation and refInement" that it is being changed beyond reasonable limit
2.3.1 Natural Grade
Staff is using common engineering practice to defIne natural grade; natural grade is defmed by the law not by
engineers.
exhibit 2.3.1: viewgraph definition natural grade
The legal defmition is provided in the 1997 ordinance - there is no defmition or reference for "common engineering
practice grade" or for "new ground surface" in the 82-85 Resolution or in the 1997 Ordinance.
2.3.2 Grading done properly
Residents have previously seen a large color photograph of the area taken some time after grading was originally
commenced at the site. This photograph cannot be produced as evidence because it has since been lost. This
photograph showed:
. Rocks placed at the base of the ravine to shore up more rocks used to fIll the ravine; rocks were NOT meant to
be left on site at all. Some rocks were dumped against trees.
Today it is easy to see:
. Note steel drain duct in the gully that either should be in the keying or was dumped as superfluous
. Many rocks in the stream [note only near the ravine - there are NO natural rocks in this stream]
exhibit 2.3.2a & b: show drawings of original grading plan and existing grade - major differences
The grading was not performed in conformance with the plans.
Conclusion - this grading was NOT done properly, and should not be the starting point for further development
planning.
3
Note that the depths given in the report are average and in places the fIll is 18 feet. Why do we say that?
exhibit 2.3.2c: show spreadsheet calculations from pre-grade drawing datum
exhibit 2.3.2d: show grade graph spreadsheet
The soil test engineers told us some of the depths measured were 18 feet.
Other potential buyers backed out because of soil condition and slope.
2.3.3 Flexibility
Agree deviation/refInement is reasonable, BUT cannot use 1997 zoning ordinance to deviate because that ordinance
specifically says only the more restrictive shall apply.
The clear intent of condition 6 is to preserve views for residents by severely restricting the heights of the houses; this
condition allows for small changes; staff incorrectly uses 8.36.110.C.2 because that ordinance specifIcally states that
more restrictive provisions shall apply.
Staff is using vertical measurements and the controlling ordinance requires perpendicular measurement from natural
grade. Not a deviation, not a refInement simply, changing the rule. .
Staff's statement that usable homes cannot be constructed within condition 6 rules is pure opinion with absolutely no
supporting.
2.3.4 Deviation & Refinement
Applying the 40 foot rule is not an appropriate deviation; condition 6 is more restrictive. This is improper
interpretation of the 1997 ordinance...
exhibit 2.3.4: vieWgraph 1997 ordinance
RECEIVED
DEe 2 1 2000
DUBLIN PLANNING
9rf:, ~ i-~:3
2.3.5 Bryce Davies Home
"There were no appeals of the staff approval"
exhibit 2.3.5:
show letter
We did this with a firm understanding that every SDR is dealt with independently and other reviews do not create
any binding precedent.
2.3.6 Impacts to views
"impacts to views minimized" - this is not a minimized impact relative to the rules of 82-85, only with respect to the
1997 ordinance.
!!! !! "could be 35 and 40 feet high" allows future owner and lor successor developer to request height increases. !!!!
Beware of setting precedent for future developments - this major deviation will be used for just seven homes and it
will come back and bite elsewhere on much more signifIcant developments.
Impact on view as described is opinion. The opinion that matters is that of the residents (not staff) OR make it
objective by having a computer simulation of the loss of view taken from each residence, before and after.
The provided simulated view from across the canyon does not reflect the future views from the eye of the beholder.
It is from the back of the homes and it is taken from above eye line giving a false impression of view in the
reciprocal direction. Where is a simulated view from the reciprocal direction i.e. street level, north side of Brittany
Lane?
exhibit 2.3.6: show drawing
The FACT is that the developer gave drawings to the residents on two occasions prior to the hearing; at every one of
the several meetings with the developer, he strongly recommended to residents that they agree the development on
the basis of these drawings. These drawings show homes between 8 and 2 feet lower than the plans presented in the
report. This therefore shows that it IS POSSIBLE to build homes that have LESS IMPACT ON VIEWS than the
homes proposed.
2.3.7 Condition 6 Complied With
We contend that there are substantial reasons why condition 6 is not complied with.
Staff is using "deviation and refmement", ignoring "perpendicular measurement" and re-defIning natural grade to
rewrite condition 6 without citing any bona fIde authority.
4
RECEiveD
DEe 2 1 2000
2.4 Condition 12 DUBLIN PLANNING
States that these ARE custom lots, subject to individual/grouped SDR; thus Bryce Davies SDR does not set a .~ _ / rJ:5
precedent to this review. Please note that there are only 12 custom lots in the entire housing project and that they q "J PlJ ). 7
have specifIc detailed development restrictions, the validity of which, is not disputed by the staff report.
2.5 Condition 16
Condition 16 mandates that the trees must be saved and this is the basis for ''tree preservation" rather than "tree
retention" - heritage tree ordinance to be discussed later.
exhibit 2.5a: viewgraph of oak tree root protection zone RPZ
Note: drip line is a visible guideline for the RPZ which is generally taken as 50% greater than the drip line. It is the
RPZ which is the determining parameter in tree preservation NOT drip line; altering original drip line does NOT
alter the original RPz.
exhibit 2.5b:
viewgraphs rocks on trees
2.6 Views/Height Limits re-iterated
Condition 6 not met.
Views not minimized - computerized view simulation from Brittany Lane side requested
Vertical height replacing perpendicular
Ignored natural grade and substituted rough grade
1997 ordinance used instead of resolution 82-85
Staff says that these homes could be 35 to 40 feet high in line with current ordinance- how can this possibly be in-
line with the intent of condition 6 of 82-85 that is controlling here?
2.7 Natural Grade re-iterated
Natural grade is defmed in 1997 ordinance 8-11; what exists today is "rough grade".
exhibit 2. 7: Robert Pike Viewgraph
Any idea that removal of the soil would destabilize this ground is quote "popycock"
Staff agrees that adherence to condition 6 and natural grade WILL lower some of the homes and must therefore
further "minimize" impact on views.
2.8 Shall v. May
exhibit 2.8: viewgraph shall v. may definition
Staff INCORRECTLY states our position that "shall" precludes deviation and refmement.
We agree that deviation and refInement is allowed in the ordinance BUT Staffis suggesting major deviations that do
not preserve the intent of the ordinance - Le. maintaining views.
2.9 Improper placement of soil.
The protected trees most likely have root systems in the buried rocks used for fIll. What will be the effect of
removing the rocks?
2.10 Soil Placed Within Drip Lines of Heritage Trees
It is possible that soil was not placed within the drip lines; however it is not possible that soil was not placed over
the RPZ which is the factor of importance to the oak trees.
2.11 Heritage Tree Ordinance
exhibit 2.11.a: viewgraph of heritage tree ordinance
Staff incorrectly uses 5.60.40 (a); they should use subsection (b) that is not addressed in this report and should be
sent back to the council for further defmition and instructions as to what procedures are to be taken for a tree to be
preserved under subsection (b).
Staff is not in compliance with the HTO because they have not addressed a tree preservation plan, instead they only
addressed a tree protection plan.
5
exhibit 2.11.b: viewgraph Dublin Heritage Tree ordinance 1 & 2.
This proposal does not follow the spirit of the Dublin Heritage Tree ordinance.
RECBVED
i[}iEC ! 1 BllDm
2.12 Tree .Protection Report
exhibit 2.12. a: diagram of oak tree measurements for RPZ placement - California Oak Foundation
Drip Line - is to indicate the root protection zone [RPZ] - typically drip line + 50% - and the rule of thumb for
protection and preservation is to leave the RPZ undisturbed; arbitrary adjustment of drip line does NOT change the
RPZ. All measurements and decisions must be relative to the natural RPZ.
~w~-
7r '71 ) q5
"The pruning required will create larger wounds than preferred, but is required by the fIre marshal" - only if
something is built close enough to the tree to impede preservation!
"A 30 foot root protection zone ..... is recommended" - this completely ignores all normal recommendations for
California oak protection - 50% beyond natural drip line which in this case is close on 75 feet.
Note: What kind of oak is this.? Evergreen oaks should be pruned in July/August.
exhibit 2. 12.b: Photo San Ramon development RPZ
This is tree preservation as administered by our neighbors in San Ramon
exhibit 2. 12.c: Photo East Dublin development RPZ
This is tree preservation as administered by Dublin City in East Dublin - but apparently not in Brittany Lane - is
this a double standard?
2.13 Tree 340
exhibit 2. 13. a: Photo tree 340
This tree should be preserved; and the issue should referred back to council.
exhibit 2.13.b Photo tree 342 and others
Are other trees on the site that have the same topology to be similarly severely pruned?
2.14 Cash Bond
1 year not adequate to guaranty the survival of this tree - effects of development could be serious well after this time
- we need a report to confIrm a suitable period e.g. croWn rot may cause slow decline over a period of years. No
provision has been made to guaranty that future owners will protect/preserve these trees [other than an inspection
which does not place an obligation]. Also the requirement of a one year bond means that the builder is not required
to guarantee the survival of tree 340 beyond a one year period after severe pruning and construction in the root
protection zone.
When does the bond period start - after completion of construction?
2.15 Project Design
Staff says that the average height is the average height is 13.16 and also says that it could be 35 - 40 feet high - this
is not satisfactory for determining hard and fast COAs that could be closely adhered to throughout a development.
If this is the accepted standard, then the future owners as well as the builder could apply for height increases based
on the fact that they have not been allowed to build into the allowable height limit as established by the planning
staff.
3 COAs
#18 - Heritage trees shall be pruned in conformance with the WildfIre Management Plan - Staff report states that
certain paragraphs of the WMP do not apply because this is not heavily wooded area; this confIrms that the WMP
applies to this development. Therefore where are the other requirements of WMP covered i.e. construction
requirements [sprinklers, eaves, exposed decks etc.], access roads etc.
#19 - The dimension of the TPZ is not specifIed. In any event, a 30 foot RPZ for a 50 foot diameter tree is
ridiculous.
6
RECE~VED
DEG 2 1 2000
4 Proposal Resolution
DUBUN PLANN!NG
#38 Pad elevation should be checked BEFORE concrete is poured not 'prior to occupancy' - how can any practical . /15
recovery from a height error be made after concrete has been poured? 1'? ~ )- '1
5 Land Values
5.1.1 Valuation
Strictness of implementation of the special provisions affects the valuation of our homes
RefInance appraisal states that house has premium value because of view; what effect does height have on value?
Get independent valuation to assess effect based on appropriate computer simulation.
5.1.2 Purchase Price
Was low, because Woods said "it was a steal" [$138k ?]; of course it was low because of the well known and long
established difficulties with the site.
Other purchaser dropped out because the grades and soil condition were considered to require some signifIcant civil
engineering to stabilize the ground for construction
6 Silvergates Homeowners Association
6.1.1 Membership
6.1.2 Compliance with requirements
6.1.3 Fire Hydrant Lot12 and 9
Is the location satisfactory?
7 The Construction Period
The COAs should contain binding requirements regarding:
. Days/times on which work will be allowed
. Start and fInish dates - allowable duration
. Noise abatement
. Dust and trash abatement
. Road cleaning
. Damage repair [street, sidewalks, existing properties and frontages]
. Storage of materials
. Contractor Parking
8 Future Issues
8.1 Compliance
How will the city insure compliance with the Planning Commissions Stipulations and Conditions?
We were advised by staff that we, the residents had to check that pad heights etc. were conforming to the resolution
and COAs. Surely that is not the residents responsibility?
8.2 Lot 6
What is happening?
7
9 Conclusion
Exhibit 9: Letter to the Dublin Planning Commission to be handed over at the hearing.
8
RECEIVE~
DEe 2 1 2000
2 . I. 2. 0-
/0/15Jt)1
California Oa~L'oundation
90912th Street, Suite 125, Sacramento, California 95814 (916) 448-9495 $1.00 Donation
(ji)
Care of California's Native Oaks
A Word About Roots
Our natiw oaks havl' developed
survival adaptations to the lonH,
dry summers of most of California.
Primary to this survival is the dt.....
velopment and characteristics of its
root system. W11t?n an acorn first
sprouts, thert? is rapid root devel-
opment and wry little growth
above ground.
This initial ront is cl tap root ex-
tending deep undel'J;round for de-
pendable moisture. In fact, the
trt'e's first few years an.' fl>cuseu on
establishing a dl'Cp sustailling root
system. On('e this has happened,
gn'att>r foliage and above-ground
growth takes place.
As lhe l\ak grows, tht:' tap root is
outgrown by ill' e~Jwiv~ laler~
.(9lJ,t,5~~~ thall'pre<llls horizon-
tally out from the trunk to and well
beyond the driplint..', sometimes as
Nativt.! oaks, when young trees,
are vt'ry tulerant of their envi-
ronment ilnd make l'xccllent and
adaptabl~' landscapl' m;sets. The
mature native oak is an invaluable
pilrt uf our cnviroOlnt'nt but dut's
not tulerate mal'y chanAcs once
established.
".; Architects, buildt..'rs, hnmt'own-
\ ers, and others should l'ie very care-
ful in fiUin~ their plans with thes~
ma~nificent gi.mts. Any substan-
tial change in thl' matun;-()aK"si:n.
vir()fim(\m~t,n1 ~ea1<~1f"m'1(i'l1"'an
d~.k~ ~,,-c.n_~..~:~lfhyspedmcn.
A Aood rult' of thumb is to kcwe
~~~~-
thl' trec'~ rool protection zone
(RPZ) undisturbt.'d. This area,
which is half a~"in .\s large as the
area from tilt.' trunk tn tht' driplinc
(Sl.'e diagram bdmv), is the most
critic,ll to tht' o.lk. Manv roblt~ms
for oaks Gm bl' inHi..'tl. w istur
-ing the roots with~ this Z;ll~l;!.-
......
much as 90 feet. For a Ill<'\ture oak,
t i!:l horhwntal root S 5t m lS the"
rimary suppt1rter of th ' or
e res I sIte. It includes the
Jl
important fine roots, which absorb
moisture and nutrients. Most of
the root system lx-curs within the
top thrt.'e f~t uf s(.lil. In shallower
soils the root system is Cllnccn-
trated in an ev~'n shallowt.!r zone,
typically one hI two fl'Ct below the
surface.
As the oak m..\tur~s, particularly
ill an.:oc,s naturally dry ill summer,
deep-growing vcrtk.ll roots fl\rm
off the lateral!i, usually within ten
fc<.~t of the trunk. Thest... sinker
roots exploit dt'cper soil moisture
and add stability to an increasingly
massive tree.
By the time" mature oak has
estctblishl.-d its l'laborate root
systcm-S(l well dl"Si~n('d for its
The ffiOSl cruclal arca u; wilhin
six feel of t.h~ lrunk. 00 not
irrigale, plant. or disturb the :.oil
in lhis area.
The drip line is an imaginary
line on the Bround and directly
below the.- outermost tips of the
bl'2nches. II roughly inscribes a
circle around the tree.
:4- DRIP L1H!;
~~~-'''-2=:::-=-; ~.~_:.~
.... ,~. ...... ....... ~ "'-.;; .... -'~
.,
.
l- .......~..........._
..
. -...... ~
--- ~ :>--....~.....:f '"
- '"
I
.
TIlt! root protection zone (RPZ) is 1.5 times largcr than the
arca from the Ironic to !he drip line. Minimizc disturbance,
irriBalion, and planting in this area.
,
, 4--~-
-..
~VC1 p~~TtCrIOl"izoNt
Ornr,.tIIg Ity N,,,,~y r'''L'Y
J<<-
1-
2,
RECEIVED
DEe 2 1 2000
/05 1.5)"/7
RI!Ci1'VID
A~j~) 2 1 1~98
DUaUN' PLANNING
August 6, 1998
DUBLIN PLANN1NG
Mr. Eddie Peabody, Jr.
Community Development Director
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
It-
2,3r~
From: John Anderson and Diane White 11174 Brittany Lane, Dublin, CA 94568
David Bewley and Susan Bewley 11166 Brittany Lane, Dublin, CA 94568
Richard Bond and Christina Bond 11182 Brittany Lane, Dublin, CA 94568
Ronald Miklebost and Stephanie Leonard ] 1150 Brittany Lane, Dublin, CA 94568
Gerald Weiss and Kathleen Weiss 11158 Brittany Lane, Dublin, CA 94568
Manuel Marcos and Sharron Marcos 11275 Rolling Hills Drive, Dublin, CA 94568
Raymond Hunt and Robin Hunt 11281 Rolling Hills Drive, Dublin, CA 94568
Mark Saake and lannie Saake 11198 Brittany Lane, Dublin, CA 94568
Subject: Reauest for Notification of Proposed Development oranl' ortbe seven
undevelooed custom lots on Brittanv Lane and one lot on RollinS! Hills Drive. Dublin
California
Dear Mr. Peabody,
We, the undersigned would like to be notified when an application has been made for the
development of any of the undeveloped lots on Brittany Lane and Rolling Hills Drive. We
understand that these lots are defined as lots I through 6 Block # 1 (one) of tract 5073 having the
following postal addresses: 11151, 11159, 11167, 11175, 11183, 11191 and 11197 Brittany
Lane, Dublin, CA 94568 and the single lot on Rolling Hills with the postal address of 11299
Rolling HiUs Dr. Dublin, CA 94568.
It is our understanding that these custom lots are zoned for residential use under planned
development zoning and are part of the Silvergate Homeowners Association. Each of these
custom lots has steep grades and some trees, and difficult settings that require a site development
. review and your approval before any development of custom. homes is to be approved.
Also, it is our understanding that each lot is to be a custom home, and each lot must be
individually assessed as to site layout and architectural considerations with specific conditions of
1
/t)tj ~J1j
approval and design criteria. The criteria include setbacks. heights. grading. horticultural reports
and other health and safety considerations as set out in Resolution No. 82-85. dated August 12.
1985.
We would like to be notified when an application to develop any of these lots has been filed. We
would appreciate you or your staff infonning us ifthere are any requests to modify any the
enumerated conditions of approval contained in Resolution 82-85.
&nL
Richard Bond
~~'ke~
H~~ ~i~~
RECElvt:D
DEe 2 1 2000
DUBLIN PLANNING
2
'-
(J.
'"
~
-<-
d,j
~
2, J . 2.
1155' set back
II 45' set back
035' set back
II 25' set back
1115' set back
II lot boundary
II curb of road
...
CD
.!
c
o
:s
>
CD
'i
Topographic View of Brittany Lane Lots 7 through 11
~ot boundary
660
590
650
640
630
620
610
600
.><:
o
III
..Q
W
VI
CD
.....
.><:
o
B
11
~
.><:
M
..Q
W
VI
~
Natural Grade Prior to Grading
""
CIOM
~..Q
11
fB
CIO
CIO
C")
REtENED
DEe 'l, 11.000
N p\..j').NN\NG
oueu
:.~~.
0
C")
feet from datum [boundary lots
~
IJ'\
'='\
~
-!:....
~
f!. 13. J. d v d
.........
~
'.J
~
'\v
-c..
~
11650-660
11640-650
.630-640
lEI 620-630
lEI 610-1
~O.,
90
~
if & e-
;!j ~ i?
(j ~ ~
J!I C\) J
~ :-
~ ;-;
{Jj
~
55' set back
35' set back
set back
curb of road
4
428
89
70
o
3.2 ~
2
It
410 430
407.73 427.62
600 597.5
603 600
605 602
605
606.5
610
605.56
608
612
618
607.66
390
387.84
604
606
610
612.5
622
622.5
609.76
370
367.95
614
620
622.5
623
611.86
606
608
350
348.07
608
610.5
614
620
622.5
624
613.96
310 330
308.29 328.18
613 611
618 619
622 621.5
623 622.5
624 623.5
625 624
618.16 616.06
290
288.4
612 613
617 620
623 623.5
624.5 624.5
625625
625.5 626
622.36 620.26
270
268.51
250
248.62
613
620
624
625
625.5
626
624.46
230
228.73
622 617
624 617
625 612
625.5 617
626 621
626 626
628.66 626.56
210
208.84
190
188.95
624
626
626.5
627
627
627
630.76
170
169.06
622
626
627
628
628
628
632.86
150
149.17
626
628
628.5
629
62g
629
637.06 634.96
130
129.28
628
628.5
829
629
629
629
110
109.39
630
630
630
629.5
629.5
630
639.16
90
89.502
631
.5
.5
631.5
631.5
631
641.26
631
631
70
69.613
633
636
639.5
637
636
635
643.36
50
49.724
640
644
644
641
640
639.5
645.46
ine declination
10 30
29.834
642
646
647
645
644.5
644
647.56
9.9447
648
649
648
650
649
648
649.66
-0.105
o
o
645
649
651
651
650
650
650.71
road grade
Distance from datum slope of road
Distance from datum horizontal
55' set back
45' set back
35' set back
25' set back
15' set back
lot boundary
curb of road
o
o
"12/1
lot boundaries
from datum slope of road
from datum slope of horizontal
427.62
597.5
600
602
605
606.5
610
605.56
8
II "-
~;::;:! "'-
~ ~l \)
f~8r~
~ ~ it
!~I ~
~
"'<.,
\..f\
407.73
600
603
605
608
612
618
607.66
367.95 387.84
606 604
608 606
610
612.5
622
622.5
609.76
614
620
622.5
623
.86
61
348.07
608
610.5
614
620
622.5
624
613.96
328.18
611
619
621.5
622.5
623.5
624
616.06
308.29
613
618
624
625
618.16
622
623
248.62 268.51 288.4
613 612 613
620 617 620
624 623 623.5
625 624.5 624.5
625.5 625 625
626 625.5 626
624.46 622.36 620.26
228.73
617
617
612
617
621
626
626.56
88.95 208.84
624 622
626 624
626.5 625
627 625.5
627 626
627 626
630.76 628.66
169.06
622
626
627
628
628
628
632.86
149.17
626
628
628.5
629
629
629
634.96
09.39 129.28
630 628
630 628.5
630 629
629.5 629
629.5 629
630 629
639.16 637.06
89.502
631
631.5
631.5
.5
.5
31
6 Z6
631
69.613
633
636
639.5
637
636
635
643.36
49.724
640
644
644
641
640
639.5
645.46
29.834
642
646
647
845
644.5
648 644
849.66 847.56
9.9447
648
649
648
650
849
o
645
649
651
651
650
650
650.71
Distance from datum horizontal
55' set back
45' set back
35' set back
25' set back
15' set back
lot boundary
curb of road
'-
10
"'\)
~
~
~
'J\
5"1
A-z
A 17 Ac.h ,., '€~
7
IIT'~ ;2~:5
.--.-
,.. '," ~.
-y -
~'
~
<9,e,~,/V~'-
<!.,(/H>E PlAN
.....
....
2 ,3~
1~. .
-
.',' to
'.. .
.~.2 Gt
-'
~ R~t>1 N'~
..".
\.
.~.
PUN-
--
\.
:~'.. .
I"~' . '..
~ .. .
. ~.':
\'" '.
....'.:....
f\PffOY...IMAT6.L'i ~. FE~r
. '. .
. .' .
~ ': ~ \
, "
.' .,.
.FLAN~ I NG; RM\1}~w
Cures 1-\6/01i1'
6ilZO,
---
R?J;>fII1. s~cftfe
Sttw-IN U.S B,y
pr:9J/M CNU-ltJc. WN
l/ (30/&0 '
lqlf/ot>
Road
f?
Line of
;.
nl!!CElVED
DEe 2 1 2000
DUBliN PLANNING
LOT 8
FRONT ELEVATION
BRITTANY DRIVE
00011 ~
5 JUNE 2000 orzw~ w
0011AFPl.dw& PAGE 2
BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT a:::::.
~
"
~
-t.
\J\
o
A
R N
o
F
L
A
c
II
--
rJIlMGlf1EG1\IIZ.1IC.
N
L
B
u
o
D
RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA
ED! ARCHITECTURE, INC.
450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310
T 415.362.2880 F 415,394.8767
()
I
()
"l"
19/54 = 35% slope ALLOWABLE HEIGHT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
. .
~:ROPOSED l:IE~GHT
~
o[;i.
I.
~
"
N
I
, ,. "-:I
L_JIDAD);~_90~T~~T _
. , i
,
:N
~ I
."-:1
6"'.0
ClI&D
:r
2
50% line of
lower floch.
I.
II
If
,
~
I
abo~e . finisfued, ~rade
of LO~ER FloOR: I
. . I
. M~D !POINT of NATU
r------r~-----~--~--
., . ,
! 1 i .: ~ j
~'6' MAXIMUM HEIGHT
~ ALLOWABLE fot 50%
6O'fb
. ".' i
9' MAXti'1UM HIGHTd0
above hatural. in
grade f~
.If\
RECffJVEO
DEe 2 1 2DOD
Ol.lliSLiN PLANNiNG
I
I
I
\ill
Z
-
.....:l
:><
E-c
p::;
\il
p..
o
p::;
p..
"
.........
~
~
\..~
-t::..
\J\
~
01'2'9'4' e'
PAGE 2 b
BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT
2000
00011
5 JUNE
00l1AFP1.dwg
This corn'er of the site is. the steepest
therefore g,overns aU height requirements
LOT 8
CROSS SECTION
<) BRITTANY DRIVE. 0
_XIXIXJ: 8 JXIXIXIXIXlXlXlXlXlXlXlXl>< I
DUB L N . CALIFO" A
Arcbiltctun
_..--
~~nn.1NI:.
RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA
EDI ARCHITECTURE, INC.
450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310
T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.8767
r
t.
,.
!:
. ..
, . .
rnrn
~ i
I
j
RECEIVED
OEC2 1 2000
[lUBLIN PLANNING
"-
..........
~
~
~
...s;:..
\J\
00011 ~
5 JUNE 2000 orz~. w
OOllAFPI.dw. PAGE 2
BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT g
LOT 8..
REAR ELEVATION
0 BRITTANY DRIVE 0
. 0 JXlXlXlXIXIXJXIX[XJXlXlXlx ) I
DUBLIN .OALI"" A
Arcbitetlure
~el.f'C'l'"
RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AlA
EDI ARCHITECTURE, INC.
450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94111-3310
T 415.362.2880 F 415.394.8767
.'f'ff.. .
. '.'~'
y
~
ORDINANCE NO. 29 - 99
1/5 ~ :;..~~
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADDING CHAPTER 5.60 TO THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE
ESTABLISHING A HERITAGE TREE ORDINANCE
TEE CITY COUNCJL OF TIlE CITY OF DUBLllj DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
Chapter 5.60 is added to the Dublin Municipal Code to read as follows:
Section 5.60.10 - Title
This Chapter shall be known as "the Heritage Tree Ordinance"
Section 5.(JO.20 - Purpose and Intent
. This Chapter is adopted because the city has many Heritage Trees,the preservation of which is
beneficial to the health and welfare of the citizens of this city in order to enhance the scenic beauty,
increase property values, encourage quality development, prevent soil erosio~ protect against flood
hazards and the risk oflands1ides, counteract pollution in the air and ma.intain the climatic balance.
within the city. For these reasons the City finds it is in the pubijc interest, convenience, necessity and
welfare to establish regulations cOhtrolling the removal of and the presef'iTation of Heritage Trees
within the City. In establishing these regulations, it is the City's intent to preserve as many Heritage
Trees as possible consistent with the reasonal:>le use and enjoyment of private property.
Section 5.60.30 - Applicability
. This Chapter applies to all property within the City of Dublin, including private property,
residential and non-residential zones, developed and undeveloped land.
Section 5.60.40 - Definitions
The following words and phrases, whenever used in this chapter, shall be as construed as defined
in, this chapter:
"City" means the City of Dublin.
"Certified or consulting arbonst" means as arborist who is registered with the International
Society of Arboriculture and approved by the Director. .
"Development" means any improvement ofreaI property which requires the approval of zoning,
subdivisio~ conditional use permit or site development review permits. .
LDirector" means the Community Development Director or his/her designee,
"Heritage Tree" means any of the following: .
(a) Any Oak, Bay, Cypress, Maple. Redwood, Buckeye and Sycamore tree having a trunk
. or main stem of24 inches or more in diameter measured at 4 feet 6 inches above
natural grade; .
(b) A tree required to be preserved as part of an ap~roved development ~oning
permit, use permit, site development review'orsubdivision map;
(c) A tree required to be planted as a replacement for an unlawfully removed .tree.
1 ~TfAC)HIIENT 1+
Section 5.60.50 - Tree Removal Permit Required
/16 ~ ;.y5
(a) No person may destroy or remove or cause to be removed any Heritage Tree from any
property within the City of Dublin without obtaining a permit from the Director.
(b) Exceptions
A permit is not required for the following:
(1) If the condition of a Heritage Tree presents an immediate hazard to life or property, it
may be removed with the approval of the Director, City Engineer, Police .chie~ Fire
Chief or their designee.
(2) A tree(s) whose removal was specifically approved as part of a City approved
development plan, zoning permit, conditional use permit, site development review or
subdivision map.
(3) Normal maintenance pruning of Heritage Trees shaU.not require a permit but shall in
all cases be in conformance with the guidelines of the International Society of
Aboriculture, Tree Pruning Guidelines, current edition, on file in the Community
Development Department. ..
(c) Tree(s) removal requested as part of the dey~lopment ofaproperty subject to zoning,
subdivision, use permit, or site development review application approval shal1be reviewed
and approved by the body having final authority over the entitlement application.
Section 5.60.60 - Tree Removal P~rmit Procedure
. (a) Any person wishing to remove one or more Heritage Trees shall apply to the Director for a
permit. The application fora permit shall be made on forms provided by the Community
Development Department and shall include the following: .
1. A drawing showing all existing trees and the location, type and. size of all tree( s)
proposed to be removed;
2. A brief statement of the reason for removal;
3. If the tree or trees are proposed for removal because of their conditio~ a certified.
arborist's detennination ofthe state of health of the Heritage Trees may be .
required; -
4. Written consent of the owner of record of the land on which the tree(s) are
proposed to be removed;
5. A tree removal permit fee of twenty-five ($25.00) dollars to cover the cast of
permit administration. An additional deposit may be required by the Director to
retain a certified amorist to assist the City in assessing the condition of the trees;
6. Other pertinent information as required by the Director.
(b) Tree(s) removal requested in conjunction with an application for other development
entitlements shall provide to the Community Development Department a Landscaping Plan .
specifying the precise location, size, species and drip-line of all existing trees on or in the
vicinity of the property. The Landscape Plan shall alsO show existing and proposed grades
and the location of proposed and existing structures.
( c) The Director shall inspect the property and evaluate each application. In deciding whether
to issue a permit, the Director shall base the decision on the following criteria:
2
,..
. .
II? 4 ;..v,
1. The condition of the tree or trees with respect to health, imminent danger of falling,
proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services or
public works projects;
2. The necessity to remove the tree or trees for reasonable development of the
property;"
.. :3. The topography of the land and the effect of the removal ofllie tree on erosion, soil
retention and diversion or increased flow of stream waters;
4. The number of trees existing in the neighborhood" and the effect the removal would
have upon shade~ privacy impact~ scenic beauty and the general welfare of the City
. as a whole.
(d) The Director shall render a decision regarding the permit within ten (10) working days
after the receipt of a complete application.
(e). If an application to remove a Heritage Tree is being requested in conjunction with another
development entitlemen~ than the decision on the tree removal permit shall be rendered .
simultanegusly with the decision on:the development entitlement and shall be made by the
body having final authority over the entitlement application. In deciding whether to
H apPfQye a tree removal per,mit };1nder this su!,secticm, the.reviewing body shall consider the
criteria set forth in Section 5.60.60 (c) of this chapter." .
~'. . . -...,..
(f) The Director may refer any application to any City Department for review and
recommendation.
(g) The Director or the revie'Wing body having final authority over the development may grant
or deny the application or grant the application with conditions, inc1udin& the condition
that one (1) or more replacement trees be planted of a designated species, size and location;
Section 5.60.70 - Appeals
(a) Any decision of the Director, pursuant to this chapter, may be, appealed to the City
Council. Appeals shall be in vvritin& shall be signed by the applicant, shall state the
reasons the appeal is made, and be filed with the City Clerk within fourteen (14) days of
~en notification of the decision by tl!e Director. .Any appeal shall be accompanied by
an appeal fee in the amount established by resolution of the City Council.
(b) The City Clerk shall place all such appeals on the agenda of the ne},.'t'regular Council
meeting and shall give the appellant at least five (5) calendar days' notice of the time and
place of said hearing. Appeals shall be co~ducted in accordance with the procedures set
forth in Section 1.04.050 of the Code. The decision of the City Council shall be final.
Section 5.60.80 - Protection of Heritage Trees during construction.
Heritage Trees required to be retained pursuant to this chapter or by an approved development
plan, zoning permit, use permit, site development review or subdivision map shall be protected during
demolition, grading and construCtion operations.
3
Section 5.60.90. ~ Protection plan required prior to issuance of permit
lie. ~ ).~,
(1) A plan to protect Heritage Trees as described in Section 5.60.80 above shall be subm~~ed
. to the Director prior to the issuance of demolition, grading or building permits. The plan
,- shall be prepared and signed by a certified arborist and approved by the Director. The
Director may refer to a city-selected arborist for review and recommendation. The cost of
thi~'review shall be borne by the developer/applicant requesting said permit. .
(2) The Director may require that a certified arborist be .present on the project site during
grading or other construction . activity that may impact the health of the tree(s) to be
preserved.
(3) . Damage to any tree during construction shall be immediately reported to the Director so
that proper treatment may be administered. The Di~ector may refer to a city-selected
arborist to determine the appropriate method of repair for any damage. The cost of any
treatment or repair shall be borne by the developer/applicant responsible for the .
development of the project. Failure to do so may result in the issuance of a stop work
. order.
(4) The Director may waive the requirement for a tree protection plan if it is determined that
the grading or construction activity is minor in natUre and that the proposed activity will
not significantly modify the ground area within the drip-line or the area immediately
surrounding the drip-line of the tree(s).
Section 5.60.100 - Applicant to guarantee protection - security deposit
(a) The applicant shall guarantee the protection of the existing tree(s) on the. site not approved
for removal through placement of a cash bond or other security deposit in the amount
based upon the valuation of the trees acceptable to the Director. The Director may refer to
a city-selected arborist to estimate the value of the tree(s) in accordance with industry
standards. .
(b). The cash bond or other security shall be retained for a reasonable period oftime following
the aoceptance of the public improvements for the development, not to exceed one year.
The cash bond or security is to be released upon the satisfaction of the Director that the
'.,." ,. "-'.,. tree(s) to be preserved have not been endangered. The cash bond or security deposit shall
. be forfeited as a civil penalty for any unauthorized removal or destruction of a Heritage
Tree.
Section 5_60.110 - Public Utilities
. .Any public utility installing or maintaining any overhead wires or underground pipes or conduits
in the vicinity of a Heritage Tree shall obtain permission from the Director before performing any
work, which may cause injury to the Heritage Tree.
Section 5.60.120 - Violation - Penalty
(a) Any person who unlawfully removes, destroys or damages a
Heritage Tree shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of the appraised value of the tree. Ap. city-selected arborist shall estimate the replacement value of the loss tree(s) in accordance
4
, '
, ) , /17 ot';-Yj
with industry standards. The fee for the appraisal shall be added to the penalty established ,
by the appraisal,
(b)
Any person violating any portion of this Chapter that results in the loss of a Heritage Tree,
shall be required to replace said tree with a new tree and or additional plantings, of the
same species, The Director shall determine the size and location of replacement tree(s).
The Director may refer to the recommendation of a city-selected arborist.
SECTION 2:
./l'
Effective date and posting of Ordinance:
The Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. The
City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places
in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of .
California.
PASSED, APPROVED A.ND .ADOPTED this 21st day of December, 19,99 by'the following vote:
AYES:
NOES: .
. '
Councilmember McCormick, Vice Mtryor Lockhart and Mayor Houston
Councilmembers H award and Zika
ABSENT:
None
ASTAlN:
None
~ A- ftk~
ATTEST:
. Mayor
K2/G/12-21-99/ord-he
G'99.045\ORDIN.A.NCE.DOC
5
-l
],
"
I
I
-j
I
'~
,~
I
, \
I
!
i
.J
1
.
.
.
IN C_
HERITAGE TREE PROTECTION PLAN
Brittany Drive Estates, Tract 5073
Dublin, CA
PREPARED FOR
Black Mountain Development
12 Crow Canyon Court, Suite 207
San Ramon, CA 94583
PREPARED BY
HortScience, Inc.
4125 Mohr Ave., Suite F
Pleasanton, CA 94566
November 2000
RECEIVED
DEe 0 4 2000
DUBLIN PLANNING
/~D ob ,2.'15
.
,
\.
.
.
AlTACHMENT 5
j/</ ~ )Y5
Heritage Tree Protection Plan
Brittany Drive Estates, Tract 5073
Dublin, CA
Table of Contents
~
~:
Page
i'.
,r:;
Introduction and Overview
Survey Methods
Description of Trees
2
2
3
Suitability for Preservation 4
Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations for Preservation 6
Tree Preservation Guidelines 10
B
\''..
List of Tables and Exhibits
A
Table 1. Condition ratings and frequency of occurrence for trees 3
Ii:
r;
;:
Table 2. Suitability for Preservation
Exhibit A: Evaluation of Impacts to Tree #340,345
5
7
I'
!,
i.:
Exhibit B: Evaluation of Impacts to Trees #335, 341, 342
Exhibit C: Evaluation of Impacts to Tree #346
'Att~chments
8
9
ii,
Tree Pruning Specifications
Tree Survey Map
Tree Protection Fencing Plan
Tree Survey Form
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_ Heritage Tree Protection Plan, Brittany Drive, T. 4073, Dublin
November 24, 2000
HortScience, Inc.
Page 2
I ~.t ~) tj.J
Introduction and Overview
Black Mountain Development is proposing to develop six lots located on Brittany Drive
and one lot on Rolling Hills Dr. in Dublin, CA. The project encompasses portions on the
native oak woodland. The Tentative Tract map was approved by the City Council of
Dublin in 1985 in Resolution No. 82-85. That document requires preparation of a
horticultural report if project grading is performed within 25 feet of the dripline of trees.
Since that time a Heritage Tree Ordinance (No. 29-99) has been enacted that requires
preparation of a Heritage Tree Protection Plan. HortScience, Inc was asked to prepare
that report. This report provides the following information:
1. A survey of trees within the project boundaries.
2. An assessment of the impacts of constructing the proposed project on the trees.
3. Guidelines for tree preservation and protection during the design, construction
and maintenance phases of development.
Survey Methods
Trees were surveyed in July 2000. The survey included trees greater than 6" in diameter,
located within the project boundaries. The survey procedure consisted of the following
steps:
1. Identifying the tree as to species;
Ii"
2. Tagging each tree with an identifying ,number;
3. Measuring the trunk diameter at a point 54" above grade.
4.' Evaluating the health and structural stability using a scale of 1-5:
5 - A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptoms of
disease, with good structure and form typical of the, species.
4 - Tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig'cIieback, minor
structural defects that could be corrected.
3 - Tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback,
thinning of crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defeqts that
might be mitigated with regular care. '
2- Tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback,of medium to large
branches, significant structural defects that cannot be abated.
,1- Tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and/or trunk; most
,of foliage from epicormics; extensive structural defects that cannot be
abated.
o - Dead tree.
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
Heritage Tree Protection Plan, Brittany Drive, T. 4073, Dublin
November 24, 2000
HortScience, Inc.
Pag.e 3
/;;<~ ~ ;15
5. Rating the suitability for preservation as "good", "fair" or "poor". Suitability for
preservation considers the health, age and structural condition of the tree,
and its potential to remain an asset to the site for years to come.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Good: Trees with good health and structural stability that have the
potential for longevity at the site.
Fair. Trees with somewhat declining health and/or structuraJ cjefects
than can be abated with treatment The tree will require more
intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life
span than those in 'good' category.
Poor. Tree in poor health or with significant structural defects that
cannot be mitigated. Tree is expected to continue to decline,
regardless of treatment. The species or individual may have
characteristics that are undesirable for landscapes, and 'generally
are unsuited for use areas.
6. Recording the tree's location on a map.
Description of Trees _'
Twenty (20) trees were evaluated. Descriptions of each tree are found~jn the Tree
Survey (see Attachments). A summary is provided in Table 1. Tree locations are shown
by tag number on the Tree Survey Map (~ee Attachments).
The trees on the subject property are a portion of a small woodland associated with a
drainage course south of Brittany Dr. Two oak species were present on the south-facing
slope: . the evergreen coast live oak, which comprised 20% of the population and the
dedduous valley oak with 80% of the population (Table 1). Two of the oaks were on a
west-facing slope off Rolling Hills Dr.
\
As is normal for native oak woodlands, a range of tree condition was present, from
excellent to poor. Tree condition ranged from excellent to poor, 'althol!9h most (80%)
were in the good to fair category. Most were large, mature indiv!duals. Tree size ranged,
from 14" t061" diameter single-trunked trees. Average trunk diameter was 28". There
were six multiple-trimked trees with individual trunks ranging in size from 6" to 40".
Table 1: Condition ratings and frequency of occurrence of trees at T. 5073
Common Name Scientific Name Condition RatinQ No. of
Good Fair Poor Trees
(4-5) (3)' (1-2)
Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 1 1 2 4 (20%)
Valley oak Quercus lobata 7 7 2 16 (80%)
Total' 8 8 4 20
40% 40% 20% 100%
I
I
J
r
(,
I
f
I
I
Heritage Tree Protection Plan; Brittany Drive, T. 4073, Dublin
November 24, 2,000
HortScience, Inc.
Page -4
1:< tj .~ ;2 Y 5
Heritage Trees
City of Dublin Ordinance No. 29-99 identifies "Heritage Trees" as being any of the
following: '
1. Any oak, bay, cypress, maple, redwood, buckeye and sycamore tree having a
trunk of 24" or more in diameter measured 4.5' above natural grade.
2. A tree required to be preserved as part of an approved development plan, zoning
permit, use permit, site development review or subdivision map.
3. A tree required to be planted as a replacement for an unlawfully removed tree.
By definition #1,13 trees are Heritage. However, because the project was approved with
the trees at the Tentative Tract Map stage, all trees are now designated as Heritage by
definition #2.
I
Suitability for Preservation
Before evaluating the impacts that will occur during development, it is important to
consider the quality of the tree resource itself, and the potential for individual trees to
function well over an extended length of time. Trees that are preserved on development
sites must be carefUlly selected to make sure that they may survive development impacts,
adapt to a new environment and perform well in the landscape. ~
I
Our goa:l is to identify trees that have the l30tential for long-term health, structural stability
and longevity. For trees growing in open fields, away from areas where people and -
property are present, structural defects and/or poor health presents a low risk of damage
or injury if they fail. However, we must be concerned, about safety in use areas.
Therefore, where development encroaches into existing piantings, we must consider the
potential for trees to grow and thrive in a new environment as well as their structural
stability. Where development will not occur, the normal life cycles of decline, structural
failure and death should be allowed to continue. i
I
I
I
I
I
Evaluation of suitability for preservation considers several fact9rs:
. Tree health
Healthy, vigorous trees are better able to tolerate impacts such as root injury,
demolition of existing structures, changes in soil grade and moisture, and soil
compaction than are non-vigorous trees. '
. Structural integrity
Trees with significant-amounts of wood decay and other structural defects that
cannot be corrected are likely to fail. Such trees should not be preserved in areas
w~ere damage to people or property is likely. '
I
I
I
I
I,
. Species response
There is a wide variation in the response of individual species to construction
impacts and changes in the environment. Coast live oak has good construction,
while valley oak has moderate tolerance to impacts.
. Tree age and longevity
Old trees, while having significant emotional and aesthetic appeal" have limited.
physiologic'al capacity to adjust to an altered environment. Young trees are better
, able to generate new tissue and respond to change.
Heritage Tree Protection Plan, Brittany Drive, T. 4073, Dublin
November 24, 2000
r
r
t
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
HortScience, Inc.
Page 5
;)..:5' 1 ~~J
Each tree was rated for suitability for preservation based upon its age, health, structural
condition and ability to safely coexist within a development environment (see Tree Survey
Form). A summary is provided in Table 2. '
Table 2: Suitability for Preservation of Trees in Tract 5073.
Good
These are trees with good health and structural stability that have the
potential for longevity'at the site. . Eight (8) trees were rated as having
good suitability for preservation.
Tree No. Species Diameter '
(in.)
335
337
340
346
350
352
353
354
Valley oak
Val1eyoak
Coast live oak
Valley oak
ValleY oak
Valley oak
Valley oak
Valley oaK
27,23,23
25, 16
40,26
31
31
28
19, '18,15,13
31
Moderate
Trees in this category have fair health andlor structural defects that
may be abated with treatment. Trees in this category require more
intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter Iife-
spans tha.n those in the "good" category. Eight (8) trees were rated
as having moderate suitability for preservation.
Tree No. Species Diameter
(in.)
29
41
, 14, 13, 12, 11, 6
33
25'
17
61
17,13
338
342
343
344
347
348
,349
351
Valley oak
Coast live oak
Valley'oak '
Valley -oak
Valley oak
Valley oak
Valley oak
Valley oak
Low
Trees in this category are in poor health or ha"e significa.nt defects in
structure that cannot be abated with treatment. These trees can be
expected to decline regardless of management. The species or
individual tree may possess either characteristics that are
undesirable in landscape settings or be unsuited for use areas. Four
(4) trees were rated as having low suitability for preservation.
Tree No. Species Diameter
(in.)
20
22
j5
14
3,36
339
341
345
Valley oak
Coast live oak '
Coast live oak
Valley oak
Heritage Tree Protection Plan, Brittany Drive, T. 4073, Dublin
November 24, 2000
HortScience, Inc.
Page 6
I~b c{ ,2'15
We.. cqgsider trees with good suitability for preservation to be the best candidates for
preservation. We do not recommend retention of trees with low suitability for preservation
ina.rea.s;where people or structures will be present. Retention of trees with moderate
suitability for preservation depends upon the intensity of proposed site changes.
Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations for Preservation
Appropriate tree retention develops a practical match between the location and ,intensity
of construction activities and the quality and health of trees. The Tree Survey Form was
the reference point for tree condition and quality. Potential impacts from construction
were evaluated using the Composite Site Plan (June 2000) and house layouts for lots 8
and 9 (June 5, 2000) prepared by RMR Design Group.
Potential impacts from. construction were assessed for each tree. The project has been
designed to r$tain all trees; Normally we would not recommend retention of trees in poor
condition. However, because this is a native stand of oaks and the trees in poor condition
a.re downslope from the home areas, they can be retained.
Only'trees along the north canopy edge will be impacted by construction. These include
trees #335, 342,341, 340,345 and 346. Construction will occur within the driplines of
. trees #:340 and 341. Impacts to those trees are described in Exhibits A and B. . Field
staking of the house locations indicates that the homes will be approximately 34' from the
trunk centerlinesof#340 and 342. Significant pruning will be required to create clearance
under tree #340. The tree can be preserved with a protection zone of 30' from the trunk.
Pruning to raise the canopies off the ground is recommended tor trees #342, 345 and
346'. ' Spef::ifications for pruning are provided in the Attachments.
Roots of oaks typically extend for a long distance beyond the dripline. Construction of the
home~ on lot$ 7, 8 and 9 will encroach into the root area. However, ~we consider the
encroacnment to be within the tolerance level of the adjacent trees. We expeCt no
observable reduction ih plant growth or health from the construction., Fill placed outside
the driplines years ago when Brittany Diive was construction has had no observable
effect. A tree protection zqne $P' from the trunks on the north side of #340-342, and at
the dripline of #335, 345, 346, 353 and 354 are. adequate for their preservation. No
impacts to the trees will occur doWnslope from the trunks. '
The rock outcropping on lot 9 will be removed to construct the home; To eliminate
potential damage to trees on that lot we recommend retaining any rocks in place within
30' of the trunks.
Heritage Tree Protection Plan, T. 5073
November 24, 2000
Exhibit A: Evaluation of Impacts to Tree #340, Lot 8
r'
;,:':;',../,:
,;;;"c;:,
HortScience, Inc.
Page 7
I~ 71: tL/5
'''''f]
,:
. :";,.~,~\t;
n.";'?' .
. :<::':1.'~~1@: .
Tree #340 is a mature coast live oak with two trunks arising at
approximately 2' that are 27" and 40" in diameter. These trunks
divide again to form large scaffold branches at 3' and 5' : The
26" trunk bows to the northeast, touching the ground approxi-
mately 25' from the trunk (photo 3). The tree has formed an up-
per and lower crown (photos 1 & 2).
It appears that fill soil was placed outside the dripline of the tree
when Brittany Lane was 'graded years ago. The grade within the
dripline appears to be natural. The fill does not appear to have
had a significant negative impact on the tree. The tree is very
vigorous and healthy as i~ evidenced by the dense, deep green
canopy and numerous growth cracks along the trunk and scaf-
fold branches. As is normal in mature native oaks, there are a
number of dead branches throughout the canopy and several
small branch failures. In all, it is a magnificent tree that has the
potential to live for many more years.
Photo 1: Upper crown of tree #340
viewed from Brittany Lane.
".'''"",;,,.,,,,,",,,~",< Upper crqwn
Fire protection requirements dictate that tree canopies must be
pruned to clear foliage within 6' of the ground surface. Fire man-
agement treatments are required whether or not the property is
developed. Creating the' necessary clearance will require re-
. moval of the 27" diameter trunk and significant pruning of a 25"
scaffold branch (photo 4). This pruning will create larger wounds
than preferred, but is required by the Alameda Co. Fire Marshall
to protect surrounding homes from fire danger.
Photo 2 : Upper and lower crowns of
#340 viewed from the east. Tree #346
is on left.
Development plans are to construct a home on the existing
grade (see plot plan below). Based on field staking of the
structure layout, the back of the home will be 34' from #340,
extending into the dripline approximately 14'. The structure
placement will be adjusted slightly if needed following prun-
ing for fire management so that the back of the structure is
no closer than 5' from the canopy. Other trees on the lot
will not be directly affected.
Detail of lot 8 from RMR
Design Group
Detail.at left shows loca-
tion of home relative to
tree dripline and trunk. A
30' tree protection zone
on the north side of the
tree is recommended~
We consider this ade-
quate because of the
good vigor of this tree
and the and construction
tolerance of the species.
Photo 4 (right): Pruning
for fire safety will require
removal of 27" trunk
(orange arrow) and sig-
nificant pruning of a 25"
scaffold branch (blue ar-
row).
Photo 3: Scaffold from 27" trunk lying on
ground. Stake (arrow) shows location of SE
corner of the proposed home.
Heritage Tree Protection Plan;T. 5073
Aua.2.2000
Exhibit B: Evaluation of Impacts to Trees #335.341
and 342, Lot 9
Three trees form the canopy edge on lot 9. Tree #335 is a valley
oak with three trunks that is in good condition (photo 1). Trees
#341 and 342 are two coast live oaks that are growing closely.
#342, at 41" in diameter, is dominant, and has suppressed the
small 15" diameter tree (#341).
Uphill from the trees is a rock outcropping. There is no fill under
the tree from the Brittany Lane construction years ago.
Development plans are to construct a home uphill from the
trees (see plot plan below). 'Based on field staking of the struc-
ture layout, the back eastern comer of the hqme will be within
the dripline fo tree #342 a few feet (Photo 3). Because the
canopy touches the ground on the north, pruning Will be required
to raise the canopytb provide clearance. Removal, of one 8'\
one 6" and several smaller than 4" diameter branches will be re-
quired. This will have minimal effect on the tree.
A tree protection zone 30' from the trunks of trees #335, 341 and
342 is recommended.
Photo 3 (left): Stake for
southeast corner of home
(arrow) is located a few
feet inside the dripline of
#342. Pruning to raise the
canopy off the ground is
needed.
(
i
Photo 4 (right):
Stake for southwest
corner of home
(arrow) is outside the
. canopy of tree #335.
i",,:,..
, }.~~
'/.'l. ,:,.
, - }':,', '
Detail at left shows
location of home and
trees on lot 9. (Detail
from RMR Design
Group June 5, 2000).
HortScience, Inc.
Paae 8
I~g 1 ;.~j
Photo 1: Valley dak#335 has 3
trunks. ,.
Photo 2: Coast live oak #342 (right)
is dominant and in moderate
condition. #341 (left, arrow) is
suppressed.
Heritage Tree Protection Plan, T. 5073
November 24. 2000
ExhibitC: Evaluation of Impacts to Tree #346. Lot "7
HortScience, Inc.
Paae 9
I~r ,~ J t/5
One tr~e$forms the n6rthern canopy edge on lot 7 Tree #346 is a 31" diameter valley oak with three
trunks that is in good conqi'tlon (photo 1). Downslope on the lot are trees #347-350, which are also
valley oaks in moderate to good condition.
All trees will require minQ.r,pruning to provide adequate clearance for fire safety.
De\fce1opment plans are to cpnstruct a home uphill from the trees (see plot plan below). The back of
the home will be outside thedripline. The most significant impacts to trees will be pruning needed
forfire safety. Home construction will have minimal impacts.
A tree protection zorie at the dripline of the trees is recommended.
_,_, '_n_ _, ___,__,~_~r~~t
Photo 1: Valley oak #346
requires pruning to raise the
canopy for fire safety
(arrow). Home construction
will be outside the dripline of
the tree.
Detail at left shows locatiOn of
horne and trees on lot 7.
(Detail from RMR Design
Group June 5, 2000).
Heritage Tree Protection Plan, Brittany Drive, T. 4073, Dublin
November 24, 2000
HortScience, Inc.
Page 10
j5z:> ~ )~5
Tree Preservation Guidelines
; The goal of tree preservation is not merely tree survival during development but
maintenance of tree health and beauty for many years. Trees retained on sites that are
either subject to extensive injury during construction or are inadequately maintained
become a liability rather than an asset. The response of individual trees will depend on
the amount of excavation and grading, the care with Which demolition is undElrtaken, and
the construction methods. Coordinating any construction activity inside the Tree
Protection Zone can minimize these impacts.
The following recommendations will help reduce impacts to trees from development and
maintain and-improve their health and ,vitality through the clearing, grading and
construction phases.
Design recommendations
1 . A TREE PROTECTION ZONE shall be established 30' north of tree #340-342, and at
the driplines of #335, 345-346, 353-354. No grading, excavation, construction or
storage of materials shall occur within that zone.
2. All site development plans shall be reviewed by the Project Arborist for evaluation
of impacts to trees and recommendations for mitigation.
3. Retain the rock outcropping within 30' of trees #335 and 342.
4. No underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer shall be
placed in the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
5. Tree Preservation, Notes, prepared by the Consulting Arborist, should be
in~IUdedon all construction plans.
6. Irrigation systems must be designed so that no trenching will occur within the
TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
7. No landscape improvements such as lighting, pavement, drainage or planting
may occur which may negatively affect the health or structurar stability of the
trees.
8. As trees withdraw water from the soil, expansive soils may shrink within the root
area. Therefore, foundations, footings and pavements on expansive soils near
trees should be designed to withstand diff.erential displacement."
Pre-construction treatments and recommendations
1. Prune trees to be preserved to clean the. crown and to provide clearance.
Canopies shall be raised for fire safety to eliminate foliage within 6' of the ground
surface. All pruning shall be completed by a Certified Arborist or Tree Worker
, and adhere to the Tree Pruning Guidelines of the International Society of
Arboriculture. Specifications for pruning are provided in the Attachments. Brush
shall be chipped and spread beneath the trees within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
2. Fence all trees to be retained to completely enclose the TREE PROTECTION ZONE
on the north side of trees on lots 7,8 and 9, and on the south side of trees 353
and 354 prior to demolition, grubbing or grading as depicted in the attached Tree
Heritage Tree Protection Plan. Brittany Drive, T, 4073, Dublin
November 24, 2000
HortScience, Inc.
Page 11
/j/ ~ J-~)5
Protection Fencing Plan (see Attachments). It is.not necessary to fence trees on
the downhill side, away trom all construction. Fences shall be 6 ft. chain link or
equivalent as approved by consulting arborist. Fences are to remain until all
grading and construction is completed. .
Recommendations for tree protection during construction
1 . Prior to beginning work, the contractor is required to meet with the consultant at
the site to review all work procedures, access routes, storage areas and tree
protection measures. '
2. No grading, construction. demolition or other work shall occur within the TREE
PROTECTION ZONE. Any modifications must be approved and monitored by the
Consulting Arborist.
Spoil trom trench, footing, utility or other excavation shall not be placed within the
TREE PROTECTION ZONE, neither temporarily nor permanently..
If injury should occur to any tree during construction, it should be evaluated as
soon as possible by the Consulting Arborist so that appropriate treatments can be
applied.
No excess soil, chemicals, debris. equipment or other materials shall be dumped
or stored within the TREE ~ROTECTION ZONE.
Any additional tree pruning needed for clearance during construction must be
performed by a Certified Arborist and not by construction personnel.
Maintenance of impacted trees
Native oaks in proximity to homes require regular maintenance. It is recomme,nded that
the future homeowners be provided with a Guide to Maintenance for Native Oaks that
describes the care needed to maintain tree health and structural stability. Occasional
pruning, fertilization, mulch, and pest management may be required. In addition,
provisions for monitoring both tree health and structural stability must be made a priority.
As trees age. the likelihood of failure of branches or entire trees increases. Therefore,
annual inspection for hazard potential is recommended. '
HortScience, Inc.
Nelda Matheny
Certified Arborist #WC-0195
Pruning Specifications
Brittany Lane Estates
Qualifications
!
. i
I
An 1.8.A. Certified Arborist or Tree Worker is to be present at all times during
pruning. Arborist must have a State of Calif. Contractors, License for Tree
Service (C61-D49) and provide proof of workman's compensation and general
liability insurance.
Pruning specifications
1. All pruning shall be in accordance with the Tree Pruning Guidelines (International
Society of Arboriculture) and adhere to the most recent editions of the American
National Standard for Tree Care Operations (Z133.1) and Pruning (A300).
2. Where possible, pruning shall be confined to small diameter wood at the ends of
branches. Interior branches shall nor be stripped out.
3. All trees shall be pruned to provide a minimum of 6' clearance between the ground
surface and foliage, to remove dead branches to a minimum of 2" diameter, and to
reduce end weight on heavy, horizontal branches by selectively removing small
diameter branches, no greater than 2-3", near the ends of the scaffolds.
4.- . While in the tree, the arborist shall perform an aerial inspection to identify defects that
require treatment. Any additional work needed shall be reported to the Project
Arborist. .
,,;.,:'
5. Brush shall be chipped and chips shall be spread underneath trees to a maximum
depth of 6", leaving the trunk clear of mulch. Wood shall be hauled off site.
6. Trees shall not be climbed with spurs.
7.: Thinning cuts are to be employed rather than heading cuts. Trees shall not be
topped or headed back.
8. Vehicles and heavy equipment shall not be parked beneath the trees. If access by
. equipment is required to accomplish the specified pruning, the soil surface shall be
protected with 6-8" of wood chips before placing equipment or vehicles.
9. Equipment shall be serviced and fueled outside the tree canopy to avoid accidental
spills in the root area.
10. Any questions regarding pruning should be directed to Nelda Matheny,
HortScience,lnc., (925) 484-0211.
/~~ 0( ;tl$
Tree Protection
Fencing Plan
Brittany Drive
Tract 5073
Dublin, CA
Prepared for:
Black Mountain
. Development
San ~amon, CA
November 2000
No Scale
I
"
Notes:
Base map provided by:
RMR Design Group
Concord. CA
Driplines and numbered tree locallons
are approxlmate-
HoRTScIENCE ".
P,O.80X754 PLEASANTONCA94S68
(925)484-0211 FAX.(925)_5096 ,
- -
-
~
~
. 'N.
~
Jf'
Tree Survey Map
Brittany Drive
Tract 5073
Dublin, CA
Prepared for:
Black Mountain
Development
San Ramon, CA
, July 2000
NoUo Scale
"
Notes:
Base map provided by:
RMR Design Group
Concord, CA
Driplines and numbered tree locations
are approximate,
HORfSCIENCE 10.
P.o.8OX7$l Pl.l!ASAHfONCA94ti66
(~5) *4-Q2t 1 FAX(925)-
-
~
"""
~
"No
.-..:;..
\.1\.
x
x
x
x
-,-..,....
}~
-
-\~:
,--
- "
~,..
,
-:~~
'\\>,
-
..
, .
-"
- .
... "\ -, ... ....
x
"
- --
_: .~;:~-i
"--
--
" -
~ "............" .:.......:..-,......:. ~.,.,~,~..
X
....-
..'
--
.,
-,
x
":.~:.;- ~:.
. '-"
.. 0'" ~ "_.. ." _~ '\." .
.-.~ ~.. -- "- ~.:. '.
- --
- - ~ . . .
.. ~ , ". . ~
- -,~, ~-
.", -.
~ ------ ~---------
X
-'
'"
.... .....
-,
'" ',--
'\
.
.
,-,
')
.'
"
- -- ~. - .
.- - -
'- -
- " ~
.. ~ '"
,,' -
~ _ -.. - - - ... _,,' ,L
-. -.
- -,.
- --
'- ..
-. ... ~-'~" ..
~, '\":"'"""...:.....~/<-----
.X
-'
" :
.- -
. 0" .
. r':.-
I .. i
'-.
1/ :_,t,.,
." ...>--"
,-
.. ;
_"":",,,~.'~"lI'."
-:-d'~. _ ""
': -~-,:. ....
.' .:-.!-
0'.-
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
---
-
-
-
-
.
.
.
Black Mountain Development
Brittany Lane Estates
Dublin. GA
July 2000
.
TREE'SURVEY
.
.
COMMENTS
SUITABILITY
for
PRESERVATION
CONDITION
1 =poor
5=excellent
TRUNK
DIAMETER
(in inches)
TREE SPECIES
No.
.
Multiple stems
over creek.
Suppressed growth; little foliage; large necrotic area at base.
'tMultiple attachments @ 3'; slightly suppressed with crown to south;
some deadwood.
trunk leans south
from base; good form; one 23'
Good
Poor
Good
4
2
4
27.23,23
20
25. 16
VaJley oak
Valley oak
Valley oak
335
336
337
Suppressed growth; leaning to south-east; deadwood in crown.
Suppressed by tree 340; major dieback in crown; decay fruiting
bodies evident.
Moderate
Poor
3
2
29
22
Valley oak
Coast live oak
338
339
Excellent large specimen; some deadwood; growth cracks along
some scaffolds; scaffolds on north lying on ground.
Good
4
40,26
Coast live oak
340
Suppressed by 342; poor form; heavy end weight.
Good form; ~ome deadwood; codominant with included union at 3'
Mul!iple trunks at ground leve.!; good form.
Poor
Moderate
Moderate
2
3
3
15
41
13,12.
Coast live oak
Coast live. oak
Valley oak
341
342
343
Partially failed; low scaffolds to southeast.
Highly suppressed; leaning 45 degrees <to north.
Highly desirable; excellent form and structure; minor deadwood
Crown slightly suppressed:
High crown.
Very large; multiple attachments at 3'
included bark.
number of cavities in
Moderate
Poor
Good
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
3
2
4
3
3
3
6
11
33
14
31
25
17
61
14.
Valley oak
Valley oak
Valley oak
Valley oak
Valley oak
Valley oak
344
345
346
347
348
349
-
~
~
~
~
trunk;
Oage 1
-------~-----------
. .
.
..
.
R _.ft.... 1'-.' TREE SURVEY' :~~:=:Vo:a:i~::~~opment
, " <<' Dublin, CA
,:<~, ~ July 2000
--= -- -"
.
TREE SPECIES TRUNK CONDITION' SUITABILITY COMMENTS
No. DIAMETER 1 =poor for
(in inches) 5=excellent PRESERVATION
350 Valleyoak 31 5' Good MultipleattaGhments @ 7'; good form; low canopy on uphill side;
moderate deadwood.
351 Valley oak 17, 13 3 Moderate Codominant @ 1'; trunk outside property; suppressed form.
352 Valley oak 28 4 Good Highly desirable; good form; minor deadwood.
353 Valley oak 19, 18, 15, 13 4 Good,~ Codominant trunks arising at ground level; one with multiple
attachment at 2'; good overall form; minor deadwood.
354 Valley oak 31 4 Good Canopy one-sided; large scaffolds at right angles; low branches on
downhill side.
'-
~
Page 2 C\
~
.....::.
\J\
~,. .
jg1 ~ 'J-o/j
. .Cjty..........Q_..........Dub'jn.....
Wildfire Management
Plan
Developed by:
The City of Dublin
in cooperation \Mith the
Dougherty Regional Fire Authority
Adopted:
duly 9, 1 996
Resolution No. 94-96
AtTACHMENT b
):3g- ~ 7- Vs
\\"n.l)l'Il~E .\J..\,'\; ,\GE,\IE.:\T }lL\~
1:\1 PI.E'-'I E\ L\ no~ GrlllEI.l!' ES
JU:,...I'()'~lBl.r P,\I~ lll.~ .
'1'1\11'(,
,\cru),
-------.-....---......--...-.. --.-..:.'--.....---- ..........__...._-'--.~._..---...._~-----"'-----............:..._._.. . ...-.----.. "---
I - lriquiiiiAhoufFuture- . .. j Provide wildfifemanagefuerifguideliheto developer;
City
.Planning Development
Developer Development Initiation . Developer makes proposal to city regarding the
ownership of open lands (space).
. Developer makes proposal to city regarding the
source of maintenance for the open space.
. Developer makes proposal to city regarding the
funding source for open space maintenance.
City Master Tentative Map or Tentative . City decides and records ownership of open space.
.Planning Map, Approval . City decides and records maintenance source for
. Fire open space.
-Finance . City decides and records funding source for open
space maintenance.
. Certification that all fees are current.
Developer Site Development Plan Submittal . Developer makes specific proposals for:
- Design of the fire buffer zone.
- Maintenance and irrigation plan for the fire buffer
zone.
, - Maintenance plan for open space.
- Maintenance specifications.
- Budget for the maintenance program, proposed.
. Submits preliminary landscape plan for privately
owned properties.
. Submits a vicinity plan.
City Building Plan Approval . Plans which meet the requirements of the Wildfrre
-Planning .. Management Plan will be approved.
-Fire . Certification that all fees are current.
-Finance
-Building
City Final Construction Inspection and . Certification that all requirements are satisfied.
-Fire Sign-Off . Certification that all fees are current.
-Building
-Finance
Property Owner Transfer of Property . Notify purchaser of open space ownership,
maintenance and funding responsibilities by
recording on title.
City Inspect Properties for Compliance . Inspection in conjunction with annual Weed
. -Fire With Wildfrre Management Abatement Program.
Requirements . Citizen complaint initiated inspections.
- All permit applications generate inspections.
City Evaluate Wildlife Habitat . Whenever a change is proposed by city or others,
-Planning the impact on habitat will be reviewed.
g: ladmin lchiejlwildfire. tab
Page 1
J,. "jt/5
I !3 9 <:/0
CITY OF DUBLIN WILDFIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN
PURPOSE
. ,.".....--........,.""......................,..........,."".,.".....-........,......"'......."'......p......"....."'.............'.--.............."""",.....",."................."...-,..-.......".",.
The purpose of this plan is to reduce the risk of open land wildfire to the lowest practical level consistent
with reasonable protection of wildlife habitat and other open space values.
AUTHORITY
Adopted by the Dublin City Council Resolution Number 84-96 dated July 9. 1996.
REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED
This plan, when implemented, will create effects or satisfy requirements as follows:
· Implementation of the Wildfire Management Plan is the responsibility of the City of Dublin.
· Vegetation and habitat (in open space) will only change as a result of natural forces or other
actions, since this plan does not impose requirements into open space.
· This plan, when implemented, provides a Fire Buffer Zone between open space/undeveloped lands
and developed properties; therefore, no additional brush control measures are required where this
plan is utilized.
Vegetation growth within areas affected by this plan will be monitored in two ways. First, all areas
will be inspected in accordance with the Fire Department's Nuisance Abatement Program. Second,
whenever any building, grading or other activity affects open space or Fire Buffers, it will be
reevaluated. '
· Wildlife habitat will be evaluated by the City when any change is proposed in open space areas.
APPLICABILITY
This Wildfire Management Plan applies to all new development within the City of Dublin.
DEFINITIONS
Adiacent to Open Space - This refers to, commercial parcels and residential lots which have a point of
contact with open space.
Adiacent to Undeveloped land - This refers to, commercial parcels and residential lots which have a
point of contact with undeveloped land.
Fire Buffer Zone'" Areas A, B, C and D of the "Vegetation Establishment and Maintenance Guidelines"
contained in this plan.
City of Dublin Wildlfire Management Plan
July 9, 1'996
Page 2
"
J 'If) O{). Vj
Irrigated - To supply water to the Fire Buffer Zone artificially by means of pipes, pumps, etc.
landscape Plan - This plan specifies the plantings which are to be utilized in areas A, B, C and D of
the Fire Buffer Zone.
. Open Spa ce=}'OrpurpOsesof thIs-pian,'" openspac:els defrned as tf1oselands' whic:hareset asidel6
remain permanently undeveloped.
Undeveloped land - For purposes of this plan, undeveloped land is that land which is available for
development but no Tentative Map, Master Tentative Map or Development Agreement has been
approved, and land designated for governmental use for which no development plan has been
approved.
Vicinity Plan - Areas within 300 feet of boundaries or property lines of subdivisions, commercial parcels
and residential lots. Vicinity Plans include property lines, structures, slope, vegetation, fuel breaks,
water supply systems and access roads.
AL TERNA riVE METHODS
An applicant wishing to use alternative methods shall ,submit their request to the Fire Chief in
accordance with the Uniform Fire Code, Section 103 as amended. by the City or its designee.
An applicant wishing to appeal a requirement placed upon them by the requirements of this plan shall
.file their appeal in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code, Section 103 as amended by the City or its
designee.
OWNERSHIP AND FINANCING OF MAINTENANCE FOR OPEN SPACE
The City requires that a responsible entity be selected or formed to be responsible for owning and
maintaining open space. The City also requires that the owner of record and maintenance responsibilities
to be disclosed to potential purchasers of property.
Ownership of Open lands
The City will evaluate each proposed project on
a case by case basis to determine ownership_of
open space affiliated with the project. A
determinatron of ownership will be made in the
Master Tentative Map development agreement,
or in conjunction with tract map approval. Once
ownership is determined, responsibility for
maintenance will be assigned.
City of Dublin Wildlfire Management Plan
July 9, 1996
Possible Forms of Ownership
The City will assign one or more forms of
ownership to all open space as it is developed.
City Owned - When the City determines that the
needs will be best served by City ownership of
the open space, the developer will be required to
prepare the land according to all approved
specifications and other requirements prior to
transfer of ownership to the City.
Page 3
Developer/Home Owner Association Owned -
When the developer retains control of the open
space, the City will require that the developer
post a bond adequate to ensure Fire Buffer Zone
. development. ... Thedevelopmenfagreement '01'
site plan approval will specify performance
standards for the developer to meet, regarding
open space development.
Other Governmental Agency Owned - Only with
the City's approval can the ownership of open
space be transferred to another governmental
body.
Possible Maintenance Sources
Where not in conflict with other City policies
maintenance of the open space will be the
responsibility of one party. A determination of
responsibility for maintenance will be made in
conjunction with tract map approval or in the
development agreement.
City Provided - When the City elects to maintain
open space, all associated expenses will be the
responsibility of the City.
Home Owner Association Provided - When the
City requires a Home Owner Association to own
open space, all maintenance will be in
accordance with City specifications at the
expense of the Home Owner Association.
/'1/ ~'ivs
Other Governmental Agency Provided - When
the City approves ownership by a Governmental
Agency, that Governmental Agency will provide
maintenance. All maintenance will be in
accordance with City specifications at the
expense6fthatG6vefnmental Agency.
Possible Funding Sources for Maintenance
The City will determine which is the most
appropriate method of funding open space
maintenance on a case by case basis.
Methods include:
New Assessment District
· Annex to Existing Assessment District
· Privately Funded by a homeowner's
association or similar body
Other Funding Source
Notice to Owners
The developer will be responsible for disclosing
to all purchasers of property the ownership and
maintenance responsibilities and funding
mechanism for open space which is affiliated with
the purchaser's property. In addition to any
notices required by law, this disclosure will be
recorded on the title at time of sale of the
property.
PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Plans will be examined for compliance with the Wildfire Management Plan in accordance with the
following schedule:
Tentative Map
Tentative map submittals will address the
following issues:
City of Dublin Wildlfire Management Plan
July 9, 1996
Ownership of open space and Fire Buffer
Zone
· Maintenance of open space and Fire Buffer
Zone
Page 4
I"
.
Funding mechanism for maintenance of open
space and Fire Buffer Zone.
... SitEl[)ElYElIc>prl1ElrltBElytElI,o\f ,
Plans submitted for site development review will
address the following issues:
Design of the Fire Buffer Zone
· Maintenance and Irrigation Plan for the Fire
Buffer Zone
· Maintenance Plan for Open Space
· Maintenance Specifications
· Budget for the Maintenance Program
Preliminary Landscape plan for privately
owned properties
· Vicinity Plan
Building Plan Review
Building plan submittals will address the following
issues:
11/:< ~ ,J,tJ5
.
Final Landscape plans
Construction requirements for properties
adjacent to open space and undeveloped
lands
. . Final ApprovafOfthe Completed ProiecfPrior to
Occupancy
All sites, tracts and buildings will be subject to a
final inspection by each approving department.
Departments will give final approval only after all
conditions which have been placed on it by that
department have been complied with.
Fees
All fees to all departments must be current before
any of the following actions are taken:
· Tentative Map Approval
Site Development Review
· Issuance of a Building Permit
· Final inspection of a Completed Project
prior to occupancy
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDINGS ON LOTS OR PARCELS ADJACENT TO
OPEN SPACE AND UNDEVELOPED LAND
Roof Covering
Roof covering shall be Class A roof
coverings. For roof coverings where the
profile allows a space between the roof
covering and roof decking, the space at the
eve ends shall be fire stopped to preclude
entry of flames or embers. Roof decking
shall be solid. Space sheathing shall be
prohibited.
Protection of Eaves
Eaves shall be protected on the exposed
underside by materials approved for one-
hour-rated fire-resistive construction. Fascias
City of Dublin Wildlfire Management Plan
July 9, 1996
are required and must be protected on the
backside by materials approved for one-hour-
rated fire-resistive construction or 2-inch (51
mm) nominal dimension lumber.
Gutters and Downspouts
Gutters and downspouts shall be constructed
of noncombustible material.
Exterior Waifs
Exterior walls of buildings or structures shall
be constructed with materials approved for
one-hour-rated fire-resistive construction on
Page 5
the exterior side or with noncombustible
materials.
Exception: Heavy timber construction. Such
material shall extend from the top of the
. fbUndation '. t6 theUndel'sideoftheroof .
sheathing.
Unenclosed Underfloor Protection
Buildings or structures shall have all
underfloor areas enclosed to the ground with
exterior walls.
Exception: Complete enclosures may be
omitted where the underside of all exposed
floors and all exposed structural columns,
beams and supporting walls are protected as
required for exterior one-hour-rated fire-
resistive construction or heavy timber
construction.
Appendages and Projections
Unenclosed accessory structures attached to
buildings with habitable spaces and
projections, such as decks, shall be of one-
hour-rated fire-resistive construction, heavy
timber construction or constructed with
noncombustible materials.
When the attached structure is located and
constructed so that the structure or any
portion thereof projects over a descending
slope surface, the area below the structure
shall have all underfloor areas enclosed to
within 6 inches of the ground, with exterior
walls.
Windows
Exterior windows, window walls and skylights
shall be tempered glass or multilayered
glazed panels.
Exterior doors
Exterior doors, other than vehicular access
doors to garages, shall be non-combustible or
solid core not less than 1-3/4" thick. When
windows are within doors, they shall be of
City of Dublin Wildlfire Management Plan
July 9, 1996
/tjJ:~ Jitft
tempered glass or multilayered glazed
panels.
Vents
Attic.... ventilation op-enings;-foundation"'or-
underfloor vents, or other ventilation openings
in vertical exterior walls and vents through
roofs shall not exceed 144 square inches
each. Such vents shall be covered with
noncumbustible corrosion-resistant mesh with
openings not to exceed 1/4 inch.
Attic ventilation openings shall not be located
in soffits, in eave overhangs, between rafters
at eaves, or in other overhang areas.
Underfloor ventilation openings shall be
located as close to grade as practical.
Detached Accessory Structures and Fences
Detached accessory structures located less
than 50 feet from a building containing
habitable space shall have exterior walls
constructed with materials approved for one-
hour fire-resistive construction, heavy timber
construction or constructed with
noncombustible materials on the exterior
side. When the detached structure is located
and constructed so that the structure or any
portion thereof projects over a descending
slope surface, the area below the structure
shall have all underfloor areas enclosed to
within 6 inches of the ground, with exterior
walls.
Fences shall be separated from the
perimeter of buildings containing habitable
space by connection to buildings as shown in
Figure 1 when the fence is made of
combustible material.
Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems
Automatic fire sprinkler systems shall be
required in all buildings that are adjacent to
open space or undeveloped land. The
installation of the automatic fire sprinkler
systems shall be in accordance with
standards approved by the City.
Page 6
6'-0' MIN.
DEPTH OR
REF"ER TO
PROJE:CT
SOILS
REPORT.
MASONRY
Figure 1
City of Dublin Wildlfire Management Plan
July 9.1996
1
24"
L
~4'
PLAN
r
6L-
18'
CISJ
L24~
DIA.
ELEVATION
PILASTER
I !If q{ ;..yj
EXTERIOR
BUILDING
LINE
1/2' SPACE
4" EXTERIOR MINIMUM
VENEER
4 - #5
MINIMUM
16' SQUARE
CONCRETE
BLOCK
PILASTER
EXTERIOR
VENEER
TO MATCH
EXTERIOR FINISH
(STUCCO, BRICK, STONE, ETC.)
24'X24'X18'
CONCRETE
GRADE BEAM
NOTES'
1. FILL ALL CELLS 'WITH GROUT.
2. MORTAR ,SHALL BE GRADE 'N'.
3. CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 2500 psi.
4. REBAR SHALL BE GRADE 60.
5. NO SPECIAL INSPECTION.
AT
FENCE/BUILDING
SCALE. 1'=1'
Page 7
/ f':5 15' ,2 V5
STANDARDS FOR VEGETATION ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE
The City requires that all new development utilize the following standards for vegetation
estabiishIDeni and maintenance.
VEGETATION ESTABLISHMENT GUIDELINES VEGETATION ESTABLISHMENT GUIDELINES
0% TO 10% SLOPE 10% TO 20% SLOPE
I
;~
i
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
i
~!
I
I
i
I
I
I
,
A=
The First 3 Feet
Maintain an area of non combustible material -
flowers, plants, concrete, gravel, soil, etc.
B=
4 thru I3 feet
Thin trees to 10 feet between crowns. Prune
limbs of all remaining trees to 15 feet or one-
third the total live crown height, whichever is
less.
B=
c=
14 thru 30 feet
Thin trees to 10 feet between crowns. Prune
limbs of all remaining trees to 15 feet or one-
third the total live crown height, whichever is
less.
c=
D=
City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan
July 9, 1996
CCl'M<SI..OPE U>Sl.OPlO
The shaded areas (upslope) of A, B, C and D remain a constant
distance of30 feet combined. The shaded area begins from the
midsection ofa structure_ The unshaded areas (downslope) ofB,
C and D increase with slope as detailed below:
A=
The First 3 Feet
Maintain an area ofnoncombustibJe material-
flowers, plants, concrete, gravel, soil, etc.
4 thru 19 feet
Thin trees to 10 feet between crowns. Prune
limbs of all remaining trees to 15 feet or one-
third the total Jive crown height, whichever is
Jess.
20 thru 45 feet
Thin trees to 1 0 feet between crowns. Prune
limbs of all remaining trees to 15 feet or one-
third the total live crown height, whichever is
less.
46 thru 70 feet
Thin trees to 10 feet between crowns. Prune
limbs of all remaining trees to 15 feet or one-
third the total live crown height, whichever is
less.
Page 8
VEGETATION ESTABLISHMENT GUIDELINES
20% TO 30% SLOPE
DCMNSLOPE
lJPSlOPE
The shaded areas (upslope) ofB, e and D remain a constant
distance oDD feet combined. The shaded area begins from the
midsection of a structure. The unshaded areas (downslope) of B,
e and D increase with slope as detailed below:
A=
The First 3 feet
Maintain an area of noncombustible material-
flowers, plants, concrete, gravel, soil, etc.
B=
4 thru 24 feet
Thin trees to 10 feet between crowns. Prune
limbs of remaining trees to 15 feet or one-third
the total live crown height, whichever is less.
c=
25 thru 55 feet
Thin trees to 10 feet between crowns. Prune
limbs ofremaining trees to 15 feet or one-third
the total live crown height, whichever is less.
D=
56 thru 100 feet
Thin trees to 10 feet between crowns. Prune
limbs of all remaining trees to 15 feet or one-
third the total live crown height, whichever is
less,
VEGETATION ESTABLISHMENT
GUIDELINES GREATER THAN 30% SLOPE
When developed, slopes of greater than 30% shall be
evaluated on a case by case basis.
City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan
July 9, 1996
1'/6 06 ;,Y5
VEGETATION ESTABLISHMENT
GUIDELINES IN OTHER OPEN SPACE
'Therearenorequirementsforvegetation reduction "Or
modification in open space that is not affected by the
guidelines for 0% to 10% Slope, 10% to 20% Slope,
20% to 30% Slope or Greater than 30% Slope.
VEGETATION MAINTENANCE
The city requires that a main~enance program be
established for Fire Buffer Zone Areas A, B, C and
D that will maintain plant species according to city
approved specifications. Maintenance programs
should specifically prevent the introduction of
unapproved species and plan for removal ofbio
mass, overgrowth and dead foliage. The
maintenance program should also plan for the
replacement of dead plants and plants which are
beyond useful life.
IRRIGATION
Where required for the establishment and/or
maintenance of plant species irrigation will be
utilized.
OPEN SPACE ACCESS
All open space areas shall have two points of access
suitable for wildland fire apparatus. Minimum
unobstructed width of the access way must be 20
feet. Access points must be no more than 1500"
from the furthest point of open space. Gates, when
utilized, must meet the key control requirements of
the rlIe department.
ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF
VEGETATION ON APPROVED LOTS
1.
Plant species as shown for the area on the
Plant Species List may be established or
retained in the appropriate area.
2.
Lawns and native grasses may be utilized in
all areas, except Area A where native grass
is prohibited, provided they are kept mowed
to a height of three to four inches. When
native grasses are utilized mowing will be
limited to the months of May thru
November.
Page 9
/tJ1t:6 J~S
ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF
VEGETATION INTO PERMANENTLY
DESIGNATED OPEN SPACE
Where Fire Buffer Zones extend into designated open
space the plantings established in the Fire Buffer
Zone will include only native grasses and native trees
shown on the Plant Species List. Grasses in the Open
Space Fire Buffer Zone will be kept mowed to a
height of three to four inches. Mowing will only
occur from the months of May thru November.
Where trees are established andlor maintained they
will be estasblished and maintained in accordance
with the appropriate zone. In Open Space where
other than native grasses and native trees are utilized,
plantings will be irrigated.
ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF
VEGETATION ON UNDEVELOPED LAND
Where Fire Buffer Zones extend into undeveloped
land the plantings established in the Fire Buffer Zone
will include only native grasses and native trees
shown on the Plan Species List. Grasses in the
Undeveloped Land Fire Buffer Zone will be kept
mowed to a height of three to four inches. Mowing
will only occur from the months of May thru
November. Where trees are established and
maintained they will be established and maintained in
accordance with the appropriate zone. In
undeveloped land where other than native grasses
and native trees are utilized, p-lantings will be
irrigated.
DISCING
Discing is not permitted in any Fire Buffer Zone or
Open Space for Fire Protection purposes.
TREES
Trees from the Plant Species List or trees with like
characteristics may be utilized in any zone.
City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan
July 9, 1996
Page I 0
City of Dublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table
Freeze
Sensitive
,;,.
Mineral
Content
"
species appropriate for planting in conjunction with the "Standards for Vegetation Establishment and Maintenance Guidelines
Name
This table outlines plant
High
Moisture
Content
Characteristics
Little
Dead
Matter
Leaf
(thick
or large)
Form
(dense
or low)
Little
Volume
Form
Common Name
Species ~
Species
Species - Latin Name
AREA A
ife.
Irrigated flowers are the only suitable plant
This area must contain non-combustible material
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
-
....
-
AREA B
'"
~
~
~
~
11
no
Page
no
o
o
o
o
*
*
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
*
o
o
is suitable for all of the plant species shown for Area A above, and the following plant species.
This area
*
*
*
*
*
sue
Aeonium
Aeonium arboreum- Atropurpureum
'*
*
*
*
*
sue
Saucer Plant
Aeonium undulatum
*
*
*
*
*
peren
Lily of the Nile
Agapanthus orientalis blue
*
*
*
*
*
peren
Nile
Dwarf Lily of the
Agapanthus "Peter Pan'
*
*
*
o
o
sue
Agave
Agave americana "Alba Picata"*
*
*
*
o
o
suc
Blue Agave
Agave attenuata "Nova"*
*
*
*
*
*
sue
Torch Aloe
Aloe arborenseens
*
*
*
*
*
suc
No Common Name
Aloe "Johnson's Hybrid"
*
*
*
*
*
sue
Aloe
Aloe nobilis
*
*
*
*
*
sue
Coral Aloe
Aloe Striata
*
*
*
*
'*
sue
Medicinal Aloe
Aloe vera
'*
*
*
'*
*
sue
Spider Aloe
spinosissima
Aloe X
*
'*
'*
o
o
tree
Strawberry Tree
Arbutus unedo
o
'*
'*
*
'*
gr cvr
Capeweed
Aretotheca calendua
*
'*
'*
*
o
o
'*
*
'*
'*
gr cvr
gr evr
Sea Pink
Sea Pink
Almeria alliacea*
Almeria maritma*
City of Dublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table
Freeze
Sensitive
-
Mineral!
High
Moisture
Content
*
Cha racteristics
Little
Dead
Matter
Leaf
(thick
or large)
Form
(dense
or low)
*
Little
Volume
*
Form
Species Name
Species - Common Name
Speicies - Latin Name
Content,
*
o
gr cvr
Sea Pink
Annerica pseupaemeria
(formosana)
no
o
yes
yes
o
o
no
o
o
yes
yes
o
yes
o
yes
o
o
yes
o
no
yes
o
o
yes
yes
yes
o
o
no
o
o
no
no
no
'-"
"I;;;::
"{\
'~
~
,.....:.
12
no
Page
no
-
o
o
o
o
*
*
peren
No Common Name
Dietes "Lemon Drop'
*
*
peren
YeHow Wild Iris
Dietes bicolor
*
*
peren
White Fortnight Lily
Dietes vegeta
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
7
*
shrub
Natal Plum
Carissa grandiflora "Tutter"
o
*
suc
Fig
Hottentot
Carpobrofus edulis
*
*
shrub
Western Redbud
Cercis occidentalis*
*
*
suc
Prostrate Mirror Plant
Coprosoma kirkii "Verde Vista'
*
*
suc
No common name
Cotyledon barbenyii
*
*
suc
No common name
Cotyledon macrantha
*
*
suc
No common name
Cotyledon orbiculata
*
*
suc
Silver Jade Plant
Crassula arborescens
*
*
sue
Pin Jade Plant
Crassula argentea "Pink Beauty'
*
*
suc
Crassula
Crassula laetea
*
*
sue
Crassula
Crassula lactea "Taylor's Patch'
*
*
suc
Crassula
Crassula multicava
*
*
sue
Crassula
Crassula tetragona
*
*
sue
White Trailing lee Plant
Delospenna alba
*
*
*
*
o
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
o
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
peren
peren
Ice Plant
Ice Pant
rosea
Drosanthermum f10ribundum
Drosanthermum hispidum
City of Dublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table
Mineral 1 Freeze
COlltent i I Sen,m..
High
Moisture
Content
'*
Characteristics
Little
Dead
Matter
Leaf
(thiel,
or large)
Form
(dense
or low)
==
*
Little
Volume
*
Form
Common Name
Name
Species ~
Species
Latin Name
Speicies -
no
o
o
o
no
no
no
o
no
no
o
o
no
-
o
'*
o
no
no
no
o
no
-
o
o
o
no
no
7
o
no
o
no
oils
7
o
no
o
yes
o
.........
~
~
~
~
13
yes
Page
yes
o
o
'*
'*
'*
'*
o
o
o
o
*
'*
'*
*
'*
'*
o
*
*
*
*
*
'*
'*
grd cvr
Mock Strawberry
Duchesnea indica
'*
*
'*
*
grd cvr
No Common Name
Dymondia margaretae
*
*
*
*
suc
Echeveria
Echeveria "Blue Wave'
*
*
*
*
suc
Echeveria
Echeveria "Pinkie'
*
*
*
*
sue
Echeveria
Echeveria "Topsy Turvy'
1
o
ok
ok
peren
Fleabane
Erigeron "Moerheimii"*
7
o
ok
ok
peren
Santa Barbara Daisy
Erigeron karvinskianus*
*
*
o
o
shrub
Pineapple Guava
Fejoa sellowiana
*
o
*
*
grd cvr
Red Fescue
Festuca ruba ereeping*
*
*
*
*
grd evr
Wild Strawberry
Fragaria chileoensis*
*
o
*
*
grd cvr
Orange Gazania
Gazania "Mitsuwa Orange'
*
o
*
*
grd cvr
Yellow Gazania
Gazania "Mitsuwa Yellow'
*
'*
*
*
peren
Day Lily
Hemerocallis (assorted)
*
*
*
*
suc
Red Yucca
Hesperaloe parviflora
*
o
o
*
vine
Shiny Leaf Jasmine
ligistifolium
Jasminum
o
o
*
'*
shrub
Shore Juniper
Juniperus conferta
*
*
*
*
suc
Kalanchoe
Kalanchoe pumila
o
*
*
*
pem
Red Hot Poker
Kniphofia uvaria
*
*
*
*
suc
Bush Gold
Lampranthus aurantiacus
*
*
*
*
*
o
*
o
sue
tree
Trailing Ice Plant
Macademea
Lampranthus speetabilis rosea
Macademea "Dr. Beaumont'
Freeze
Sensitive
yes
yes
no
-
Mineral
Content
o
o
o
o
City of Dublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table
High
Moisture
Content
'*
o
'*
'*
Characteristics
Little
Dead
Matter
'*
Leaf
(thick
or large)
'*
Form
(dense
or low)
Little
Volume
Form
Species Name
Species - Common Name
Speicies - Latin Name
'*
'*
suc
Ice Plant
Croeeum
Malephora croeea
*
o
*
*
grd cvr
Myoporum
Myoporum Parvifolium Prostrate
*
*
*
o
*
'*
bulb
Nerine
Nerine masonorum
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
*
*
o
o
o
*
*
o
o
shrub
Dwarf Pink Oleander
"Mrs. Roeding"
Nerium oleander
*
*
o
*
o
o
shrub
Dwarf Salmon Oleander
Nerium oleander "Petite Salmon'
*
'*
'*
'*
o
o
o
'*
*
o
peren
Ivy Geranium
Pelargonium peltatum
o
o
peren
New Zealand Flax
Maiden'
Phormium tenax "Maori
o
o
peren
New Zealand Flax
Queen'
tenax "Maori
Phomium
o
o
peren
New Zealand Flax
Sunset
tenax "Maori
Phormium
o
o
shrub
Dwarf Karo
Pittosporum c. "Compacta'
no
no
no
no
no
"-
(J',
......
~
~
'~
4
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
Page
-
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
'*
'*
o
*
'*
*
'*
'*
'*
*
'*
shrub
Mock Orange
tobira "Wheeler's
Pittosporum
Dwarf'
'*
o
*
o
shrub
Dwarf Pomegrante
Punic a Granatum "Nana"
*
o
*
o
tree
Coast Live Oak
Quercus agrifolia*
o
*
*
*
o
o
o
o
shrub
Evergreen Currant
Ribes viburnifolium*
*
*
grd cvr
Fan Flower
Seaevola "Mauve Clusters'
o
o
tree
California Pepper
Schinus molIe
*
*
*
*
sue
Stonecrop
Sedum acre
*
*
*
*
sue
Stonecrop
Sedum album
*
'*
*
*
*
*
*
'*
suc
suc
Stonecrop
Stonecrop
Sedum brevifolium
Sedum confusum
Arctostaphylos."Emerald Carpet"*
Manzanita
shrub
*
*
o
o
Arctostaphylos
'Carmel Sur"*
Manzanita
shrub
*
*
o
o
Ajuga reptans
Carpet Bugle
grd cvr
*
*
o
*
Achillea taygetea
Achillea tomentosa*
Wooly Yarrow
peren
*
*
o
*
;"Moonshine"*
Achillea millefolium "Red Beauty"*
Achillea millefolium white*
Achillea millefolirm "Cerise Queen"*
Red Yarrow
peren
*
*
o
*
is suitable for all of
Pink Yarrow
peren
*
*
o
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
o
o
Yarrow
White Yarrow
*
*
*
*
*
o
*
o
Page
15
no
no
no
no
peren
peren
*
*
*
*
o
o
*
*
no
no
no
no
This area
the plant species shown for Areas A and B above, and the following plant species.
AREA C
Yucca Whipplei*
Yucca
peren
*
o
o
*
*
*
o
o
no
Tulbaghia violacea "Silver Lace"
Society Garlic
peren
o
*
o
*
*
o
*
o
no
Trachelospermum jasminoides
;
Thevetia peruvianja neriifolia
Star Jasmine
vine
*
*
o
o
no
Yellow Oleander
shrub
o
o
o
*
Senecia kleinia
-
'Mandraliscae"
No Common Name
peren
*
*
o
*
Senecio cinerea
Dusty Miller
peren
*
*
o
*
Sedum
spathulifoHum "Purpureum"*
Stonecrop
suc
*
*
*
*
Sedum line are
Sedum rosea
Sedum rubrotinctUm
Stonecrop
Rose Root
suc
suc
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
o
*
o
o
o
*
o
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
~
..,...
"
~
~
\ij
........
Stonecrop
suc
*
Little
Volume
*
Form
(dense
or low)
*
Leaf
(thick
or large)
*
Little
Dead
Matter
*
High
Moisture
Content
o
yes
Speicies - Latin Name
City of Dublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table
Species -
Species Name
Common Name
Form
Characteristics
Mineral
Content
Freeze
Sensitive
Eriogonum granui
Eschscholzia ealiiorniea*
Galvesia speeiosa*
Iindheimerii *
-'-
Gaura
Gaura
peren
Island Bush Snapdragon
peren
shrub
California Poppy
lora rubesens*
Island Buckwheat
shru b
Eriogonum erOCll:
1*
Coastal
Wild Gum
peren
Elymus eondensnlll~
'Canyon Prince"*
No Common Name
grd eve
Diplaeus pueiceu~"
Red Monkey Flower
peren
Diplaeus longifol
....
Monkey Flower
peren
Coreopsis Ianeeo!i1la "Sun Ray"
Coreopsis
peren
*
*
o
o
*
*
*
*
o
*
o
o
7
*
o
Page
no
6
o
o
*
*
o
no
*
*
*
*
o
no
*
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
no
*
o
o
no
*
o
o
no
o
o
o
*
o
o
o
o
o
no
o
o
o
no
*
o
*
no
Centranthus rubet "Albus"
----
Cheiranthus Erys 1m Cheiri
Wallflower
peren
White Valerian
peren
Centranthus
Centaurea gymnOl:.1I pa
---
rubel
Dusty Miller
Red Valerian
peren
peren
llneri*
Atriplex semibael'al
Australian Saltbrush
shrub
Atriplex muttalli g
Saltbrush
shrub
Atriplex nuttalli
CIIIIl:ata*
Saltbrush
shrub
Artemisia pycnoccphala*
No Common Name
shrub
Artemisia Cauca~ica
Caucasian Sagebrush
grd evr
Artemisia "CanYlll
i ray" *
Silver
Wormwood
shrub
~
~,
'"
~
~
\J)
.......
Aretotheca ealen.!
\\' oods Red"*
.I
Cape Weed
grd evr
7
*
o
*
*
7
7
*
*
*
*
*
o
*
*
*
o
*
*
o
*
*
o
*
*
o
*
*
o
*
*
o
o
no
no
no
no
*
o
*
7
o
*
7
o
*
*
o
o
*
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
*
*
*
yes
Arctostaphylos
Manzanita
shrub
Little
Volume
7
Form
(dense
or low)
o
Leaf
(thick
or large)
o
Little
Dead
Matter
o
High
Moisture
Content
7
Mineral
Content
no
Freeze
Sensitive
Speicies - Latin
City of Dublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table
:'IiOlllle
Species
Species"
Name
Common Name
Form
Characteristics
Page
\l\
'":J--
~
~
~
V\
.......
.
, Species Name Cha racteristics
Speicies - Latin Name Species - Common Name Form Little Form Leaf Little dead High Mineral Freeze
Volume (dense (thick Matter Moisture Content Sensitive
, or low) or large) Content
Ganzania leucoleaha hybrids Trailing Yellow Gazania peren * * 0 * * 0 no
Gazania regens leucolaena Trailing Gazania peren '* '* 0 '* '* 0 no
,
Geranium incanum Stork's Bill Geranium peren '* * 0 0 '* 0 no
Geranium sanguuineum Geranium peren '* '* '* '* '* 0 no
Helichrysum petio,latum "nana" Curry Plant annual '* '* 0 0 0 '* yes
Heuchera maxima'" Coral Bells or Island Alum grd cvr '* '* '* '* 0 0 no
I Root
Iris "Pacific Coast Hybrids"* California Iris peren '* '* 0 '* '* 0 no
Koeleria glauea* i Blue Hair Grass peren '* '* 0 '* 0 0 no
Lantana motevidensis Lantana grd evr '* '* 0 0 '* 0 no
Lavandula dentata French Lavender peren 0 0 0 0 '* '* no
Lavandula stoeehas Spanish Lavender peren 0 0 0 0 '* '* no
Limonium perezil' Statice peren '* '* '* '* '* '* yes
., ' Toad-Flax annual '* '* 0 0 '* 0
Lmana maroceana no
Myoporum parvifollium "Prostratum" No Common Name grd evr '* '* '* '* '* 0 no
Oenothera berlandieri Mexican Evening Primrose peren '* '* 0 * * 0 no
Osteospemlum fntticosum African Daisy grd cvr '* '* 0 '* '* 0 no
Pelargonium peltntum Ivy Geranium peren '* '* * '* '* 0 yes
Penstemon "Fireb~rd"* Red Penstemon peren '* '* 0 '* '* 0 no
Penstemon "Midnight"* Beard Tongue peren I '* '* 0 '* * 0
no
Penstemon "Skyl~e"* Penstemon peren '* '* 0 '* '* 0 no
City of Dublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table
17
Page
Species Name Characteristics
Speicies - Latin ~ame Species - Common Name Form Little Form Leaf Little High Mineral Freeze
Volume (dense (thick Dead Moisture Content Sensitive
or low) or large) Matter Content
Penstemon heterophyllus* Penstemon peren * * 0 * * 0 no
Perovskia atriplicifoIia Russian Sage peren 0 0 0 0 0 * no
,
Phyla nodi flora . Lippia grd cvr * * 0 * * * no
i
Rosmarinus officinaIis "Prostrata" Rosemary shrub * * 0 0 0 oils no
Salvia "Allen Chickering"* Sage shrub ' 1 1 1 0 0 * no
Salvia aurea Sage peren 0 0 * 0 0 * no
.
Salvia chamaedryoides Sage shrub * * 0 0 0 * no
Salvia leucantha* Mexican Brush Sage shrub 0 0 0 0 0 * no
Salvia leucopylIa* Purple Sage shrub 0 0 0 0 0 * no
Salvia sonomensis "Dara's Choice"* Sage peren * * 0 0 0 * no
SantoIin Chamaecyparissus Grey Lavender Cotton peren 0 * 0 0 0 * no
Santolina virens Green Lavender Cotton peren 0 * 0 0 0 * no
.
Senecia "Vira- Vira" Dusty Miller shrub 0 0 0 * 0 * no
Silene maritima No Common Name peren * * 0 * * * no
Sisyrichium caIifomicum* Yellow-Eyed Grass peren * * 0 * * 0 no
Stachysbyzantina Lamb Ears peren * * 0 * * 0 no
Thyme praecox articus Thyme peren * * 0 * * oils no
Thyme pseudolanuginosus Thyme peren * * 0 * * oils no
Trichostema lanatum * Woody Blue Curls shrub 0 0 0 * 0 oils no
Vinca major Periwinkle grd cvr * * 0 * * 0 no
, Myrtle shrub 0 0 * * 0
Vinca minor . * no
\i)
,~
N.'
~
\J)
Iv-)
.......
City of Dublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table
18
Page
19
""
~
"
~
\Q
Vl
.........
Species Name Cha racteristics
Speicies - Latin Name Species - Common Name Form Little Form Leaf Little High Mineral Freeze
Volume (dense (thick Dead Moisture Content Sensitive
or low) or large) Matter Content
Yucca whipplei* Yucca peren * * * * * 0 1
AREA D
This area is suitable for all ofthe plant species shown for Areas A, Band C above, and the following plant species.
Alnus rhombif1oir~* White Alder tree 0 * 0 * * 0 no
Arctostaphylos "Or. Hurd"* Manzanita shrub * * 0 7 0 0 no
Arctostaphylos pajaroenses Pajaro Manzaita shrub 0 0 0 7 0 0 no
"Paradise"* f
Carpobrotus edulis lceplant Sea Fig sue * * * * 0 0 no
Cercocarpus betulpides* Mt. Mahogany shrub 0 0 0 * 0 0 no
Ceanothus "Anchc;>r Bay"* Mountain Lilac shrub * * 0 0 * 0 no
Ceanothus "Frosty Blue"* Mountain Lilac shrub 0 0 0 1 * 0 no
Ceanthothus "Joy~e Coulter"* Mountain Lilac shrub 0 0 0 0 * 0 no
Ceanothus "Ray ijartman"* Mountain Lilac shrub 0 0 * 7 * 0 no
Ceanothus "Snow! Flurry"* Mountain Lilac shrub 0 0 * 1 * 0 no
Ceanothus "Wheeler Canyon"* Mountain Lilac shrub 7 7 7 7 * 0 no
Ceanothus "Y ank~e Point"* Mountain Lilac shrub * *' 0 * * 0 no
Ceanothus "Point Reyes" * Mountian Lilac shrub * * 0 0 * 0 no
Ceanothus griseus horizontalis* Mountain Lilac shrub * * 0 0 * 0 no
Heteromeles arbuUfolia* Toyon shrub 0 0 * * * 0 no
Prunus lyonil* , Catalina Cherry shrub 0 0 * * * 0 no
;
Quercus agrifolia. Coffee Berry shrub 0 0 * * * 0 no
City of Dublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table
Page 20
, Species Name Characteristics
Speicies - Latin Name Species - Common Name Form Little Form Leaf Little High Mineral Freeze
Volume (dense (thick Dead Moisture Content Sensitive
, or low) or large) Matter Content
Rhamnus crocea~ Redberry shrub 0 0 * * * 0 no
Romneya coulterj* Matilija Poppy peren 0 0 * * * 0 no
GRASSES
Bromus carinatus California brome grass * 0 0 0 * 0 no
Calamagrosti fol~()sa LeafY reed grass
Calamagrostis nutkaensis Sand reed grass
Danthonia californica California oat grass grass * 0 0 0 * 0 no
Deschampsia caespitosa holcifonnis no common name grass * 0 0 0 * 0 no
Elymus californicus California bottlebrush grass
. Blue wildrye * 0 0 0 * 0
Elymus glaucus grass no
Elymus triticoides Creeping wildrye grass * 0 0 0 * 0 no
Elymus virescens Coastal wildrye grass * 0 0 0 * 0 no
Festuca californica California fescue grass * 0 0 0 * 0 no
Fescue californida California fescue grass * 0 0 0 * 0 no
Fescue idahoensis 'Tomales Bay' Idaho fescue grass * 0 0 0 * 0 no
Festuca rubra , Red fescue grass * 0 0 0 * 0 no
!
Festuca rubra "Jana's Blue" Red fescue grass * 0 0 0 * 0 no
Koeleria macrantha no common name i grass * 0 0 0 * 0 no
Melica californica Western melic grass grass * 0 0 0 * 0 no
Melka imperfecta Small flower melic grass grass * 0 0 0 * 0 no
~
~
~
"'-:
VI
,
City of .publin Plant Species and Area of Use Table
}
Page 2
Sequoia sempervirens
Coast
Redwood
Salix (free fonn)*;*
Willows (tree fonn)
Robiniana ambigua**
Locust
Hybrids
Pyrus (deciduous)
Pears
Prunus (deciduous)
Populus.
Plums/Apples/Peaches
Poplar/Cottonwood
Note: Other trees that have the same characteristics as the
Approval will be granted on a case by case bases.
may be utilized.
Pistachia chinensis
Persimmon
-
Pistachio
Persimmon
Little dead wood in the tree canopy.
accumulate dead wood.
trees shown on this
ist
Liquidamber
Sweet Gum
.
High moisture content of the foliage.
content.
The listed trees generally do not hold onto or
Fraxinus (deciduous)
Ash
.
Usually deciduous trees l1ave a higher moisture
Cinnamomum camphora
Camphor Tree
-
Aesculus califomiCa*
Citrus (many)
Orange, lemon, lime
Buckeye
.
Leaf shape, and size whiCh make
Growth structure which naturally provides for adequate separation between the tree canopy
and ground (Citrus and Sequioa trees are exceptions).
t less
ikely to ignite.
Generally leaves are big or thick.
Acer (many)**
Maple
.
Speices - Latin Name
The following
Species -
is a list of trees that have a combination of characteristics which make
Common Name
Characteristics
them less flammable and as such ate permitted in Areas B, C and D.
'LREES
-
"''\
-::>-
<<.
\c
~
........
Stipa sps.
Needlegrass
grass
*
Little
Volume
o
Form
(dense
or low)
o
Leaf
(thick
or large)
o
Little
Dead
Matter
*
High
Moisture
Content
o
Mineral
Content
no
Freeze
Sensitive
Speicies - Latin Name
Species -
Common Name
Form
-
City of Dublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table
Species Name
Characteristics
sue
Ground Cover
Succulent
Page 22
grd cvr
peren
Perennial
SOIpe of this particular species
are Native
**
*
Native
'*
o
Ha? the Property
Does Not Have
the Property
().-
\i\ Lege~d:
"- 1
Unknown Property
\~
'~
\)
City of Dublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table
r, ',',' ','--."
If' '\'~"
I \
t~\
f:~'-
()
('l>.
/60 ~ J~j
Alameda ,county Fire Department
Fire Prevention Division
REMOVAL REQUIREMENTS
Weed, Rubbish, and Litter Abatement Ordinance
The following are the minimum reauirements for removal of weeds, rubbish, and litter.
Please read the entire list as more than .one category may apply to your property.
:Burnina is not allowed. except in agricultural applications and then by permit only.
RUBBISH, LITTER AND DEBRIS
o All Areas: Remove any rubbish, garbage, litter, junk , old building materials, or
other items completely from the property and appropriately dispose of them.
Keep maintained throughout the year.
WEEDS AND OVERGROWN VEGETATION
~ All Areas: Prune any overgrown plants, shrubs or trees; remove cuttings and dead
tree limbs. Keep maintained throughout the year.
~ Urban: Abate all exterior fire hazards; complete abatement may' include a
combination of discing, mowing, and spraying. Remove from the property all dead
trees and maintain weeds and other vegetation at a height 'Of no more than four
inches (4"L Native shrubbery should be cleared to a distance of at least fifteen feet
(15') from the structure. Maintain trees within one hundred feet (100') of any
building, structure, or within ten feet (10') from any roadway, hIghway, street, alley,
or driveway, so that no leafy foliage, twigs, or branches are with,in six feet (S') of the
ground. Remove any portion of a tree that extends, within ten feet (10') of the
outlet of a chimney or stovepipe. Keep all trees, shrubs, and other vegetation, or
portions thereof adjacent to or overhanging any building or structure, free from
dead limbs, branches, arid other combustible materials. Maintain 'five feet (5') of
vertical clearance between roof surface and portions of trees overhanging any
building or structure. Maintain roof of building or structure free of leaves, needles,
twigs, or other combustible Utter.
o
Rural: Parcels, one acre or less, shall reqUire complete abatement of all exterior fire
hazards. Parcels greater than one acre should provide a minimum twelve foot (12')
firebreak. Firebreaks are to follow as closely as practical, the property line, along
one side of fence lines, ditches, and on' top of ridges, or surrounding structures.
Trees may be left within the firebreak and shall have low limbs trimmed up to a
height of six feet (S'). All buildings and structures which are upon or adjoining
hazardous fire areas, shall be maintained with, an effective firebreak by removing
and clearing away. flammable vegetation and combustible growth from within thirty
feet (30') of such buildings or structures. A firebreak of one hundred feet (100') may
be required due to terrain, topographY, or fueL Where practical, prOVide twelve
foot (i2') firebreaks from inside fence line along all public roadways. Combustible
storage, such as usable lumber, cord fire wood, hay or straw, shall be neatly stacked
an all combustible growth shall be removed from within fifteen feet (is') of the
stored materials.
ATTACHMENT 7
THE OFFICE OF
]EFFREYF. GAMBONI
LANDSCAPEARCHITECr2702
CERTIFIED ARBoRlsT WC-520,
27 SEPTEMBER 2000
I~ L ?5)~j,
Dennis Carrington
Senior Planner '
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
DublinCA 94568
SUBJECT: Heritage Tree Protection Plan for Brittany Dmre Estates, Tract 5073
Mr. Carrington:
Since we visited the site together on 21 September, I understmd that the Fire Marshall has
returned to indicate with marking paint the minimum height at which branches must be cut
to t;educe the fire danger. We discussed this issue during our visit and I am aware of the
pruning cuts that will be required to achieve the clearances required by the Fire Marshall.
We understood that au limbs must be removed that at7e within 6t -0" of the existing grade ,and
I'm sure you'll agree that such pruning is necess2q to protect the health, safety and welfare
of your residents.
Your Heritage Tree Ordinance #29-99 specifically addresses this issue in section 5.60.50
under section (b )E:x:ceptions, paragraph (3):
Normal rruUntenance proning of Heritage Trees shall not require a permit but shall in
all cases be in CGnformance with the guidelines of the International Society of
Aboriculture, Tree Pruriing Guidelines, current edition, on file in the community
Development Department.
This fire safety pruning, if exec;uted per the Guidelines noted, will not adversely affect the
health of these Heritsge Tr.ees. We understand that the fire safety' pruning is separate from
any other issues associated with these trees and that this fire safety pruning is required even
if th,ese lots are not developed. I will conta:ct you after I visit the site on 27' September to
review the painting marks.
~~
Landscape Architect ')
Certified Arborist
3102 PACIFIC AVENUE STOCK:rON, CA 95204 TEL 209'.948.8335
FAX 209.465.2603 EMAIL GAMBONI@GOTNET.N.ET
ATrACHMENT 8
Dec,06-00 09\20P Jeffrey Gamban;
..----
PA01
IbJ. ~ ;L~5
ft..n4,''bF~:i'(:Ed}o-
jEFf"'Rgy F. GI\MBONI
1 ~A~tJS(5\ Pr<: AaC::1H'l'HCrl' 2702
. ,. -:.", '"-' ..
",-,,(, :HRTTFlED A.RBORISl" WC~520
. .;.' , ," - .: " :.. '.' , -'" ,~.;-..,::", ", ,.. .".".,. ".-'> ;'. ;. ."
() Ui:!.tiEMBI'mZOOQ
M.r. Eddie.: Peabody
(:il1' ofJ)ublin
P.O. nox 2J40
Dublill~C^ 9456H
SUI~J Eel';
'j Icntage"l'ie6 'Pr<.,fc<:tlt>li: Pfa11 for:nrilt.anynrivc"'Esr.atc"~ 'I'fact 5073,
Pn.:parcd by I r ortScience and 1Cv1."led for Nm'embt:r 2000
1. 1 have revicMFcd'tJle r~\"iscd 'I'reel'f't)tcct1oQ.P!ilnnotedl1h()\,cand agnx: with rJ1C r<;visi()t~!;
indicated.
.p ,
1.1 1 had prcviously r~4uested 11 !ilit~: plan irlClicaring the location of the b~nic, l"1,:11ceS
around the tree." which hall now been provided.
'1.2 I had a,;kcd that foliage rt.>mo'....m be restricted to m...'Cessary pruning with~)utalso
rerm 1v111g t()liagc just [(') allow "lews through the canoptr.:s. This adr.litionalphiiling h<lsbccil
eliminated. RChrarding the issueli (>f follil.b7f: loss.. it is imperative that tllt: R.>liage los:-; be "
minimiif.~d rather than maximized to f't..'tain the vigor.of this specirJ'\(..'fl. Foliag(~rcmo\'aljhst
t<.) open vkws is ,opt app!:'oi.:cd as an acceptable motive. fi't)liaf,~ remoyal at this time is
apprn\'c:<1 only [00 l'latisfyfiu! r.equlr<.:rm::nts of the Fire Marshall and the pnttr.:ction of the
public's health, ::;afcty ::tnti wclfl:lrc.
1.3 We a~rrcc with the removal of the secondary. (27") t1iJnk nftrce #340 Oil LOI 8 ~) the
bal"C of the tn,'C. tJpon in~pcctioll we felt Lhat the secondary t~flh: W-as pt'(,bal?lyo11~~a
~cf.:ond tn:<..' that had {,l'tOW into the main t.ree as dl(.' trees d~:vd{)petl }UlG rhlll ihe rem~)",ttl'()f
the scr;ondary tnI11k could be l~ccOltiplished Iv satisfy the detru~nds o( the Fire Marshall
without t1ignificand}' affecting the remtlmmg troc bec,lu::;e <,>f l,hr..~ compa'Ct'll:lt:'nt~d1~at:i6n
between the scctl11dary and primary trunk. '
1.4 We had askt:d that the l:.lt'~'C (25'') scaffnld on lrcc.: #340 hcadinp; tov".ard Hritulny
Lane not br..~ t"emnveu undf.~r any cirCumstatlCC~, especially since the KCCOlldllry (27') tnmk
was being removed. This change i.~ noted in the ncw report.
1.5 Wl~ ft.~HlIesl that 'the tree pnmlng be JiTccteul)}' ft Ccrtifi~ A t:b()nst ,Ulcl adhere to
the 'rrc~~ Yruni!"\~ (7ui~eJiIlc~ of thclllLernatirmai Society of Arborit:ulture and ANSI ^300.,
1.() Potenlial neglltive impacls resulting from ptuning: the pnming of tree #340 is majOT
surgct)' rC"luiring the n:mov~ll of a <<27~' trunkn from a 4()'1 d1amct('~1. trLln k. h( IWC\'cr we ngtt:<.:
30t2 P..\ClFrCAVHNuE S'!OCT<.."1'ONCA 95204 'l'w.209.94S.8335
flAX 2U9.465.2603 J ':lI.{,AU. G ,'L\1HONJ@<XJ'l'NTl:l'.Nl':1'
ID)CITY OF DUBLIN
A'ffACHMENT g
DEC-06-2000 08:52PM
TEL)
PAGE: 001 R=99"
~',
/:1: 20P Jeffrey Gamban;'
P~02
/63 ~~ij
Rr~Vll~\V: HERrr:\c:n'l'RgE PR(rmcrrON PU..N
l~R.ITIAl'\Y ] JA"lE
RnVIsr::n NOVEMlmn 2000
PA(~F, ZtJr2
G DECEMBER 2000
thal the live oak's vigorous condition bodes well fi')t" its abilit.y to compart.ll'lCnt-Alizr.: the
wound and evt.'tlt W'l.lly ~eal over the pruning cuts.
1.7 ,Wc.~ -rcc..lueslco t,(pccifu:: t:,ruiJclines for tht: maintenat'l.{,:'~ of these trcct'. which have.: bCc..l1
prov'ided. Wf.~ have. 111,,0 l-ll:tggested ~i~ditiona:l mit.ig'tl.bm'] to perpr.:tuarc the oak gr/JVt~ wnu[J
indude th.e: planting of }~dd1ti()tlal oak trees allht:l5c;: home sit.c... as part. nf thf.: future
landscape improvcmt.:11ts. 1 believe this woulu need robe tn:atcd a.~ a condition of app'foval.
In Cl mdu~i(m Wl: hclieve Ih~lt th(.~ :repnrl has now addr(:ssed our concerns ~lrId i:-: a balanct:d
apprnllch fi)t" the ma1ntell211C'c of these I k-ritage '!'rc(:::;. '
~'
3012 PACIFIC AV.f:i.NUE STOCKTO~ CA 95204 1'RL209.94A.8335
,.',\X 209.465.2603 EMAU. GIlMBONI@GOTNJJ.'!'.:\1H'I'
DEC-06-2000 08:52PM
TEl)
ID)CITY OF DUBLIN
PAGE:002 R=99~
I'-Y ~ JJ~
TO:
File
t2f
FROM:
Eddie Peabody Jr., Community Development Director
DATE: December 7,2000
SUBJECT: Tree Protection Plan for PAOO-009, Blue Mountain SDR
The City's Arborist has reviewed and approved the Tree Protection Plan for the project. I have'
reviewed the Tree Protection Plan and hereby approve it.
g:\correspo\rd\ep\tree protection plan
ATTACHMENT \ 0
IbS otf I- ~j
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: December 12, 2000
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS: 1.
2_
3_
9.
RECOMMENDATION: 1.
2.
3.
4_
5.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
PUBLIC HEARING: P A 00-009, Black Mountain Development Site
Development Review for seven single-family residences on existing lots on
Brittany Lane
(Report Prepared by: Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner/Zoning
Administrator)
4_
5.
6.
7.
8.
Project plans
Resolution of Approval
Horticultural report dated July 5, 1985, prepared by Douglas
Hamilton
Tree Protection Plan
Heritage Tree Ordinance
Letter by Jeffrey Gamboni approving the Tree Protection Plan
Alameda County Fire Department - Removal Requirements
Letter September 27,2000, from Jeffrey Gamboni in support offire
safety pruning
Letter to File from Director approving the Tree Protection Plan
Open public hearing
Receive staff presentation and public testimony
Question staff, applicant and the public
Close public hearing
Adopt Resolution (Attachment 2) approving the Site Development
Review, subject to conditions
Construction of seven single-family homes on seven existing lots created as lots 1 and 7 - 12 of Block 1 of
Tract Map 5073. The lots are located at 11299 Rolling Hills Drive and 11151, 11159, 11167, 11175,
11183 and 11191 Brittany Lane.
BACKGROUND:
History:
On August 12, 1985, the City Council approved PA 85-035.3, Hatfield Development Corporation
Investec, Inc. Tract Maps 5072, 5073 and 5074. Lots 1 and 7 -:- 12 of Block 1 of Tract Map 5073 were
not built upon when the rest of the homes were built in 1985. These lots are the location of the seven
proposed residences ofthis project. City Council Resolution 82 - 85 set forth the conditions of approval
COPIES TO:
P A File
Applicant
Mailing list
ATTACHMENT 'I
ITEM NO.
/~b ~ )~5
for the three tract maps. Conditions 4 and 12 of that resolution require that a Site Development Review be
processed for the development of these lots. '
General Plan. The proposed residences are located on existing single family lots that were created in
conformity with the Single Family Residential plan designation of the Dublin General Plan.
Zoning, The proposed residences are located on existing single family lots that were created in conformity
with the R-l Zoning District.
MAJOR ISSUES
The major issues Staffhas identified for this project are listed below. Each issue also has numbered sub-
issues which will be addressed within the major issues' section:
. Conformity of project with City Council Resolution 82-85
. Views/Height Limits
. Grading
. Heritage Trees/Tree Protection Plan
. Project design
CONFORMITY OF PROJECT WITH CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 82 - 85
The City Council adopted Resolution 82-85 on August 12, 1985 approving Tract Maps 5072,5073 and
5074. This project must comply with the conditions of approval of Resolution 82-85. The conditions that
specifically apply to this project are listed below with statements regarding project conformity with them:
Condition 3. This condition establishes the development regulations for this development. The
regulations are:
. Front yard setback is 20 feet.
. Side yard setback is 5 feet minimum and 15 feet aggregate,
. Street side yard setback is 15 feet.
. Lots are subject to guidelines of the R-1 zoning district.
. Lots must be 7,000 square feet in size and 70 feet in width.
The proposed residences comply with all of these requirements and with the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance adopted in 1997.
Condition 4. Site grading aggregating in excess of fifty cubic yards and/or placement of ancillary
detached structures aggregating in excess of 100 square feet in size located in excess of thirty-five feet
from the principle residence established on the following lots shall not occur until a Site Development
Review (SDR) application is processed according to Section 8.95.0 (now section 8.104) of the Zoning
Ordinance (Site Development Review).
Tract 5072, Block 1, Lots 1 & 4-6
Block 2, Lots 7-9
Tract 5073, Block 1, Lots 1,3,4 & 6-12
Block 2, Lots 1, 2, 12, 13 & 16-21
Tract 5074, Block 1, Lots 2-10 & 14-19
2
/t.1 ~"l/5
Block 3, Lots 1-16 & 18-22
Site grading of the lots in this project will exceed fifty cubic yards and therefore a Site
Development Review is required for the residences.
Condition 6,
"The height of custom or modified homes shall not exceed twenty-five (25) feet as measured
perpendicularly from natural grade. Skirt heights screening undeveloped, non-living space for custom or
modified homes (measured from natural grade to finished floor elevations) shall not exceed a maximum of
nine 9 feet. Deviation and/or refinement of these standards may be .considered as part of the Site
Development Review process covering these lots."
Natural Grade. This condition applies a 25-foot height limit with a maximum skirt height of9 feet
as measured from natural grade. Natural Grade is defined by the Zoning Ordinance as the contour
of the ground surface before grading. Common engineering practice is to define the ground surface
before grading as ground that has never been graded or ground that has been graded pursuant to an
approved grading permit so that there is a "new" ground surface. This new ground surface can
then be used to determine Natural Grade.
Grading. The site was graded between 1981 and 1985. ENGEO Incorporated is the geotechnical
engineering, company that prepared the geotechnical engineering reports for the Hatfie1d- Investec
subdivision including the subject Rolling Hills Drive lot and Brittany Lane Lots, The City retains
Kleinfelder, Inc, to perform peer reviews of geotechnical engineering reports. That firm determined
that the grading of the subject lots was done properly and meets current standard of engineering
practice in the Bay Area.
A field evaluation of the lots on Brittany Lane indicated that moderate amounts of fill were placed
on the lots in 1985. Fill is estimated to be as follows:
Lot Line Amount ofFill
On average
6/7 2 feet
7/8 4 feet
8/9 8 feet
9/10 10 feet
10/11 1 feet
11/12 3 feet
The fill is relatively shallow adjacent the sidewalk and increases with distance from the sidewalk.
The fill terminates in a lip and then falls rapidly down to the original ungraded surface of the
ground. There may have been some undocumented placement offill since 1985 by persons
unknown. A condition of approval requires that any undocumented fill be removed during the
grading for this project. This will result in the re-creation of the 1985 ground surface that was
approved by the grading permit at that time. As such Natural Grade would be as determined in
1985. The cross sections for each lot in the bound project plans show the 1985 ground level. A
condition of approval requires that the houses be built at the elevations shown on the project plans.
3
!bg- 4 ;.L{>
Flexibility of Condition 6 is appropriate. Condition 4 of this resolution identifies 64 lots for
which a Site Development Review will be required. An analysis of these 64 lots reveals that 55 of
them have either flat pad or stepped pad foundations. The other 9 lots (six of which are included in
this project) are lots characterized by no or minimal building pads and steep slopes. A typical two-
story residence on a flat or stepped pad foundation can easily conform to the 25-foot height limit.
A residence on a steeply sloping lot would only conform to the 25-foot limit if it resembled a
stairway with shallow treads and had rooms that were not very usable. In Staff's view Condition 6
anticipated this situation and provided for deviation and/or refinement of its standards pursuant to
Site Development Review. Staff feels the deviation or refinement of the twenty-five foot limit is
appropriate for steep slope situations and that it was the intent of the condition to allow for
deviation or refinement of this standard to allow construction of residences with usable floor plans
on sloping lots,
Deviation and/or refinement. Condition 6 allows the deviation and/or refinement of its standards
to be considered as part of the Site Development Review (SDR) process covering these lots. Staff
is recommending that Section 8.36,ll0.C.2 of the Zoning Ordinance be applied to this SDR. The
section, "Residential exception - Sloping Lots" allows the maximum height for any dwelling to be
increased when the average natural slope of a proposed building envelope is 15 percent or more, as
follows:
Bryce Davies home. Staff used Section 8.36.110,C.2 to approve a Site Development Review to
permit a single-family residence at 11197 Brittany Lane (Lot 6 of Block 1 of Tract Map 5073),
which is adjacent to Lot 7 of this project. That residence was similar in height, design and size to
the proposed residences. It is located on a lot with slopes in excess of30% like the subject lots.
The Bryce Davies residence, when built, will have the presence on the Brittany Lane frontage of a
single story home. StafIapplied Section 8.36.110.C.2 in light of Condition 6 of City Council
Resolution 82 - 85 and approved the project on January 15, 1999. Staff discussed the Bryce
Davies home proposal with most of the nearby residents before approving the project. There were
no appeals of the staff approval. ,
Impacts to views minimized. Statfworked with the applicant/developer to site the residences as
low on the lots as possible in order to preserve views. Even though the residences are proposed to
be located according to the existing natural grade of the lots, impacts to views will be minimized.
This project contains 2 lots with slopes exceeding 22,5 % and Slots exceeding 30%. These homes
could be 35 and 40 feet high. The Zoning Ordinance permits the proposed homes on these lots
pursuant to the height exception. It should be pointed out that the seven homes have roof peaks
that average 13.6 feet below the height allowed with the height exception because the building pads
are located down slope from Brittany Lane. The residences are designed to appear from the street
as single story homes. They average 13.16 feet high when viewed from the sidewalk on Brittany
Lane and 15.4 feet high at the front porch. Hip roofs are incorporated into the design of the homes
to provide minimum interference with views. The project plans provide profiles for each proposed
4
Ib1 ~ )Y1
residence to show impacts to the views of the homes on the opposite side of Brittany Lane, Staff
feels that the project minimizes impact to views of residences on Brittany Lane.
..
Condition 6 complied with. Staff feels that the project has been designed in compliance with
Condition 6. The deviation and/or refinement of the standards is appropriate. The project is well
designed, well sited and minimizes impacts to the views of neighbors on the north side of Brittany
Lane.
Condition 7. The design, location and materials of all fencing, 'and of all retaining walls installed by the
developer, shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director. Provision of common fences
for all side and rear yards shall be the responsibility ofthe developer. Fencing installed by the developer at
the bottom or top of slopes higher than ten feet, and/or fences of rear yards with a high visibility from
adjoining down slope areas, may be designed with an open mesh material, subject to review and approval
by the Planning Director as regards the location and material utilized.
A condition of approval of this SDR will address this issue.
Condition 12. The twelve custom lots proposed for development within this project are subject to
individual, or grouped Site Development Review applications pursuant to Section 8.95.0 (now 8.104) of
the Zoning Ordinance. Grading ,for these lots shall be minimized to the greatest extent possible while
creating reasonably sized, functional exterior living areas (padded yard areas and/or raised deck areas).
A Site Development Review is being required for this project. Grading will be limited to the placement of
the residences and driveways on the lots. The majority of each residence will not be directly supported by
the soil but will be placed on a framework of deep-seated piers and grade beams. This will minimize
grading impacts to the lots. Functional padded exterior living areas are proposed in the front yards and in
raised deck areas.
Condition 16. Project grading performed within 25 feet ofthe drip line of existing onsite or offsite trees
shall be addressed by a horticultural report and the recommendations and findings of that report
incorporated into the grading and improvement plans of this project.
A horticultural report dated July 5, 1985, was prepared by Douglas Hamilton (Attachment 3) for Tracts
5072, 5073 and 5074. A Tree Protection Plan (Attachment 4) dated received December 4,2000, was
prepared by Nelda Matheny ofHortScience for this project. The project was designed pursuant to the
Tree Protection Plan. Conditions of approval of the SDR will ensure that the requirements of the Tree
Protection Plan are implemented.
Condition ,19. The developer shall confer with the local postal authorities to determine the type of mail
receptacles necessary and provide a letter stating their satisfaction with the type of mail service to be
provided. Specific locations for such units shall be to the satisfaction of the Postal Service.
A condition of approval of this SDR will address this issue.
5
/?D ~ )L/j
Views/Height Limits
Residents across the street from the Brittany Lane lots have expressed concern that the proposed
residences will impact views from their homes. As stated above, Staff has worked with the developer to
design and site the proposed homes to minimize impacts to views and to conform to the requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance and any conditions of approval of earlier permits that apply to this project
Residents of Brittany Lane have raised two interrelated concerns relating to this issue.
1. Natural Grade is defined as ground surface that has never been graded. Neighbors have met
with Staff and stated that they feel the heights of structures should be measured up from the ground
surface which has never been graded. They have stated that ground surface before grading means
ground surface before any grading. Staff has related to the neighbors, as stated above, that a new
ground surface can be created pursuant to a valid grading permit which is what occurred in 1985
when these lots were created. As such the heights ofthe residences should be measured from the
new natural grade. It should be pointed out that if soil were removed to build the homes at the
grade that existed before any grading,' the houses would not be lowered a great deal in many cases
and that the removal of the soil could potentially destabilize Brittany Lane. Soil was placed in a
keyway on the subject parcels to provide support for the newly created Brittany Lane and the lots
facing it.
2. The implications of the terms "Shall" and "May" in Condition of Approval Number 6.
"Shall" vs. "May". The current Zoning Ordinance states that the term "Shall" is mandatory and
that the term "May" is permissive and discretionary. Residents opposite the proposed project have
spoken to Staff and have said that they interpret these words to say that that the twenty-five foot
height limit is required by the word "Shall" and is therefore mandatory. They believe the use of the
word ''May'' allowing a deviation is permissive and discretionary. They say that the mandatory
"Shall" has precedence over the discretionary "May" and therefore that no deviation or refinement
of these standards should be considered as. part of the SDR process. As stated above, Stafffeels
the intent of Condition 6 was to provide flexibility in steep slope situations when application of the
25 foot height standard would make construction of a residence impractical. As such, Staff is of
the opinion that the discretionary term "May", as applied in this condition, does apply and is not
superceded by the term "Shall". Hence, a deviation can be applied via Site Development Review.
Grading. Two concerns about grading have been related to Staffby residents of Brittany Lane:
1. Concerns about improper placement of soil. Concerns have been raised that soil was improperly
placed on the six Brittany lane lots when they were graded in the past. ENGEO Incorporated is the
geotechnical engineering company that prepared the geotechnical engineering reports for the
Hatfield-Investec subdivision including the subject Rolling Hills Drive lot and Brittany Lane Lots.
The City retains Kleinfelder, Inc. to perform peer reviews of geotechnical engineering reports.
That firm determined that the grading ofthe subject lots was done properly and meets current
standard of engineering practice in the Bay Area. Kleinfelder does recommend that supplemental
grading be undertaken to remove the area of boulders on Lots 8 and 9 and to re-grade the area
prior to commencing of construction on these lots. This recommendation is a condition of approval
of the Site Development Review.
6
/11 4 ;.~7
2. Concern about soil being placed within driplines of Heritage Trees. Concerns have also been
raised that soil was placed within the driplines of Heritage Trees on this project. A review of the
1985 grading plans and the grading plans for this project by Public Works and Planning staff and a
field trip by Planning staff have determined that no soil was placed within the driplines of any
Heritage Trees on this project site.
Heritage Trees/Tree Protection Plan
Concerns of residents. Residents of Brittany Lane have expressed concerns to staff that pruning of the
Heritage Trees on the project site will harm the trees. Staffhas worked closely with the
Applicant/Developer; the Applicant'sarborist, the City's arborist and the Fire Marshall to ensure that any
pruning of the Heritage Trees will not harm them. A Tree Protection Plan was submitted to the City and
reviewed by the City's arborist. The arborist had several concerns with the original draft of the Plan and
requested changes. A revised Tree Protection Plan was submitted to the City's arborist for review. The
City's arborist submitted a letter (Attachment 6) dated December 6,2000, stating that he believes the Plan
has now addressed his concerns and is a balanced approach for the maintenance of the Heritage Trees. A
separate letter (Attachment 8) from the City's arborist dated September 27,2000, stated that the proposed
fire safety pruning, if executed per the Guidelines noted (of the Tree Protection Plan), will not adversely
affect the health of these Heritage Trees.
Heritage Tree Ordinance. The City Council adopted the Heritage Tree Ordinance (Attachment 5),
Ordinance 29 - 99, on December 21, 1999. The ordinance was adopted because "the city has many
Heritage Trees, the preservation of which is beneficial to the health and welfare of the citizens of this city
in order to enhance the scenic beauty, increase property values, encourage quality development, prevent
soil erosion, protect against flood hazards and the risk of landslides, counteract pollution in the air and
maintain the climatic balance within the City."
The sections of the Heritage Tree Ordinance that are pertinent to this project are as follows. Please refer
to these sections in the Ordinance (Attachment 5). The report will address how each section is complied
with by the Tree Protection Plan:
. Section 5.60.40 - Definitions. Heritage Tree
. Section 5.60.50 - Tree Removal Permit Required
. Section 5.60.80 - Protection of Heritage Trees during construction.
. Section 5.60.90 - Protection plan required prior to issuance of permit
. Section 5.60.100 - Applicant to guarantee protection - security deposit
Compliance with Section 5.60.40 - Definitions. Heritage Tree. Nineteen oak trees are identified by the
Tree Protection Plan within this project. Twelve ofthose trees are Oaks are over 24 inches in diameter
measured 4 feet 6 inches above natural grade and therefore meet the definition "a" of a Heritage Tree. All
nineteen trees will be designated as Heritage Trees by a condition of approval of this Site Development
Review.
Compliance with Section 5.60.50 - Tree Removal Permit Required. The Heritage Trees on site will
not be removed as part ofthis project but, if the project is approved, must be pruned in order to meet the
requirements of the 1997 Fire Code. A portion of Tree 340 will be removed pursuant to the Fire Code and
to Section 5.60.50,b.1 of the Heritage Tree Ordinance. It is technically a separate trunk from the main
trunk of Tree 340. The trunk to be removed and the remainder of Tree 340 are treated as one tree in the
7
I?~ o(}Q5
Tree Protection Report because they are located immediately adjacent to each other and form portions of
the same canopy and dripline. The removal of this trunk is permitted by the Director as part of this Site
Development Review pursuant to Section 5.60.50.b.l of the Heritage Tree Ordinance that allows removal
of a Heritage Tree if it presents an immediate hazard to life or property.
Compliance with Section 5.60.80. Heritage Trees required to be retained pursuant to this Site
Development Review will be protected during demolition, grading, and construction operations. The Tree
Preservation Guidelines of the Tree Protection Plan have been incorporated as conditions of approval to
ensure that the Heritage Trees are protected during demolition, grading, and construction operations.
Compliance with Section 5.60.90. A Tree Protection Plan (Attachment 4) was prepared for this project
by Nelda Matheny, a certified arborist and submitted on December4, 2000. The plan was peer-reviewed
for the City by Jeffrey Gamboni, a Certified Arborist. His letter approving the Tree Protection Plan is
attached to this report as Attachment 6. Mr. Gamboni has reviewed and accepted the Tree Protection
Plan. The Director of Community Development has approved that Plan (Attachment 9). The cost of the
review was paid for by the applicant/developer.
A condition of approval requires that Heritage Trees shall be pruned in conformance with the Wildfire
Management Plan. All pruning shall be completed by a Certified Arborist and Tree Worker in the presence
of the City's arborist and be in conformance with the guidelines of the International Society of
Arboriculture, Tree Pruning Guidelines, current edition, on file in the Community Development
Department. In addition, pruning shall be in conformity with the provisions of the Pruning Specifications
of the Tree Protection Plan for this project.
A condition of approval requires that if damage should occur to any tree during construction it shall be
immediately reported to the Director of Community Development so that proper treatment may be
administered. The Director will refer to the City Arborist to determine the appropriate method of repair of
any damage. The cost of any treatment or repair shall be borne by the developer/applicant responsible for
the development ofthe project. Failure to do so may result in the issuance of a stop work order.
Compliance with Section 5.60.100. A condition of approval of this Site Development Review requires
that the applicant/developer shall guarantee the protection of the Heritage Trees on the project site through
placement ofa cash bond or other security deposit in the amount of $100,000. The cash bond or other
security shall be retained for a reasonable period of time following the occupancy of the last residence
occupied, not to exceed one year. The cash bond or security is to be released upon satisfaction of the
Director of Community Development that the Heritage Trees have not been endangered. The cash bond or
security deposit shall be forfeited as a civil penalty for any unauthorized removal or destruction of a
Heritage Tree.
Uniform Fire Code. The City adopted the 1997 Uniform Fire Code (Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter
5.08) in November 1999. The Fire Code authorizes the Fire Chiefto require removal of combustible
vegetation or to create fuel breaks. Pursuant to this authority, the Fire Marshall has established Removal
Requirements (1997 Uniform Fire Code section 1103 .2.4)(Attachment 7). The Removal Requirements
require weeds within 100 feet of a structure to be cut to 4 inches and trees within 100 feet of any structure
to be pruned to remove any branches within 6 feet of the ground. This requirement ofthe Fire Code is
intended to counteract the "Ladder Effect" of fires. The ladder exists when litter on the ground, grasses
and low-hanging foliage of trees provide a path for fire to the crown of the tree. A fire in the litter will
catch the grass on fire and then the grass will ignite the foliage of the tree. When the crown catches fire,
8
! 1:3 ~ I}Vj
the fire can spread to crowns of other trees. Cutting weeds to a height of 4 inches and removing any
branches within 6 feet of the ground prevents the ladder effect and saves the tree and nearby structures
from burning. This provision of the 1997 Uniform Fire Code is meant to protect structures but it also
benefits the tree in the long run.
Wildfire Management Program. The City adopted the Wildfire Management Plan by Resolution 84-96.
The Wildfire Management Program contains a r~quirement that trees be thinned to 10 feet between crowns
and that limbs or remaining trees be pruned to 15 feet or one-third the total live crown height, whichever is
less. The Fire Marshall has told Staff that this standard is only used in areas that are heavily forested and
not in urban areas such as where this project is located. This standard will not be applied to this project.
Tree 340. Staff met with the Applicant/Developer, a Certified Arborist from HortScience representing the
developer, Jeff Gamboni and the Fire Marshall at the project site to discuss impacts to Tree 340 which is
the largest tree in close proximity to a proposed residence. The Certified Arborist sprayed Tree 340 in
locations where pruning should occur. It was agreed at that time that the following conditions of approval
would be included in the Resolution of Approval:
1. The major scaffold on Tree 340 pointing north toward the proposed residence on Lot 8
shall only be trimmed as necessary to elevate the foliage 6 feet above the ground. Under no
circumstances shall that scaffold be pruned further back than as marked in yellow unless so
much foliage had to be trimmed that, in the opinion of the consulting arborist and the City's
arborist, it was necessary. If said major scaffold projects to within 5 feet of the residence,
the residence shall be modified to move it until it is at least five feet from the furthest extent
offoliage of said limb.
2. All cuts on Tree 340 shall be as marked in yellow on that tree and as agreed upon with the
City of Dublin. Any changes to the pruning of the tree can only occur with the concurrence
of the arborist and the City's arborist and the City of Dublin.
PROJECT DESIGN
The proposed residences are well designed and sited. Staff met with the applicant/developer and his
architect on several occasions and refined the designs of the residences. The 3,400 square foot four
bedroom homes are quite attractive and will complement the architectural quality of the surrounding
neighborhood. The design elements are shown in colored renderings in the bound project plans. Two
floor plans, one with a "straight-in" garage and one with a "side-in" garage are proposed. The residences
are sited on the lots to minimize impacts to views from the other side of Brittany Lane. Hip roofs have
been incorporated into the design to minimize impacts to views. The homes will have a street presence of
a single-family home. They average 13.16 feet high when viewed from the sidewalk on Brittany Lane and
15.4 feet high at the front porch. Landscaping plans have been prepared by Gates and Associates and will
provide an attractive landscape presence on Brittany Lane.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The environmental impacts ofthis project were addressed under the Negative Declaration prepared for the
P A 85-035 Hatfield Development Corporation Planned Development Rezone, Annexation and Site
Development Review of which the subject lots were a part. The Negative Declaration was prepared in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the City
of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. Further, the project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section
9
/11 ~ J.~6
15304, Class 4, minor public or private alterations in the condition ofthe land, water, and/or vegetation
which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry and agricultural purposes.
Specifically, Example "I", Fuel management activities within 30 feet of structures to reduce the volume of
flammable vegetation, provided that the activities will not result in the taking of endangered, rare, or
threatened plant or animal species or significant erosion and sedimentation of surface waters. This
exemption shall apply to fuel management activities within 100 feet of a structure if the public agency
having fire protection responsibility for the area has determined that 100 feet offuel clearance is required
due to extra hazardous fire conditions. This project is adjacent to a wildfire area and the 1997 Uniform
Fire Code requires 100 feet offuel clearance for this project.
CONCLUSION:
The project is in conformity with the Dublin General Plan, City Council Resolution 82-85, the Zoning
Ordinance and with the Heritage Tree Ordinance. The homes are well sited and designed. Impacts to
views will be minimized.
RECOMMENDATION:
Open public hearing, receive staff presentation and public testimony, question staff, applicant and the
public, close public hearing and adopt Resolution (Attachment 2) approving the Site Development Review,
subject to conditions.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY OWNER:
Jeff Woods
Black Mountain Development
12 Crow Canyon Court, Suite 207
San Ramon, CA 94583
LOCATION/ ASSESSORS
PARCEL NUMBER:
The lots to be developed have the following addresses and Assessor's Parcel Numbers:
LOT
ADDRESS
ASSESOR'S PARCEL NUMBER
1
7
8
9
10
11
12
11299 Rolling Hills Drive
11191 Brittany Lane
11183 Brittany Lane
11175 Brittany Lane
11167 Brittany Lane
11159 Brittany Lane
11151 Brittany Lane
941-2775-30
941-2775-36
941-2775-37
941-2775-38
941-2775-39
941-2775-40
941-2775-41
EXISTING ZONING: R-l
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Single Family Residential
LV
/J5 < ;d5
RESOLUTION NO. 00 - 71
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING P A 00-009 BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR SEVEN SINGLE-F AMIL Y HOMES
ON EXISTING LOTS ON BRITT ANY LANE
WHEREAS, Black Mountain Development has requested approval of a Site Development Review for
seven single family homes on existing lots on Brittany Lane; and
WHEREAS, a completed application for Site Development Review is available and on file in the Dublin
Planning Department; and
WHEREAS, The environmental impacts of this project were addressed ooderthe Negative Declaration
prepared for the P A 85-035 Hatfield Development Corporation Planned Development Rezone, Annexation and
Site Development Review of which the subject lots were a part. The Negative Declaration was prepared in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the City of
Dublin Environmental Guidelines. Further, the project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15304,
Class 4, minor public or private alterations in the condition of the land, water, and/or vegetation which do not
involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry and agricultural purposes. Specifically,
Example "I", Fuel management activities within 30 feet of structures to reduce the volume of flammable
vegetation, provided that the activities will not result in the taking of endangered, rare, or threatened plant or
animal species or significant erosion and sedimentation of surface waters. This exemption shall apply to fuel
management activities within 100 feet of a structure if the public agency having fire protection responsibility for
the area has determined that 100 feet of fuel clearance is required due to extra hazardous fire conditions. This
project is adjacent to a wildfire area and the 1997 Uniform Fire Code requires 100 feet of fuel clearance for this
project; and ,
WHEREAS, a Site Development Review is required for this project by Conditions 4 and 12 of City
Council Resolution 82-85 approving PA 85-035.3, Hatfield Development Corporation Investec, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, the project is consistent in all respects with the Heritage Tree Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the project is consistent in all respects with Dublin General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the project is consistent in all respects with the conditions of approval of City Council
Resolution 82-85; and
WHEREAS, the project is consistent in all respects with the Heritage Tree Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on December 12,
2000; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, a staff report was submitted to the Planning Commission recommending approval of the Site
A1TACHMENT I ^'
116 ~I-Y~
Development Review subject to conditions prepared by Staff; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgement and considered all
said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
make the following findings and determinations regarding said proposed Site Development Review:
A. The approval of this application (P A 00-009) is consistent with the intent/purpose of Section
8.104 (Site Development Review) of the Zoning Ordinance.
B. The approval of this application, as conditioned, complies with the policies ofthe General Plan,
the Zoning Ordinance, the Heritage Tree Ordinance and City Council Resolution 82-85.
C. The approval will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the
vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare because all applicable
regulations will have been met.
D. Impacts to views have been addressed by sensitive design and siting of the proposed single-
family residences.
E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed in the project through the use
of pier and grade beams and by minimal grading to site the homes and front yards.
F. The approval of this application, as conditioned, is in conformance with regional transportation
and growth management plans.
G. The approval ofthis application, as conditioned, is in the best interests of the public health,
safety and general welfare as the development is consistent with all laws and ordinances ap.d implements the
requirements of the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, the Heritage Tree Ordinance and City Council
Resolution 82-85.
H. The proposed physical site development, including the intensity of development, site layout,
grading, vehicular access, circulation and parking, setbacks, height, walls, public safety and similar elements, as
conditioned, has been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development.
I. Architectural considerations, including the character, scale and quality of the design, the
architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, signs, building materials and colors, screening of
exterior appurtenances, exterior lighting and similar elements have been incorporated into the project and as
conditions of approval in order to insure compatibility of this development with the development's design
concept or theme and the character of surrounding development.
J. Landscape considerations, including the locations, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant
materials, provisions and similar elements have been considered to insure visual relief and an attractive
environment for the public.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby find that:
A. The Black Mountain Development Site Development Review is consistent with the intent of
2
/11 ~ )~j
applicable subdivision regulations and related ordinances.
B. The design and improvements of the Black Mountain Development Site Development Review is
consistent with the Dublin General Plan polices as they relate to the subject property in that it is a
, single-family residential development consistent with the Single-Family Residential Designation of
the Dublin General Plan.
C. The Black Mountain Development Site Development Review is consistent with the Heritage Tree
Ordinance, City Council Resolution 82-85 and with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
D. The project site is located adjacent to Rolling Hills Drive and Brittany Lane, on seven existing lots.
Six shallow building pads face on Brittany Lane and on one flag lot on Rolling Hills Drive. The
homes will be supported by the shallow building pads, but the majority of each residence will be
placed on a framework of deep-seated piers and grade beams. This will minimize grading impacts to
the lots. Functional padded exterior living areas are proposed in the front yards and in raised deck
areas. Therefore the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of single-family residential
development proposed.
E. The environmental impacts of this project were addressed under the Negative Declaration prepared
for the P A 85-035 Hatfield Development Corporation Planned Development Rezone, Annexation
and Site Development Review of which the subject lots were a part. The Negative Declaration was
prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA
Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. Further, the project is Categorically
Exempt pursuant to Section 15304, Class 4, minor public or private alterations in the condition ofthe
land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except
for forestry and agricultural purposes. Specifically, Example "I", Fuel management activities within
30 feet of structures to reduce the volume of flammable vegetation, provided that the activities will
not result in the taking of endangered, rare, or threatened plant or animal species or significant
erosion and sedimentation of surface waters. This exemption shall apply to fuel management
activities within 100 feet of a structure if the public agency having fire protection responsibility for
the area has determined that 100 feet of fuel clearance is required due to extra hazardous fire
conditions. This project is adjacent to a wildfire area and the 1997 Uniform Fire Code requires 100
feet of fuel clearance for this project.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE City of Dublin Planning Commission
hereby conditionally approves the Site Development Review Application for P A 00-009 to develop seven single
family residences on seven lots with the Assessors Parcel Numbers 941-2775-30, 941-2775-36, 941-2775-37,
941-2775-38,941-2775-39,941-2775-40 and 941-2775-41 as generally depicted by materials labeled
Attachment 1, stamped "approved" and on file in the City of Dublin Planning Department. This approval shall
conform generally to the project plans submitted by EDI Architecture dated received December 4, 2000, the
Heritage Tree Protection Plan for this project dated received December 4, 2000 and the Site Development Plan
by RMR Design Group dated received December 4, 2000 by the Department of Community Development,
unless modified by the Conditions of Approval contained below.
CONDITIONS OF APPROV AL
Unless otherwise stated. all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to final occupancy of any
building and shall be subiect to Planning Department review and approval. The following codes represent those
departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance with the Conditions of Approval: rPL 1 Planning.
rBl Building. rpOl Police. [PWl Public Works. rADMl Administration/City Attorney. rFIN] Finance. rpCSl
Parks and Community Services. rFl Al~meda County Fire Dept.. rDSRl Dublin San Ramon Services District.
3
1'/ g- ~ )- ~)5
[CO] Alameda County Flood Control and water Conservation District Zone 7.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. Standard Conditions of Approval. Applicant/Developer shall comply with all applicable City of
Dublin Standard Public Works Criteria (Attachment A). In the event ofa conflict between the Public
Works Criteria and these Conditions, these Conditions shall prevail.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Approval of Improvement Plans through completion
2. Modifications or changes. , Modifications or changes to this Site Development Review approval may
be considered by the Community Development Director, if the modifications or changes proposed
comply with Section 8.104.100, of the Zoning Ordinance.
Responsible Agency: PL
Required By:: Approval of Improvement Plans through completion
3. Term. Approval of the Site Development Review shall be valid for one year from approval by the
Planning Commission. If construction has not commenc,ed by that time, this approval shall be null and
void. The approval period for Site Development Review may be extended six (6) additional months by
the Director of Community Development upon determination that the Conditions of Approval remain
adequate to assure that the above stated findings of approval will continue to be met.
(Applicant/Developer must submit a written request for the extension prior to the expiration date of the
Site Development Review.)
Responsible Agency: PL
Required By: On-going
4. Fees. Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance,
including, but not limited to, Planning fees, Building fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District Fees,
Public Facilities Fees, Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees, City Traffic Impact fees, City
Fire Impact fees; Noise Mitigation fees, Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu fees; Alameda County Flood and
Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees; and any other fees as noted
in the Development Agreement. Unissued building permits subsequent to new or revised fees shall 'be
subject to recalculation and assessment of the fair share of the new or revised fees.
Responsible Agency: Various
When Required: Various times, but no later than Issuance of Building Permits
5. Revocation. The SDR will be revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8.96.020.1 of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions of this approval shall be subject to citation.
Responsible Agency: PL
Required By: On-going
6. Required Permits. Applicant/Developer shall comply with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance and
obtain all necessary permits required by other agencies (Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7,
California Department ofFish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control
Board, State Water Quality Control Board, Etc.) and shall submit copies of the permits to the
Department of Public Works.
Responsible Agency: Various
When Required: Various times, but no later than Issuance of Building Permits
7. Building Codes and Ordinances. All project construction shall conform to all building codes and
4
J?1~;Z~~
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit.
Responsible Agency: Bldg.
When Required: Through Completion
8. Compliance. ApplicantlDeveloper shall comply with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance, City
Council Resolution 82-85, the Tree Protection Plan for this project and the City of Dublin General Plan.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Issuance of Building Permits and On-going
9. Conditions of Approval. In submitting subsequent plans for review and approval, each set of plans
shall have attached an annotated copy of these Conditions of Approval and the Standard Public Works
Conditions of Approval. The notations shall clearly indicate how all Conditions of Approval and
Standard Public Works Conditions of Approval will be complied with. Improvement plans will not be
accepted without the annotated conditions and standards attached to each set of plans.
ApplicantlDeveloper will be responsible for obtaining the approvals of all participating non-City
agenCies.
Responsible Agency: PW, PL, Bldg.
When Required: Building Permit Issuance
10. Solid WastelRecycling. Applicant/Developer shall comply with the City's solid waste management and
recycling requirements.
Responsible Agency: ADM,
When Required: On-going
11. Refuse Collection. The refuse collection service provider shall be consulted to ensure that adequate
space is provided to accommodate collection and sorting of petrucible solid waste as well as source-
separated recyclable materials generated by the residents within this project.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Occupancy of Any Building
12. Water Quality Requirements. All development shall meet the water quality requirements of the City
of Dublin's NPDES permit and the Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program.
Responsible Agency: PW, PL
Required By: Issuance of Grading Permit
13. NPDES Permit. Pursuant to requirements of federal law, a NPDES permit shall be obtained from the
R WQCB, and any terms of the permit shall be implemented, if applicable.
Responsible Agency: PW
Required By: Finaling Building Permits
14. Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental Assessment Studies. Applicant/Developer shall supply the
Director of Community Development and Public Works Department with a copy of the Developer's
Phase 1 and Phase 2 (only as required by Phase 1) environmental assessment studies. All remediation
required by those studies shall be implemented to the satisfadion of the Director of Public Works prior
to Improvement Plan approval.
Responsible Agency: PL, PW
Required By: Issuance of Grading Permit
15. Rodenticides and Herbicides. The use of roden tic ides and herbicides within the project area shall be
performed in cooperation with and under the supervision of the Alameda County Department of
5
/gO ~ 1~5
Agriculture and will be restricted, to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, to
reduce potential impacts to wildlife.
Responsible Agency: PL
Required By: Issuance of Grading Permit
16. Dust Control/Cleanup. Applicant/Developer shall ensure that areas undergoing grading and all other
construction activity are watered or other dust control measures are used to prevent dust problems as
conditions warrant or as'directed by the Director of Public Works. Furthermore, Applicant/Developer
shall keep adjoining public streets, sidewalks and driveways free and clean of project dirt, mud,
materials and debris, and clean-up shall be made during the construction period as determined by the
Director 'of Public Works. In the event that the Applicant/Developer does not complete the clean-up
within 48 hours of City's direction, the City has the option of performing the clean-up and charging the
costs of such clean-up to Applicant/Developer. The use of any temporary construction fencing shall be
subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Director and the Building Official.
Responsible Agency: PW
Required By: Ongoing
17. Hold Harmless/Indemnification. Applicant/Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the
City of Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the
City of Dublin or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the
City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board, Planning Commission, City Council, Director of
Community Development, Zoning Administrator, or any other department, committee, or agency of the
City the Site Development Review to the extent such actions are brought within the time period required
by Government Code Section 66499.37 or other applicable law; provided, however, that the
Applicant/Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the City's
promptly notifying the Applicant/Developer of any said claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full
cooperation in the defense of such actions or proceedings.
Required By: Through completion of Improvements and Occupancy of the last
Building
DRAINAGE/GRADING
18. Grading, drainage and improvement plan. The Applicant/Property Owner shall submit a grading,
drainage and improvement plan for each residence subject to review and approval by the Public Works
Director.
Responsible Agency: PW
Required By: Grading Permit
19. Compliance. The Applicant/Property Owner shall comply with the City of Dublin Public Works
Department grading permit process ,and Plan Check-List. An information packet outlining the grading
permit process and Plan Check List is attached.
Responsible Agency: PW
Required By: Grading Permit
20. Undocumented fill. Any undocumented fill on the project site shall be removed during the grading for
this project.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: { Prior to issuance of Building Permits.
21. Drainage. All rain water leaders from roof gutters, balconies, and patios shall be connected to a pipe
network that discharges to the abutting public street via through-curb drains. Foundation or retaining
wall subdrains that must discharge towards the rear of the properties due to their lower elevation in
6
jff/o( J.45
relationship to the street shall terminate with City-approved energy-dissipation devices or per a design
that prevents erosion ofthe natural downslopes. No water from subdrains or from earthen swales shall
discharge in a concentrated manner over and across the natural slopes below the proposed building
envelopes. No surface storm runoff shall be directed towards or across the neighboring sideyard lot
lines.
Responsible Agency:
When required:
PW
Prior to issuance of Building Permits.
7
Ig-~ ~ )~7
22. Lots 8 and 9. The cluster of boulders that exist on Lots 8 and 9 shall be removed to allow for
construction on the existing slope and to eliminate the hazard they may present to people. Other surface
boulders that may be discovered on the existing slopes shall be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer to
determine whether a hazard potential will exist if left in place. The Director of Public Works shall
concur with the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer with respect to any boulders or other
topographic features proposed to remain.
Responsible Agency: PW
When required: Prior to issuance of Building Permits.
DEDICATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS
23. Site Drainage and Erosion Control Plan. The project site shall drain in accordance with City of
Dublin Grading Ordinance and State Regional Water Quality Control standards. A Site Drainage and
Erosion Control Plan and "Best Management Practices" erosion control measures must be reviewed and
approved by the Public Works Department prior to approval of improvement plans.
Responsible Agency: PW
Required By: Approval of Improvement Plans
24. Mitigation Measures/Drainage Impacts. Applicant/Developer shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the Director of Public Works that all mitigation measures that need to be improved as a result of
drainage impacts of this project will be constructed prior to occupancy of any building. All drainage
improvements shall be constructed to the satisfaction to of the Director of Public Works.
Responsible Agency: PW
Required By: Occupancy of any Building
25. Retaining Walls. Where finish grade ofthis property is in excess of twelve (12) inches higher or lower
than the abutting property or adjacent lots, a concrete or masonry block retaining wall or other suitable
solution acceptable to the Director of Public Works shall be required.
Responsible Agency: PW
Required By: Issuance of Building Permit
26, Joint Utility TrencheslUndergroundinglUtility Plans. ApplicantlDeveloper shall construct all joint
utility trenches (such as electric, telephone, cable TV, and gas) in accordance with the appropriate utility
jurisdiction. All communication vaults, electric transformers, and cable TV boxes shall be underground
in designated landscape areas. Utility plans showing the location of all proposed utilities (including
electrical vaults and underground transformers) shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of
Public Warks and Director of Community Development. Location of surface or aboveground items shall
be shown on the Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan and screened from view.
Responsible Agency: PW, PL
Required By: Occupancy of Affected Buildings
27. Driveway approaches. The driveway approaches for each residence shall be constructed in accordance
with City Standard Detail CD-306, and said work shall be performed per an Encroachment Permit issued
by the Public Works Department. Driveways shall be constructed of portland cement concrete or similar
material in accordance with City Standard Detail CD-305. For Lots 7-12, the driveway slopes shall not
exceed 12%.
Responsible Agency: PW
When required: Prior to issuance of Building Permits.
28. Grading, site development, and foundation work. All grading, site development, and foundation
work shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report
8
Ig~ ~ j-~j
prepared by Engeo titled "Foundation Exploration, Bordeaux Estates, Dublin California" dated April 6,
2000. The responsible geotechnical engineer shall certify on the building plans that all proposed grading,
site development, and foundation work conforms to the recommendations contained in the geotechnical
report.
Responsible Agency:
When required:
PW
Prior to issuance of Building Permits.
29. Plans for each residence. The plans for each residence shall include a site-specific plot plan prepared
by a licensed Civil Engineer in a format acceptable to the City. Said plans shall be based on an accurate
topographic survey of each lot, showing existing contour lines at one-foot intervals, prepared by a
licensed Land Surveyor. All proposed improvements including the house footprint, proposed contour
lines, drainage system, fences, retaining walls, building setbacks, street addresses, water/sewer/joint
trench utilities, etc. shall be shown on each plot plan.
Responsible Agency: PW
When required: Prior to issuance of Building Permits.
30. Steep inclines. Grading which results in slope inclinations that are steeper than presently exist will not
be allowed, unless the grading results in slopes no steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical.
Responsible Agency: PW
When required: Prior to issuance of Building Permits.
PHASED OCCUPANCY PLAN
31. Phased Occupancy Plan. If occupancy of residences is requested to occur in phases, then all physical
improvements within each phase shall be required to be completed prior to occupancy of buildings
within that phase except for items specifically excluded in an approved Phased Occupancy Plan, or
minor hand work items, approved by the Department of Community Development. The Phased
Occupancy Plan shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development, and Public Works for
review and approval a minimum of 45 days prior to the request for occupancy of any building covered
by said Phased Occupancy Plan. No individual building shall be occupied until the adjoining area is
finished, safe, accessible, provided with all reasonably expected services and amenities, and separated
from remaining additional construction activity. Subject to approval of the Director of Community
Development, the completion of landscaping may be deferred due to inclement weather with the posting
of a bond for the value of the deferred landscaping and associated improvements.
Responsible Agency: PL, B
Required By: Prior to Occupancy for any affected building
Construction Noise Management Program/Construction Impact Reduction Plan
32. Construction Noise Management Program/Construction Impact Reduction Plan.
Applicant/Developer shall conform to the following Construction Noise Management
Program/Construction Impact Reduction Plan. Construction shall be conducted so as to minimize the
impacts of the construction on the existing community and on the occupants of the new homes as they
are completed.
Responsible Agency: PL
Required By: During any construction
33. Construction Noise Management Program/Construction Impact Reduction Plan. The following
measures shall be taken to reduce construction impacts:
Responsible Agency: PL
Required By: During any construction
a. Off-site truck traffic shall be routed as directly as practical to and from the freeway (1-580) to the
job site. Primary route shall be from 1-580 along, San Ramon Road, Dublin Boulevard,
Silvergate Drive, Rolling Hills Drive and Brittany Lane. An Oversized Load Permit shall be
9
;gt.j c6 )~?
obtained from the City prior to hauling of any oversized loads on City streets.
b. The construction site shall be watered at regular intervals during all grading activities. The
frequency of watering should increase if wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Watering should
include all excavated and graded areas and material to be transported off-site. Use recycled or
other non-potable water resources where feasible.
c. Construction equipment shall not be left idling while not in use.
d. All construction equipment shall be fitted with noise muffling devises.
e. Erosion control measures shall be implemented during wet weather to assure that sedimentation
and erosion do not occur.
f. Mud and dust carried onto street surfaces by construction vehicles shall be cleaned-up on a daily
basis.
g. Excavation haul trucks shall use tarpaulins or other effective covers.
h. Upon completion of construction, measures shall be taken to reduce wind erosion. Replanting
and repaving should be completed as soon as possible.
1. Houses will be constructed in phases such that most of the construction traffic can be routed into
the subdivision without traveling in front of existing homes that are occupied.
J. After grading is completed, fugitive dust on exposed soil surfaces shall be controlled using the
following methods:
k. Inactive portions of the construction site should be seeded and watered until grass growth is
evident.
L Require that all portions of the site be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
m. On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 mph.
n. Use of petroleum-based palliatives shall meet the road oil requirements of the Air Quality
District. Non-petroleum based t<;tckifiers may be required by the Director of Public Works.
o. The Department of Public Works shall handle all dust complaints. The Director of Public Works
may require the services of an air quality consultant to advise the City on the severity of the dust
problem and additional ways to mitigate impact on residents, including temporarily halting
project construction. Dust concemsin adjoining communities as well as the City of Dublin shall
be addressed. Control measures shall be related to wind conditions. Air quality monitoring of
PM levels shall be provided as required by the Director of Public Works.
p. Construction interference with regional non-project traffic shall be minimized by:
q. Scheduling receipt of construction materials to non-peak travel periods.
r. Routing construction traffic through areas ofleast impact sensitivity.
s. Routing construction traffic to minimize construction interference with regional non-project
traffic movement.
t. Limiting lane closures and detours to off-peak travel periods.
u. Providing ride-share incentives for contractor and subcontractor personneL
10
/9:5 ~ ;yj
v. Emissions control of on-site equipment shall be minimized through a routine mandatory program
of low-emissions tune-ups.
w. Radios and loudspeakers shall not be used outside of the residences during all phases of
construction.
x. Construction vehicles and worker's vehicles shall not be parked on the north side of Brittany
Lane or in any driveways on the north side of Brittany Lane.
y. No double-parking shall be allowed along Brittany Lane.
z. Fencing of construction site shall be to the satisfaction ofthe Building Official.
PARKS
34. Public Facilities Fee. Applicant/Developer shall pay a Public Facilities Fee in the amounts and at the
times set forth in City of Dublin Resolution No. 195-99, or in the amounts and at the times set forth in
any resolution revising the amount of the Public Facilities Fee.
Responsible Agency: PCS
Required By: As indicated in Condition of Approval
ARCHITECTURE
35. Exterior colors and materials. Exterior colors and materials for the structures shall be subject to final
review and approval by the Community Development Director and shall be shown on construction
plans.
Responsible Agency: PL
Required By: Prior to building permit
36. Exterior lighting. Exterior lighting shall be of a design and placement so as not to cause glare onto
adjoining properties. Lighting used after daylight hours shall be minimized to provide for security needs
only. '
Responsible Agency: PL
Required By: Ongoing
37. Fencing, and of all retaining walls. The design, location and materials of all fencing, and of all retaining
walls installed by the developer, shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director.
Provision of common fences for all side and rear yards shall be the responsibility of the developer.
Fencing installed by the developer at the bottom or top of slopes higher than ten feet, and/or fences of
rear yards with a high visibility from adjoining down slope areas, may be designed with an open mesh
material, subject to review and approval by the Planning Director as regards the location and material
utilized.
Responsible Agency: PL.
When Required: Prior to approval of Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plans.
38. Pad levations. All residences shall be built at the pad elevations shown on the project plans by EDI
Architects dated received December 4, 2000.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to occupancy.
39. Colors and Materials Board. Applicant shall submit a colors and materials board subject to approval
of the Director of Community Development to reflect any changes made during project review.
11
Ir6 < ;46
Responsible Agency:
Required By:
PL
Prior to building permit
40. Increase in height of residences prohibited. The increase in height of residences in this project
beyond that originally approved by the City is prohibited.
LANDSCAPING
41. Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan. Applicant/Developer shall submit a Final Landscaping and
Irrigation Plan, conforming to the requirements of Section 8.72.030 of the Zoning Ordinance (unless
otherwise required by this Resolution), stamped and approved by the Director of Public Works and the
Director of Community Development. The plan should generally conform to the landscaping plan and
must reflect any revised project design shown on the Site Development Review with a later date.
Responsible Agency: PL
Required By: Prior to building permit
42. Wildfire Management Plan. The Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan shall be in accordance with the
City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan.
Responsible Agency: F
Required By: Prior to building permit
43. NPDES. The final landscaping and irrigation plan shall address erosion control as an ongoing
prevention program that will meet the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
requirements.
Responsible Agency: PW, PL
Required By: Ongoing
44. Installation. Prior to final occupancy approval, all required landscaping and irrigation, shall be
installed.
Responsible Agency: PL, B
Required By: Prior to occupancy
45. Drought-tolerant and/or native species. The landscape design and construction shall emphasize
drought-tol~rant and/or native species wherever possible.
Responsible Agency: PL
Required By: Prior to occupancy
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
46. DamagelRepairs. The Developer shall repair all damaged existing street, curb, gutter and sidewalk
along Brittany Lane and Rolling Hills Drive, lot frontages that exist now, or that result from
construction activities to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
Responsible Agency: PW
Required By: Prior to Occupancy of first residence
POLICE SECURITY
47. Residential Security Requirements. The development shall comply with the City of Dublin
Residential Security Requirements (attached). Security hardware mustbe provided for all doors,
windows, roof, vents, and skylights and any other areas per Dublin Police Services recommendations
and requirements.
Responsible Agency: B, PO
Required By: Prior to Occupancy of first residence
12
/$] ~ ;Y5
48. Projected Timeline. ApplicantlDeveloper shall submit a projected timeIine for project completion to
the Dublin Police Services Department, to allow estimation of staffing requirements and assignments.
Responsible Agency: PO
Required By: Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
FIRE PROTECTION
49. Applicable regulations and requirements. The Applicant/Property Owner shall comply with all
applicable regulations and requirements of the Alameda County Fire Department (ACFD), including
payment of all appropriate fees.
Responsible Agency: F
Required By: Ongoing
50. Fireground operation area. The rear yard shall have a minimum 10 foot of fireground operation area.
Responsible Agency: F
Required By: Ongoing
51. Rear yard accessibility. The rear yard shall be accessible from both sides of the structure.
Responsible Agency: F
Required By: Ongoing
52. Roofing material. The roofing material shall conform to the City of Dublin Fire Area specifications
which require Class A or better.
Responsible Agency: F
Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits
53. Wildfire Management Plan. Site development shall be in accordance with the City of Dublin Wildfire
Management Plan.
Responsible Agency: F
Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits
54. Water supply. Water supply shall be adequate to support required fire flow.
Responsible Agency: F
Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits
55. Fire Hydrants. The Developer shall construct any required new fire hydrants in streets to City and
Alameda County Fire Department standards. The Developer shall comply with applicable Alameda
County fire Department, Public Works Department, Dublin Police Service, Alameda County Flood
Control District Zone 7 and Dublin San Ramon Services District requirements.
Responsible Agency: F, PW
Required By: Prior to Occupancy of adjacent building
56. Delivery of any combustible material. Prior to the delivery of any combustible material for storage on
the site, fire hydrants, water supply, and roadways shall be installed and sufficient water storage and
pressure shall be available to the site. Approved roadway shall be first lift of asphalt.
Responsible Agency: F
Required By: Prior to delivery of any combustible material
ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT. ZONE 7
57. Wells. Any water wells, cathodic protection wells or exploratory borings shown on the map that are
known to exist, are proposed or are located during field operations without a documented intent of future
use, filed with Zone 7, are to be destroyed prior to any demolition or construction activity in accordance
13
It'ff ~ ). t/j
with a well destruction permit obtained from Zone 7 and the Alameda County Department of
Environmental Services or are to be maintained in accordance with applicable groundwater protection
ordinances. Other wells encountered prior to or during construction are to be treated similarly.
Responsible Agency: Zone 7, PW
Required By: Prior to any demolition or construction
58. Salt Mitigation. Recycled water projects must meet any applicable salt mitigation requirements of Zone
7.
Responsible Agency: Zone 7, PW
Required by On-going
59. Requirements and Fees. Applicant/Developer shall comply with all Alameda County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District-Zone 7 Flood Control requirements and applicable fees.
Responsible Agency: Zone 7, PW
Required by Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
DSRSD
60. The Applicant/Property Owner shall comply with all applicable requirements and regulations of the
Dublin San Ramon Services District.
Responsible Agency: DSRSD.
Required By: Ongoing
61. Prior to issuance of any building permit, complete improvement plans shall be submitted to DSRSD that
conform to the requirements of the Dublin San Ramon Services District Code, the DSRSD "Standard
Procedures, Specifications and Drawings for Design and Installation of Water and Wastewater
Facilities", all applicable DSRSD Master Plans and all DSRSD policies.
Responsible Agency: DSRSD.
Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits
62. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity flow to DSRSD's existing sanitary sewer system.
Pumping of sewerage is discouraged and may only be allowed under extreme circumstances following a
case by case review with DSRSD staff. Any pumping station will require specific review and approval
by DSRSD of preliminary design reports, design criteria, and final plans and specifications. The
DSRSD reserves the right to require payment of present worth 20 year maintenance costs as well as
other conditions within a separate agreement with the applicant for any project that requires a pumping
station.
Responsible Agency: DSRSD.
Required By: Ongoing
63. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, all utility connection fees, plan check fees, inspection fees,
permit fees and fees associated with a wastewater discharge permit shall be paid to DSRSD in
accordance with the rates and schedules established in the DSRSD Code.
Responsible Agency: DSRSD.
Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits
64. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, all improvement plans for DSRSD facilities shall be signed by
the District Engineer. Each drawing of improvement plans sh2U contain a signature block for the
District Engineer indicating approval of the sanitary sewer or water facilities shown. Prior to approval
by the District Engineer, the Applicant shall pay all required DSRSD fees, and provide an engineer's
estimate of construction costs for the sewer and water systems, a performance bond, a one-year
maintenance bond, and a comprehensive general liability insurance policy in the amounts and forms that
are acceptable to DSRSD. The Applicant shall allow at least 15 working days for final improvement
drawing review by DSRSD before signature by the District Engineer.
Responsible Agency: DSRSD.
14
/C"r ~ )~j
Required By:
Prior to issuance of Building Permits
65. No sewer line or water line construction shall be permitted unless the proper utility construction permit
has been issued by DSRSD. A construction permit will only be issued after all of the items in the
condition immediately before this one have been satisfied.
Responsible Agency: DSRSD.
Required By: Ongoing
66. The Applicant/Property Owner shall hold DSRSD, its Board of Directors, commissions, employees, and
agents of DSRSD harmless and indemnify and defend the same from any litigation, claims, or fines
resulting from completion of the project.
Responsible Agency: DSRSD.
Required By: Ongoing
67. The Applicant/Property Owner shall obtain a limited construction permit from the DSRSD prior to
commencement of any work.
Responsible Agency: DSRSD.
Required By: Prior to commencement of any work
68. Construction by Applicant/Developer. All onsite potable and recycled water and wastewater pipelines
and facilities shall be constructed by the Applicant/Developer in accordance with all DSRSD master
plans, standards, specifications and requirements.
Responsible Agency: DSRSD.
Required By: Completion of Improvements
69. DSRSD Water Facilities. Water facilities must be connected to the DSRSD or other approved water
system, and must be installed at the expense of Applicant/Developer in accordance with District
Standards and Specifications. All material and workmanship for water mains and appurtenances thereto
must conform with all of the requirements of the officially adopted Water Code of the District and shall
be subject to field inspection by the District.
Responsible Agency: DSRSD.
Required By: Completion of Improvements
70. The applicant shall coordinate with the District and Alameda County Fire Department on required fire
flows.
Responsible Agency: DSRSD.
Required By: Approval of Improvement Plans
MISCELLANEOUS
71. Compliance. The Applicant/Property Owner shall comply with all applicable Alameda County Fire
Department, Public Works Department standard conditions, Dublin Police Services, Alameda County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the Dublin San Ramon Services District regulations
and requirements. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits or the installation of any
improvements related to this project, the Applicant shall supply written documentation from each such
agency or department to the Community Development Department, indicating that all applicable
conditions required have been or will be met.
Responsible Agency:. B, PL.
Required By: Ongoing
72. Compliance. The Applicant/Property Owner shall comply with all applicable regulations and
requirements ofthe Uniform Building Code and the Building Inspection Department.
Responsible Agency: B
Required By: Ongoing
15
I?D ~ ;ljj
73. Building permits for the proposed project shall be secured and construction commenced within
one (1) year after the effective date ofthis approval or said approval shall be void. This one (1)
year period may be extended an additional one (1) year after the expiration date of this approval (a
written request for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration date) by the Community
Development Director upon the determination that the Conditions of Approval remain adequate to
assure that the above stated Findings of Approval will continue to be met. [B, PL]
74. To apply for building permits, the Applicant shall submit thirteen (13) sets of full construction plans for
plan check. Each set of plans shall have attached an annotated copy of these Conditions of
Approval, including any attached Special Conditions. The notations shall clearly indicate how all
Conditions of Approval will be complied with. Construction plans will not be accepted without the
annotated conditions attached to each set of plans. The Applicant will be responsible for compliance
with all Conditions of Approval specified and obtaining the approvals of all participating non-City
agencies prior to the issuance of building or grading permits. Responsible Agency: B, PL, PW.
Required By: Prior to issuance of building permits
75. Construction plans. Construction plans shall be fully dimensioned (including building elevations)
accurately drawn (depicting all existing and proposed conditions on site), and prepared and signed by an
appropriately design professional. The site plan, landscape plan and details shall be consistent with each
other. . Responsible Agency: B, PL, PW. Required By: Prior to issuance of building permits
76. Hours of operation. All construction shall be limited to take place between the hours of7:30 a.m. and
6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except as otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works. .
Responsible Agency: PW. Required By: Ongoing
77. Compliance. The Applicant/Property Owner shall develop this project and operate all uses in
compliance with the Conditions of Approval of this Site Development Review and the regulations
established in the Zoning Ordinance. Any violation ofthe terms or conditions specified may be subject
to enforcement action. Responsible Agency: PL. Required By: Ongoing
78. Postal authorities. The developer shall confer with the local postal authorities to determine the type of
mail receptacles necessary and provide a letter stating their satisfaction with the type of mail service to
be provided. Specific locations for such units shall be to the satisfaction ofthe Postal Service.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit.
HERITAGE TREES:
79. A Tree Protection Zone shall be established 30 feet north of trees #340 - 342, and at the driplines of
trees #335,345 - 346,353 - 354. No grading, excavation, construction or storage of materials shall
occur within this zone.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit.
80. All plot plans shall be reviewed by the project arborist for evaluation of impacts to trees and
recommendations for mitigation.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ptior to issuance of Building Permit.
81. The rock outcropping within 30 feet of trees #335 and 342 shall be retained.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
16
j1/~;Yj
82. No underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer lines shall be placed in the Tree
Protection Zone.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
83. Tree Preservation Notes, prepared by the consulting arborist, shall be included on all construction plans.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit
84. Irrigation systems must be designed so that no trenching will occur within the Tree Protection Zone.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit.
85. No landscape improvements such as lighting, pavement, drainage or planting may occur which may
negatively affect the health or structural stability of the trees.
Responsible Agency: ' PL
When Required: Ongoing
86. Foundations, footings and pavement on expansive soils near the Heritage Trees should be designed to
withstand differential displacement due to expansion and shrinking of the soil.
Responsible Agency:' PL
When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit.
87. Heritage Trees shall be pruned in conformance with the 1997 Uniform Fire Code. All pruning shall be
completed by a Certified Arborist and Tree Worker in the presence of the City's arborist and be in
conformance with the guidelines of the International Society of Arboriculture, Tree Pruning Guidelines,
current edition, on file in the Community Development Department. In addition, pruning shall be in
conformity with the provisions of the Pruning Specifications of the Tree Protection Plan for this project.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit.
88. The Tree Protection Zone for trees on lots 1, 7, 8, and 9 shall completely surround those trees to the
satisfaction ofthe City's arborist. A fence shall completely surround and define the Tree Protection
zone to the satisfaction ofthe City's arborist prior to demolition, grubbing or grading. Fences shall be 6
feet tall chain link or equivalent as approved by the consulting arborist. Fences are to remain until all
grading and construction is completed.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit.
89. Prior to work the contractor must meet with the consulting arborist at the site to review all work
procedures, access routes, storage areas and tree protection measures.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit.
90. No grading, construction, demolition or other work shall occur within the Tree Protection Zone. Any
modifications must be approved and monitored by the consulting arborist.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit.
17
Iff ~;~5
91. Spoil from trench, footing, utility or other excavation shall not be placed within Tree Protection Zone.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit.
92. If damage should occur to any tree during construction it shall be immediately reported to the Director
of Community Development so that proper treatment may be administered. The Director will refer to
the City Arborist to determine the appropriate method of repair of any damage. The cost of any
treatment or repair shall be borne by the developer/applicant responsible for the development of the
project. Failure to do so may result in the issuance of a stop work order.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
93. No excess soil, chemicals, debris, equipment or other materials shall be dumped or stored within the
Tree Protection Zone.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
94. Any additional pruning needed for clearance during construction must be performed by a certified
arborist and not by construction personnel.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
95. All pruning shall be in accordance with the Tree Pruning Guidelines (International Society of
Arboriculture) and adhere to the most recent editions of the American National Standard for Tree Care
Operations (Z133.1) and Pruning (A300).
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
96. Where possible, pruning shall be confined to small diameter wood at the ends of branches. Interior
branches shall not be stripped out.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
97. All trees shall be pruned to provide a minimum of 6 feet of clearance between the ground surface and
foliage, to remove dead branches to a minimum of 2 inches in diameter, and to reduce end weight on
heavy, horizontal branches by selectively removing small diameter branches, no greater than 2 to 3
inches, near the ends of the scaffolds.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior t issuance of Building Permit.
98. While in the tree, the arborist shall perform an aerial inspection to identify defects that require treatment.
Any additional work needed shall be reported to the Project Arborist.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
99. Brush shall be chipped and chips shall be spread underneath trees to a maximum depth of 6 inches,
leaving the trunk clear of mulch. Wood shall be hauled off the site.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
18
/r~ 'if). ~5
100. Trees shall not be climbed with spurs.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
101. Thinning cuts are to be employed rather than heading cuts. Trees shall not be topped or headed back..
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
102. Vehicles and heavy equipment shall not be parked beneath the trees. If access by equipment is required
to accomplish the specified pruning, the soil surface shall be protected with 6 inches to 8 inches of wood
chips before placing equipment or vehicles.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
103. Equipment shall be serviced and fueled outside the tree canopy to avoid accidental spills in the root area.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
104. A certified arborist shall be present on the project site during grading or other construction activity that
may impact the health of the Heritage Trees in this project.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
105. The consulting arborist shall prepare a Guide to Maintenance for Native Oaks that describes the care
needed to maintain tree health and structural stability including pruning, fertilization, mulching and pest
management as may be required. In addition, the Guide shall address monitoring both tree health and
structural stability of trees. As trees age, the likelihood of failure of branches or entire trees increases.
Therefore, annual inspection for hazard potential should be addressed in the Guide. A copy of this
Guide shall be provided to each purchaser.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to occupancy
106. The applicant/developer shall guarantee the protection of the Heritage Trees on the project site through
placement of a cash bond or other security deposit in the amount of $1 00,000. The cash bond or other
security shall be retained for a reasonable period oftime following the occupancy of the last residence
occupied, not to exceed one year. The cash bond or security is to be released upon satisfaction of the
Director of Community Development that the Heritage Trees have not been endangered. The cash bond
or security deposit shall be forfeited as a civil penalty for any removal or destruction of a Heritage Tree.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
107. Any public utility installing or maintaining any overhead wires or underground pipes or conduits in the
vicinity of a Heritage Tree in this project shall obtain permission from the Director of Community
Development before performing any work, which may cause injury to the Heritage Tree.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
19
Jf1 ~;~
108. No heritage Tree on the project site shall be removed unless its condition presents an immediate hazard
to life or property. Such Heritage Tree shall be removed only with the approval of the Director of
Community Development, City Engineer, Police Chief, Fire Chief or their designee. The Fire Marshall
has indicated the Heritage Trees conform with the Wildfire Management Plan and that no Heritage Tree
on the project site will be removed pursuant to the Wildfire Management Plan.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
109. All nineteen Oak trees on the project site addressed by the Tree Protection Plan are designated as
Heritage Trees by this Site Development Review and shall be protected by the provisions ofthe Heritage
Tree Ordinance pursuant to Section 5.60.40.b, Heritage Tree Definition.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
110. The major scaffold on Tree 340 pointing north toward the proposed residence on Lot 8 shall only be
trimmed as necessary to elevate the foliage 6 feet above the ground. Under no circumstances shall that
scaffold be pruned further back than as marked in yellow unless so much foliage had to be trimmed that,
in the opinion of the consulting arborist and the City's arborist, it was necessary. If said major scaffold
projects to within 5 feet of the residence, the residence shall be modified to move it until it is at least five
feet from the furthest extent of foliage of said limb.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit.
111. All cuts on Tree 340 shall be as marked in yellow on that tree and as agreed upon with the City of
Dublin. Any changes to the pruning of the tree can only occur with the concurrence of the arborist and
the City's arborist and the City of Dublin. '
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit.
112. The trunk to be removed and the remainder of Tree 340 are treated as one tree in the Tree Protection
Report because they are located immediately adjacent to each other and form portions of the same
canopy and dripline. The removal of this trunk is permitted by the Director as part of this Site
Development Review pursuant to Section 5.60.50.b.2.
Responsible Agency: PL
When Required: Ongoing
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 12th day of December, 2000.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioners Johnson, Jennings and Musser
Commissioner Hughes
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST
Community Development Director
20
Irs %)'-16
ATTACHMENT "A"
TYPICAL PUBLIC WORKS GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The following Conditions of Approval (as referenced in the preceding resolution) are standard Conditions of
Approval applicable as required by the Public Works Department for all development projects within the City
of Dublin. Unless modified by referenced conditions in the preceding resolution, these conditions are assumed
to be complied with prior to issuance of Grading Permit or approval of Improvement Plans.
ARCHAEOLOGY:
1. If, during construction, archaeological materials are encountered, construction within 100 feet of these
materials, shall be halted until a professional Archaeologist who is certified by the Society of California
Archaeology (SCA) or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOP A) has had an opportunity to
evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation measures, if they are deemed
necessary .
BONDS:
2. The developed shall provide Performance (100%), labor and material (50%) securities and a cash
monumentation bond to guarantee the installation of subdivision improvements, including streets,
drainage, grading, utilities and landscaping subject to approval by the Director of Public Works/City
Engineer prior to approval of the Final or Parcel Map.
3. Prior to acceptance of the project as complete and the release of securities by the City:
a) All improvements shall be installed as per the approved Improvement Plans and Specifications.
b) All required landscaping shan be installed.
c) An as-built landscaping plan prepared by the project Landscape Architect and a declaration by the
Project Landscape Architect that all work was done under his supervision and in accordance with the
recommendations contained in the landscape and soil erosion and sedimentation control plans shall be
submitted to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer.
d) Photo mylar and, if available, AutoCAD electronic copies, of the Improvement, Grading and Storm
Drain plans along with the Final or Parcel and Annexation Maps, if any, which are tied to the City's
existing mapping coordinates including all as-built plans prepared by a registered Civil Engineer.
e) A complete record, including location and elevation of all field density tests, and a summary of all
field and laboratory tests.
f) A declaration by the Project Civil Engineer and Project Geologist that all work was done in
accordance with the recommendations contained in the soil and geologic investigation reports and the
approved plans and specifications.
4. Upon acceptance of the improvements and receipt of required submittals, the performance security may
21
;r6 ~i-lJ5
be replaced with a maintenance bond that is 25% of the value of the performance security. The
maintenance bond is released one year after acceptance of the project and after the repair of deficiencies,
if any, are completed.
5. The labor and materials security is released upon acceptance of the improvements, provided no liens are
filed against the developer on this project.
CREEK:
6. Buildings shall be no closer than 20 feet from top of the bank along the Creek, where the top of bank is
either the existing break in topography, or a point at the existing ground line which is the intersection of a
line on a two-horizontal-to-one-vertical slope begun at the toe of the slope in the Creek, whichever is
more restrictive.
DRAINAGE:
7. Each lot shall be so graded as not to drain on any other lot or adjoining property prior to being deposited
to an approved drainage system.
8. Where possible, roof drains shall empty onto an approved dissipating device and then over lawn or other
planted areas to street or approved drainage facility. Concentrated flows will not be allowed to drain
across sidewalk areas.
9. An 18" minimum diameter reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) shall be used for all public storm drain main
lines and 12" minimum diameter RCP shall be used for laterals connecting inlets to main drain line.
10. Under-sidewalk drains (curb drains) shall be installed on both sides of driveway approaches.
11, Storm drainage detention facilities shall be designed to contain the 100- year storm occurrence including
1 foot of freeboard.
12. In case that the detention basin outlet fails and the basin cannot contain the 100-year storm, streets must
be designed so that the overflow release shall directed to the subdivision streets and shall be contained in
the road right-of-way.
13. Storm drainage facilities shall be designed to meet the following capacity:
Drainage area
Design Storm
less that 1 sq. mile
1 to 5 sq. miles
over 5 sq. miles
15 year
25 year
100 year
All streets shall be designed so that the IS-year storm is contained within the gutter and shoulder area. In
addition arterial streets shall have one lane of traffic in both directions of travel above the 1 DO-year storm
level.
14. No buildings or other structures shall be constructed within a storm drain easement.
15. Developer shall provide "trash racks" where storm drainage improvements intercept natural drainage
22
/r11!fj.41
channels. An all-weather maintenance road shall be constructed to the trash racks.
16. Concrete V-ditches shall be constructed on slopes 10 feet and higher in accordance with City Ord. 56-86.
These V -ditches shall have a 5% minimum slope.
17. All slopes 10 feet or higher will have a concrete V -ditch installed at the toe of the slope. These ditches
shall discharge into natural drainage channels or an adequate storm drain system.
18. Drainage in all concrete ditches shall be picked up and directed to the bottom of an approved drainage
channel. The slope on these ditches shall not be less than 5%.
19. A 6" minimum diameter subdrain shall be installed in all swales that are to be filled.
20. All sub drains shall tie into storm drain catch basins or manholes at the downstream end of the subdrain.
There shall be a clean-out at the upper end of all subdrains.
21. Downhill cul-de-sacs are not allowed without prior written approval of the Director of Public Works/City
Engineer/City Engineer. If allowed they must provide a storm drain overflow corridor to an approved
drainage facilities. This corridor shall be design to prevent flooding of building pads in case the street
inlet is obstructed.
22. Streets designed with sump areas shall have a curb inlet at the low spot and two additional inlets within
50 feet of the low area.
23. No drainage shall be directed over slopes.
24. The storm drainage system shall be designed and constructed to the standards and policies of the City of
Dublin.
25. All concentrated storm drain flow shall be carried in concrete curb and gutter, concrete valley gutters or
storm drain pipe and shall discharged into an approved drainage facility, not onto slopes.
26. All public streets shall drain into storm drain systems before being discharged into established drainage
channels.
27. The developer shall comply with Alameda County Flood Control District requirements. If there is a
conflict between City and County Flood Control requirements the Director of Public Works/City
Engineer shall determine which requirements shall apply.
DUST:
28. Areas undergoing grading, and all other construction activities, shall be watered, or other dust-palliative
measures may be used, to control dust, as conditions warrant or as directed by the Director of Public
Works/City Engineer/City Engineer.
NPDES:
General Construction:
29. For projects disturbing five (5) acres or more the applicant shall submit a Storm Water Pollution
23
Ir~~ ;1;;
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review by the City prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits.
The SWPPP shall be implemented by the general contractor and all subcontractors and suppliers of
material and equipment. Construction site cleanup and control of construction debris shall also be
addressed in the SWPPP. The developer is responsible for complying with the SWPPP. Failure to do so
will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations or a project stop work order. For projects
disturbing less than five (5) acres an erosion control plan shall be submitted with the grading plan.
30. Prior to the commencement of any clearing, grading or excavation resulting in a land disturbance greater
than five acres, the developer shall provide evidence that a Notice of Intent (NOI) has been sent to the
California State Water Resources Control Board. A copy of the SWPPP shall be kept at the construction
site at all times.
31. Between October 1 and April 15 unvegetated graded slopes which drain to desilting basins shall be, at a
minimum, protected by hydroseed mulch and silt fencing. Slopes not draining to a desilting basin, at a
minimum, shall be seeded then covered with a 100% biodegradable straw fiber erosion control blanket.
Silt fencing shall be installed at each bench and along the toe of slope. The developer shall be
responsible for providing any addition slope protection which may be needed to prevent silting of natural
water courses and storm drainage facilities.
32. Construction access routes shall be limited to those approved by the Director of Public Works/City
Engineer/City Engineer and shall be shown on the approved grading plan.
33. Gather all construction debris on daily and place them in a covered dumpster or other container which is
emptied or removed on a weekly basis. A secondary containment berm shall be constructed around the
dumpster. When appropriate, use tarps on the ground to collect fallen debris or splatters that could
contribute to storm water pollution.
34. Remove all debris from the sidewalk, street pavement and storm drain system adjoining the project site
daily or as required by the City inspector. During wet weather, avoid driving vehicles off paved areas.
35. Broom sweep the sidewalk and public street pavement adjoining the project site on a daily basis. Caked
on mud or dirt shall be scraped from these areas before sweeping.
36. Install filter materials (e.g. gravel filters, filter fabric, etc.) at all on-site storm drain inlets and existing
inlets in the vicinity ofthe project site prior to:
1) start of the rainy season (October 15)
2) site dewatering activities,
3) street washing activities,
4) saw cutting asphalt or concrete
Filter materials shall be cleaned or replaced as necessary to maintain effectiveness and prevent street
flooding. Dispose of filter particles in an appropriate manner.
37. Create a contained and covered area on the site for the storage of bags of cement, paints, flammable, oils,
fertilizers, pesticides or any other materials used on the project site that have the potential for being
discharged to the storm drain system. Never clean machinery, tools, brushes, etc. or rinse containers into
a street, gutter, storm drain or stream. See "Building Maintenance/Remodeling" flyer for more
inforination.
38. Concrete/gunite supply trucks or concrete/plasters or similar finishing operations shall not discharge
wash water into street gutters or drains.
24
17r ~ )l-)5
39. Minimize the removal of natural vegetation or ground cover from the site in order to reduce the potential
for erosion and sedimentation problems. All cut and fill slopes shall be stabilized as soon as possible
after completion of grading. No site grading shall occur between October 15 and April 15 unless detailed
erosion control plan reviewed by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer and
implemented by the contractor.
40. Fueling and maintenance of vehicles shall be done off-site unless an approved fueling and maintenance
area has been approved as part of the SWPPP.
CommerciallIndustrial Developments:
41. The project plans shall include storm water pollution prevention measures for the operation and
maintenance of the project for the review and approval of the Director of Public Works/City
Engineer/City Engineer. The project plan shall identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate
to the uses conducted on-site to effectively prohibit the entry of pollutants into storm water runoff.
42. The project plan BMPs shall also include erosion control measures described in the latest version of the
ABAG Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook or State Construction Best Management Practices
Handbook, to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system.
43. The developer is responsible for ensuring that all contractors are aware of, and implement, all storm
water pollution prevention measures. Failure to comply with the approved construction BMPs will result
in the issuance of correction notices, citations and/or a prqject stop order.
44. All washing and/or steam cleaning must be done at an appropriately equipped facility which drains to the
sanitary sewer. Any outdoor washing or pressure washing must be managed in such a way that there is
no discharge of soaps or other pollutants to the storm drain system. Wash waters should discharge to the
sanitary sewer. Sanitary connections are subject to the review, approval, and conditions of the Dublin-
San Ramon Services District (DSRSD).
45. All loading dock areas must be designed to minimize "run-on" to or runoff from the area. Accumulated
waste water that may contribute to the pollution of storm water must be drained to the sanitary sewer, or
filtered for ultimate discharge to the storm drain system. BMPs should be implemented to prevent
potential storm water pollution. Implement appropriate BMPs such as, but not limited to, a regular
program of sweeping, litter control and spill clean-up.
46. All metal roofs and roof mounted equipment (including galvanized), shall be coated with a rust-inhibitive
paint.
47. Trash enclosures and/or recycling area(s) must be completely covered; no other area shall drain onto this
area. Drains in any wash or process area shall not discharge to the storm drain system. Drains should
connect to the sanitary sewer. Sanitary connections are subject to the review, approval, and conditions of
the DSRSD.
48. All paved outdoor storage areas must be designed to eliminate the potential for runoff to carry pollutants
to the storm drain system. Bulk materials stored outdoors may need to be covered and contained as
required by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer.
, 49. All landscaping shall be properly maintained and shall be designed with efficient irrigation practices to
25
~ ,~)~5
reduce runoff, promote surface filtration, and mInImIZe the use of fertilizers and pesticides which
contribute to runoff pollution.
50. Sidewalks and parking lots must be swept weekly, at a minimum, to prevent the accumulation of litter
and debris. If pressure washed, debris must be trapped and collected to prevent entry to the storm drain
system. No cleaning agent may be discharged to the storm drain. If any cleaning agent or degreaser is
used, wash water shall not discharge to the storm drains; wash waters should be collected and discharged
to the sanitary sewer. Discharges to the sanitary sewer are subject to the review, approval and conditions
of the DSRSD.
51. A structural control, such as an oil/water separator, sand filter, or approved equal, may be required to be
installed, on site, to intercept and pre-treat storm water prior to discharging to the storm drain system.
The design, location, and a maintenance schedule must be submitted to the Director of Public Warks/City
Engineer/City Engineer for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
52. Restaurants must be designed with contained areas for cleaning mats, equipment and containers. This
wash area must be covered or designed to prevent "run-on" to, or runoff from, the area. The area shall
not discharge to the storm drains; wash waters should drain to the sanitary sewer, or collected for
ultimate disposal to the sanitary sewer. Employees must be instructed and signs posted indicating that all
washing activities be conducted in this area. Sanitary connections are subject to the review, approval,
and conditions of the DSRSD.
53. Commercial Car Washes: No wash water shall discharge to the storm drains. Wash waters should
discharge to the sanitary sewer. Sanitary connections are subject to the review, approval, and conditions
ofthe DSRSD.
54. VehiclelEquipment Washers: No vehicle or equipment washing activity associated with this facility shall
discharge to the storm drain system. Wash areas should be limited to areas that drain to the sanitary
sewer collection system, or the wash water collected for ultimate disposal to the sanitary sewer. This
wash area must be covered and designed to prevent "run-on" to, and runoff from, the area. A sign must
be posted indicating the designated wash area. Sanitary connections are subject to the review, approval
and conditions of the DSRSD.
55. Fuel dispensing areas must be paved with concrete extending a minimum of 8' -0" from the face of the
fuel dispenser and a minimum of 4' -0" from the nose of the pump island. Fuel dispensing areas must be
degraded and constructed to prevent "run:;-on" to, or runoff from, the area. Fuel dispensing facilities must
have canopies; canopy roof down spouts must be routed to prevent drainage flow through the fuel
dispensing area. The facility must have a spill cleanup plan. The fuel dispensing area must be dry swept
routinely. Dispensing equipment must be inspected routinely for proper functioning and leak prevention.
56. All on-site storm drain inlets must be labeled "No Dumping-Drains to Bay" using an approved methods.
57. All on-site storm drains must be cleaned at least twice a year; once immediately prior to the rainy season
(October 15) and once in January. Additional cleaning may be required by the Director of Public
Works/City Engineer/City Engineer.
Residential:
58. The project plans shall include storm water pollution prevention measures (SWPPP) for the operation and
maintenance of the project subject to the review of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City
26
;'D/ ~ J. tfj
Engineer. The SWPPP shall identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate to residential
construction activities conducted on-site to effectively prohibit the entry of pollutants into storm water
runoff.
59. The SWPPP shall include erosion control measures to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the
storm drain system, in accordance with the regulations outlined in the most current version of the ABAG
Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook or State Construction Best Management Practices Handbook.
60. The applicant is responsible for ensuring that all contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers are aware of,
and implement, all storm water quality measures and implement such measures. Failure to comply with
the approved construction BMPs will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations and/or a
project stop order.
61. All on-site storm drain inlets must be labeled "No Dumping - Drains to Bay" using an approved methods.
62. All metal roofs and roof mounted equipment (including galvanized) shall be coated with a rust-inhibitive
paint.
63. Trash enclosures and/or recycling area(s) must be completely covered; no other area shall drain onto this
area. Drains in any wash or recycling area shall not discharge to the storm drain system. Drains should
connect to the sanitary sewer. Sanitary connections are subject to the review, approval and conditions of
the DSRSD.
64. When a common area car wash is provided, no wash water shall discharge to the storm drain system.
The car wash area should drain to the sanitary sewer. The area must be covered and designed to prevent
excess rainwater from entering the sanitary sewer. Contact the local permitting authority and POTW for
specific connection and discharge requirements. If no common car wash area exists, means should be
taken to discourage car washing, e.g., removing hose bibs and installing signs.
65. The applicant shall record CC&R's at the time of filing the final map which shall create a property
owners association for the development. The CC&R's shall be subject to the review and approval of the
City Attorney. Where not covered by a landscape and lighting district, the homeowner's association shall
be responsible for implementing all storm water measures and the maintenance of all private streets,
private utilities, and other common areas and facilities on the site, including all landscaping.
Landscaping shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff and promote surface filtration and
minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides which can contribute to urban runoff pollution.
GENERAL DESIGN
66. The developer is responsible for the construction site and construction safety.
67. The minimum width for the private roads with parking on one side shall be 33 feet or as otherwise
approved by Director of Public Works.
68. A cul-de-sac or turnaround at or near the end of all dead-end private roads.
69. All public sidewalks must be within City right-of-way or in a pedestrian easement except as specifically
approved by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer.
70. Special paving or concrete paving a minimum of ten feet wide shall be installed across private streets
27
tP,O,J. ~ ;L~5
where they intersect public streets. No special paving or concrete paving will be allowed in public
streets.
71. All of the plans, including Improvement and Grading Plans, and subdivision maps, must be designed to
the City of Dublin's standards plans and specifications, policies and requirements using standard City
title block and format. The grading plan design must based on the approved soil reports. In addition to
the civil engineer, a soils engineer must sign the grading plans. The soils engineer or his technical
representative must be present at all times during grading. All engineering plans must be designed and
signed by a Registered Civil Engineer. Plans are subject to the review and approval of the Director of
Public Works, and after his approval, original mylars or photo mylars with three sets of blue prints must
be submitted to the City.
72. The minimum uniform street gradient shall be 1 %. The structure design of the road shall be subject to
approval of the Director of Public Works. Parking lots shall have a minimum gradient of 1 % and a
maximum gradient of 5%.
73. No cut and fill slopes shall exceed 2:1 unless recommended by the project soils engineer and approved by
the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer. Slopes shall be graded so that there is both
horizontal and vertical slope variation where visible from public areas and the top and bottom of slopes
shall be rounded in order to create or maintain a natural appearance.
74. All residential building pad elevations must be above the 1 DO-year flood level.
75. In the 100-year Flood Hazard Zone, all residential units shall have their finished floor elevation a
minimum of one foot (1') above the 1 DO-year flood level. Commercial buildings shall either provide
flood-proofing, or have their finished floor elevation above the 1 DO-year flood level.
76. A registered civil or structural engineer shall design all retaining walls over three feet in height (or over
two feet in height with a surcharge) and a building permit shall be required for their construction. A
maintenance and inspection program shall be implemented by the developer or homeowners' association
for the periodic inspection and maintenance of all retaining walls that could possibly affect the public
right -of-way.
77. Minimum sight distance for public streets, including intersection sight distance, shall meet the
CAL TRANS Highway Design Manual.
78. Prior to filing for building permits, precise plans for street improvements, grading, drainage (including
size, type and location of drainage facilities both on and off-site) and erosion and sedimentation control
shall be submitted and subject to the review and approval of the Director of Public Works/City
Engineer/City Engineer.
79. The soils report for the project shall include recommendations 1) for foundations, decks, and other
miscellaneous structures, 2) for design of swimming pools, and 3) for setbacks for structures from top
and toes of slopes. Additionally, the soils report shall include a professional opinion as to safety of the
site from the hazards of land slippage, erosion, settlement and seismic activity.
80. The Contractor shall be responsible for acquiring permits required by other agencies. (Fish & Game,
Army Corps of Engineers, Zone 7, Etc.)
81. The Applicant/Developer and ApplicantlDeveloper's representatives (engineer, contractor, etc.) must
28
~l?:; ~ )~5
meet and follow all of the City's requirements and policies, including the Urban Runoff Program and
Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
EASEMENTS:
82. The Developer shall acquire easements, and/or obtain rights-of-entry from the adjacent property owners
for improvements required outside of the subdivision. The easements and/or rights-of-entry shall be in
writing and copies shall be furnished to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer.
EROSION:
83. Prior to any grading of the site and filing of the Final Map or Parcel Map, a detailed construction
grading/erosion control plan (including phasing); and a drainage, water quality, and erosion and
sedimentation control plan, for the post-construction period, both prepared by the Project Civil Engineer
and/or Engineering Geologist; shall be approved by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City
Engineer. Said plans shall include detailed design, location, and maintenance criteria, of all erosion and
sediment control measures. The plans shall provide, to the maximum extent practicable, that no increase
in sediment or pollutants from the site will occur. The post-construction plan shall provide for long-term
maintenance of all permanent erosion and sediment control measures such as slope vegetation. The
construction grading/erosion control plan shall be implemented in place by October 15th and shall be
maintained in place until April 15th unless otherwise allowed in writing by the City Engineer. It shall be
the developer's responsibility to maintain the erosion and sediment control measures for the year
following acceptance of the subdivision improvements by the City Council.
FINAL MAP / PARCEL MAP:
84. Prior, to filing the Final Map or Parcel Map, precise plans and specifications for street improvements,
grading, drainage (including size, type, and location of drainage facilities both on- and off-site), and
erosion and ' sedimentation control, shall be approved by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City
Engineer.
85. Submit three (3) sets of approved blueprints and approved original mylars or photo mylars of
improvement plans, grading plans, and recorded Fihal/Parcel Map to the City of Dublin Public Works
Department. Upon completion of construction, the City's mylar shall be modified to an '"as-built" plan
(mylar) prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer. A declaration by a Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer
that all work was done under his supervision and in accordance with recommendations contained in the
soils report shall be submitted to the Public W orks Department~
86. For storm drains outside the public right-of-way a '"Storm Drain Easement" or '"Private Storm Drain
Easement" shall be dedicated on the final map.
87. Provide an access road and turn around and maintenance easement to storm drainage detention facilities
and trash racks.
88. A current title report and copies ofthe recorded deed of all parties having any recorded title interest in the
property to be divided, copies of the deeds and the Final/Parcel Maps for adjoining properties and
easements shall be submitted at the time of the submittal of the final subdivision maps.
89. Existing and proposed access and public utility easements shall be submitted for review and approval by
the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer prior to approval of the Final/Parcel Map.
29
;;'0 'I ~ .t l)j
These easements shall allow for vehicular and utility service access.
90. A lO-foot public service easement (6-foot on residential streets) shall be shown on the FinallParcel Map
along all street frontages, in addition to all other easements required by the utility companies or
governmental agencies.
91. All street dedications shall include working easements for slope maintenance.
92. The boundary of all lots and the exterior boundary of the Subdivision, as well as the centerline of the
streets, shall be survey monumented. At least three (3) permanent benchmarks shall be established.
Plats and elevation data shall be provided to the City in a form acceptable to the Director of Public
Works/City Engineer/City Engineer.
FIRE:
93. Install fire hydrants at the locations approved by the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority in accordance
with the standards in effect at the time of development. A raised blue reflectorized traffic marker shall
be epoxied to the center of the paved street opposite each hydrant.
94. All materials and workmanship for fire hydrants, gated connections, and appurtenances thereto,
necessary to provide water supply for fire protection, must be installed by the developer and conform to
all requirements of the applicable provisions of the Standard Specifications of Dublin San Ramon
Services District and Dougherty Regional Fire Authority. All such work will be subject to the joint field
inspection of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer and Dublin San Ramon
Services District.
95. Fire access roads must be designed, constructed, and gated to the satisfaction of the Director of Public
Works/City Engineer/City Engineer and to the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority.
96. The improvement plans must be approved by the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority, as indicated by
their signature on the title sheet.
FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS:
97. Dedication of land shall be made to the City of Dublin such that it conveys land sufficient for the
approved streets' right-of-way. Improvements shall be made, by the applicant, along all streets within
the development and as required off-site including curb, gutter, sidewalk, paving, drainage, and work on
the existing paving, if necessary, from a structural or grade continuity standpoint.
FUTURE CONFORMANCE:
98. The design and improvements of the Subdivision shall be in conformance with the design and
improvements indicated graphically, or as modified by the Conditions of Approval. The improvements
and design shall include street locations, grades, alignments, and widths, the design of storn~ drainage
facilities inside and outside the Subdivision, grading of lots, the boundaries of the Tract, and shall show
compliance with City standards for roadways.
GRADING:
99. Grading shall be designed in conformance with the approved tentative map. The grading plan shall
30
:J.b5 ~ J.47
incorporate the recommendations of the soil report. The grading plan shall conform with the City
specifications and ordinances, City policies and the Uniform Building Code (UBC). In case of conflict
between the soil engineer's recommendations and City ordinances the City Engineer shall determine
which shall apply.
100. Prior to final preparation of the subgrade and placement of base materials, all underground utilities shall
be installed and service connections stubbed out to property lines. Public utilities, Cable TV, sanitary
sewers, and water lines, shall be installed in a manner which will not disturb the street pavement, curb,
gutter and sidewalk, when future service connections or extensions are made. All public and private
utilities shall be undergrounded.
101. Grading shall be done under the continuous inspection of the Project Soils Engineer. Grading shall be
completed in compliance with the construction grading plans and recommendations of the Project Soils
Engineer and/or Engineering Geologist, and the approved erosion and sedimentation control plan, and
shall be done under the supervision of the Project Soils Engineer and/or Engineering Geologist, who
shall, upon its completion, submit a declaration to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City
Engineer that all work was done in accordance with the recommendations contained in the soils and
geologic investigation reports and the approved plans and specifications. Inspections that will satisfy
final subdivision map requirements shall be arranged with the Director of Public Works/City
Engineer/City Engineer.
102. If grading is commenced prior to filing the Final Map or Parcel Map, a surety or guarantee shall be filed
with the City of Dublin. The surety shall be equal to the amount approved by the City Director of Public
Works/City Engineer/City Engineer as necessary to insure restoration of the site to a stable and erosion
resistant state if the project is terminated prematurely.
103. Any grading, stockpiling, storing of equipment or material on adjacent properties will require written
approval of those property owners affected. Copies of the rights-of-entry shall be furnished to the
Director of Public Warks/City Engineer/City Engineer prior to the start of work.
104. Street grades shall be designed and built in accordance with the General Plan, unless otherwise approved
by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer.
105. The developer shall keep adjoining public streets free and clean of project dirt, mud, materials, and
debris.
106. Where soil or geologic conditions encountered in grading operations are different from that anticipated
in the soil and geologic investigation report, or where such conditions warrant changes to the
recommendations contained in the original soil investigation, a revised soil or geologic report shall be
submitted for approved by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer. It shall be
accompanied by an engineering and geological opinion as to the safety of the site from hazards of land
slippage, erosion, settlement, and seismic activity.
107. Landslide and erosive areas outlined in the geokchnical investigation report shall be shown on the
improvement/grading plans or plans which are part of improvement/grading plans. The plans shall show
the method for repair of these areas as stated in the geotechnical investigation.
108. Grading plans shall indicate the quantity of soil that must be imported or off-hauled. If soil must be
imported or off-hauled, the Applicant shall submit details as to how it will be done and routes of travel
for the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer's approval.
31
~ob ~ ;2.~)
109. All unsuitable material found at the site shall be removed from the site or stockpiled for later use in
landscape areas.
110. Grading within a designated open space area shall be limited to that grading which is necessary for
construction of the roadways traversing the open space and any approved development.
111. All cut and fill slopes shall be revegetated with native shrubs, trees and grasses subject to review and
approval of the Planning Director and Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer. A
revegetation plan for replanting graded slopes and replacing the amount of woodlands lost due to
grading shall be prepared. Enhanced revegetation techniques shall be employed to ensure the success of
the revegetation. Examples of enhancements to the revegetation plan include irrigating the young
plants, placing top soil on fill slopes, using special planting techniques such as drilling into fill slopes to
allow root penetration, and planting at a density similar to the native woodlands in the riparian corridors.
112. All landslides which effect any structures or roads or other improvements shall be maintain by Geologic
Hazards Abatement District (GHAD). The developer or homeowners' association are responsible for
financing the GHAD. The administration ofthe GHAD is to be determined at the Final Map stage.
113. A minimum 20 foot bench/maintenance road with concrete V-ditch shall be constructed at the bottom of
slopes where open space abuts private property.
114. The project civil engineer shall certify that the finished graded building pads are within:t 0.1 feet in
elevation of those shown on approved plans.
HANDICAPPED ACCESS:
115. Handicapped ramps and parking shall be provided as specified in the American Disability Act (ADA).
IMPROVEMENT PLANS. AGREEMENTS. AND SECURITIES:
116. Obtain copies of and comply with conditions as noted on "City of Dublin General Notes on Improvement
Plans" and "City of Dublin Improvement Plan Review Check List."
117. All improvements within the public right-of-way, including curb, gutter, sidewalks, driveways, paving,
and utilities, must be constructed prior to occupancy and in accordance with' approved City Standards
and/or Plans.
118. The ApplicantlDeveloper shall enter into an improvement agreement with the City for all improvements.
119. Complete improvement plans, specifications, and calculations shall be submitted to, and be approved by,
the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer and other affected agencies having jurisdiction
over public improvements, prior to execution of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. Improvement
plans shall show the existing and proposed improvements along adjacent public street(s) and property
that relate to the proposed improvements.
120. The developer shall have their engineer provide the City AutoCAD electronic copies of the Improvement,
Grading and Storm Drain plans along with the Final Map which is tied to the City's existing mapping
coordinates if available.
32
;<0 I) e/ ;~j
121. The Developer shall enter into an Improvement Agreement with the 'City for all subdivision
improvements prior to issuance of improvement permit. Complete improvement plans, specifications
and calculations shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City
Engineer and other affected agencies having jurisdiction over public improvements prior to execution of
the Improvement Agreement. Improvement plans shall show the existing and proposed improvements
along the adjacent public street and property that relate to the proposed improvements.
122. All required securities, in an amount equal to 100% of the approved estimates of construction costs of
improvements, and a labor and material security, equal to 50% of the construction cost, shall be
submitted to, and be approved by, the City and affected agencies having jurisdiction over public
improvements, prior to execution of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement.
MAINTENANCE OF COMMON AREA:
123. Maintenance of common areas, including ornamental landscaping, graded slopes, erosion control
plantings and drainage, erosion and sediment control improvements, shall be the responsibility of the
developer during construction stages and until final improvements are accepted by the City Council and
the securities are released (one year after improvements are accepted). Thereafter, maintenance shall be
the responsibility of a homeowners' association or individual property owners, in accordance with the
project CC&Rs.
MISCELLANEOUS:
124. Copies of the Final Map and improvement plans, indicating all lots, streets, and drainage facilities within
the subdivision shall be submitted at 1" = 400' scale, and 1" = 200' scale for City mapping purposes.
125. The developer shall be responsible for controlling any rodent, mosquito, or other pest problem due to
construction activities.
126. All construction traffic and parking may be subject to specific requirements as determined by the
Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer.
127. The developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, officers, and
employees, from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its agents, officers, or
employees, to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency,
appeal board, or legislative body concerning a subdivision, which action is brought within the time period
provided for in Section 66499.37 of the Government Code of the State of California. The City of Dublin
shall promptly notifythe developer of any claim, action, or proceedings.
128. In submitting subsequent plans for review and approval, each set of plans shall have attached an
annotated copy of the project's conditions of approval. The notations shall clearly indicate how all
conditions of approval will be complied with. Construction plans will not be accepted without the
annotated conditions attached to each set of plans. The Applicant will be' responsible for obtaining the
approval of all participating non-City agencies prior to the issuance of building permits.
PERMIT:
129. Applicant shall obtain Caltrans' approval and permit for any work performed within their right-of-way or
impacting their facilities.
33
;<0 ~ <;. qj
130. An encroachment permit shall be secured from the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer
for any work done within the public right-of-way where this work is not covered under the improvement
plans.
131. The developer and/or their representatives shall secure all necessary permits for work including, but not
limited to, grading, encroachment, Fish and Game Department, County Flood Control District, Corps. of
Engineers and State water quality permits and show proof of it to the City of Dublin, Department of
Public Works.
132. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, visually important trees shall be tagged in the field. After the
staking of the daylight lines but prior to the start of grading, protective fencing shall be installed around
the trees, subject to approval of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer.
NOISE:
133. Construction and grading operations, including the maintenance and warming of equipment, shall be
limited to weekdays, Monday through Friday, and non-City holidays, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and
5:30 p.m. The Director of Public Works may approve days and hours beyond the above mentioned days
and hours. The developer is responsible for the additional cost of the Public Works inspectors' overtime.
134. During the construction, noise control and construction traffic mitigation measures within residential
neighborhoods or on public streets must be taken to reduce noise and use of public streets by construction
traffic as directed by Public Works officials.
PARKLAND DEDICATION:
135. Park land shall be dedicated or in-lieu fees shall be paid, or a combination of both shall be provided prior
to issuance of building permits or prior to recordation of the Final Map or Parcel Map, whichever occurs
first, in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance.
STREETS:
136. The street surfacing shall be asphalt concrete paving. The Director of Public Works/City Engineer shall
review the project's Soils Engineer's structural pavement design. The developer shall, at his sole expense,
make tests of the soil over which the surfacing and base are to be constructed and furnish the test reports
to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. The Developer's soils engineer shall determine a
preliminary structural design of the road bed. After rough grading has been completed, the developer
shall have soil tests performed to determine the final design of the road bed. In lieu of these soil tests, the
road may be designed and constructed based on an R-value of 5.
STREET LIGHTS:
137. Street light standards and luminaries shall be designed and installed per approval of the Director of
Public Works. The maximum voltage drop for street lights is 5%.
138. Properties shall be annexed to the Street Lighting Maintenance Assessment District.
34
~D9 ~ ~q~
STREET SIGNS:
139. The developer shall furnish and install street name signs, bearing such names as are approved by the
Planning Director, and traffic safety signs in accordance with the standards of the City of Dublin.
Addresses shall be assigned by the City Building Official.
140. Street names shall be submitted and processed through the Planning Department and shall be indicated on
the Final Map.
141. The Developer shall furnish and install street name signs, in accordance with the standards of the City of
Dublin, bearing such names as are approved by the City. The developer shall furnish and install traffic
safety signs in accordance with the standards of the City of Dublin.
STREET TREES:
142. Street trees, of at least a IS-gallon size, shall be planted along the street frontages. Trees shall be planted
in accordance with a planting plan, including tree varieties and locations, approved by the Planning
Director and Director of Public Works. Trees planted within, or adjacent to, sidewalks or curbs shall be
, provided with root shields.
TRAFFIC:
143. The City of Dublin is currently studying the adoption and implementation of a regional traffic impact fee
for roadway and street improvements in the Tri-Valley area. This fee will provide for Public Works
projects to improve traffic circulation for accommodating new development within the City. If a regional
traffic impact fee ordinance is approved and enacted prior to issuance of any building permits, the
Applicant shall pay its fair share of this regional traffic impact fee.
144. All new traffic signals shall be interconnected with other new signals within the development and to the
existing City traffic signal system by hard wire. In addition, conduits with pull ropes shall be installed
along the project frontage to accommodate future extension of the interconnect system. The extent of
this work shall be determined by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer.
145. Multi-family and non-residential facilities shall provide bike racks. In addition commercial and office
centers shall provide car and van pool preferential parking spaces as required by the Director of Public
Works/City Engineer/City Engineer.
146. Non-residential facilities shall provide pedestrian access from the public street to building entrances as
required by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer/City Engineer.
UTILITIES:
147. Electrical, gas, telephone, and Cable TV services, shall be provided underground to each lot in
accordance with the City policies and existing ordinances. All utilities shall be located and provided
within public utility easements and sized to meet utility company standards. All utilities to and within
the project shall be undergrounded.
148. Prior to the filing of the Final Map or Parcel Map, the developer shall furnish the Director of Public
Works/City Engineer with a letter from Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) stating that the'
35
~/O ct)~j
District has agreed to furnish water and sewer service to each of the dwelling units and/or lot included on
the Final Map of the subdivision.
149. The Dublin San Ramon Services District shall review and approve the improvement plans as evidenced
by their representative's signature on the Title Sheet.
150. Any relocation of improvements or public facilities shall be accomplished by the developer and at no
expense to the City.
WATER:
151. Water facilities must be connected to the DSRSD system, and must be installed at the expense of the
developer, in accordance with District standards and specifications. All material and workmanship for
water mains, and appurtenances thereto, must conform with all of the requirements of the officially
adopted Water Code of the District and will be subject to field inspection by the District.
152. Any water well, cathodic protection well, or exploratory boring shown on the map, that is know to exist,
is proposed, or is located during the course of field operations, must be properly abandoned, backfilled,
or maintained in accordance with applicable groundwater protection ordinances. For additional
information contact Flood Control, Zone 7 .
153. Developer shall design, incorporate, and institute water conservation measures for the entire project.
Refer to "Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance # 18-92."
154. D,eveloper shall design and provide infrastructure for recycled water use for landscaping in accordance
with DSRSD and to the satisfaction of the Public Work Director.
155. Developer shall design and construct the water and sewer system III accordance with the DSRSD
requirements.
:paOO-009/Black Mountain SDR
36
Cm. Musser commended the developer for their great work and cooperation 'in working
with staff.
On motion by Cm. Musser, seconded by Cm. Jennings with a vote of 3-0-2, with Cm.
Oravetz no longer sitting on the Commission, the Planning Commission unanimously
adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 00-69
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) REZONE I DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR PA 00-015 COMMERCE ONE CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
RESOLUTION NO. 00-70
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR PA 00-015 COMMERCE ONE
CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS FACILITY
8.4 PA 00-009 Black Mountain Development Site Development Review. A Site
Development Review for seven single-family residences on existing lots on
. Brittany Lane.
Cm. Johnson asked for the staff report.
Mr. Carrington presented the staff report. The Applicant is proposing the construction
of seven single-family homes on seven existing subdivided lots whereby six homes are
on Brittany Lane and one on Rolling Hills Dr. The lots are located at 11299 Rolling
Hills Drive and 11151,11159,11167,11175,11183 and 11191 Brittany Lane. City
Council Resolution 82-85 sets forth conditions of approval that apply to all tract maps.
Conditions 4 and 12 of aforementioned Resolution requires that a Site Development
Review be prepared for the custom lots and is therefore being presented to the
Planning Commission for its approval. The project is consistent with a single-family
residential designation of the General Plan and is consistent with the R1 single family
zoning district. Major issues are conformity of project with City Council resolution 82-
85, views, with height, grading, heritage trees and the tree protection plan and project
design. Mr. Carrington addressed the conformity issue. Condition # 3 of City Council
rimming Commission
Regular Meeting
151
December 12, 2000
ATTACHMENT \3
Resolution 82-85 sets forth the zoning regulations. The front yard setback is 20-ft, the
side-yard setback is 5-ft minimum. The lots are subject to the R-l zoning regulations
as far as uses are concerned. The lots must be 7000-sq. ft. in size and 70-ft. in width.
All the lots in the proposed projects comply with requirements of Condition 3.
Condition 4 states briefly that a Site Development Review must be done if grading
involves more than 50 cubic yards. Condition 6 is the most controversial condition of
the said Resolution. It reads 'The height of custom or modified homes shall not exceed
25-ft as measured perpendicularly from natural grade. Skirt heights screening
undeveloped, non-living space for custom or modified homes (measured from natural
grade to finished floor elevations) shall not exceed a maximum of nine (9) feet. Deviation
and/ or refinement of these standards may be considered as part of the Site Development
Review process covering these lots". Mr. Carrington explained that there is a 25-foot
height limit with a maximum skirt height of 9-feet as measured from the natural
grade. Natural grade is defined by the current zoning ordinance as the contour of
ground surface before grading. Grading on the site occurred between 1981 and 1985.
A review of the lots by a geotechnical firm states that grading for the subject lots was
done properly and meets the current standard of engineering practice in the Bay area.
A field evaluation of the lots on Brittany Lane indicated that moderate amounts of fill
has occurred on the lots in 1985 ranging between 1-10 feet depending on the parcel
involved. Staff has noted undocumented placement of fill on the proposed site. A
condition of approval requires that any undocumented placement of fill should be
removed before during the grading of this project to create pads. A condition of
approval also requires that the houses being built should be built at the elevation
shown on the project plans. Staff feels that the flexibility of the last part of condition 6
is appropriate.
Staff feels that the project minimizes impact to views. Staff worked with the developer
to site the houses and design the houses so that they minimize impacts to views. A
tree protection plan was prepared pursuant to Heritage Tree ordinance. Staff has
worked closely with the project applicant and his arborist called Hort Science and staff
has had the tree protection pre-reviewed by Jeffrey Gamboni who is a registered
landscape architect as well as a certified arborist.
Mr. Carrington explained the grading issue for the project. A concern addressed to
Staff is the soil placed in these parcels from 1981 to 1985 was placed improperly.
NGO Incorporated is doing the geo-technical work for the proposed project. Kleinfelder
has reviewed these reports stating that grading was done properly and meets the
standard of engineering practice in the bay area. Kleinfelder has recommended
supplemental grading be undertaken to remove an area of boulders.
Residents of Brittany Lane have expressed concerns to Staff that pruning of trees on
the project site will harm trees. Staff has worked closely with the applicant, developer,
the applicant's arborist and the City's arborist, and Fire Marshall and determined that
planning Commission
Regular Meeting
152
December 12, 2000
eAI8 cr6 J~'
any pruning of the heritage trees will not harm the trees. Mr. Carrington stated that
the Fire Marshall is available to address this issue.
Nineteen oak trees are identified by the Tree Protection Plan within this project.
Twelve of those trees are Oaks are over 24 inches in diameter measured 4 feet 6 inches
above natural grade and therefore meet the definition "a" of a Heritage Tree. All
nineteen trees will be designated as Heritage Trees by a condition of approval of this
Site Development Review.
The Heritage Trees on site will not be removed as part of this project but, if the project
is approved, must be pruned in order to meet the requirements of the 1997 Fire Code.
A portion of Tree 340 will be removed pursuant to the Fire Code and to Section
5.60.50.b.1 of the Heritage Tree Ordinance. It is technically a separate trunk from the
main trunk of Tree 340. The trunk to be removed and the remainder of Tree 340 are
treated as one tree in the Tree Protection Report because they are located immediately
adjacent to each other and form portions of the same canopy and dripline. The
removal of this trunk is permitted by the Director as part of this Site Development
Review pursuant to Section 5.60.50.b.1 of the Heritage Tree Ordinance that allows
removal of a Heritage Tree if it presents an immediate hazard to life or property.
Heritage Trees required to be retained pursuant to this Site Development Review will
be protected during demolition, grading, and construction operations. The Tree
Preservation Guidelines of the Tree Protection Plan have been incorporated as
conditions of approval to ensure that the Heritage Trees are protected during
demolition, grading, and construction operations.
The proposed project is very well designed. Michael Porto, City of Dublin Planning
Consultant worked with the applicant and developer and his architect on several
occasions and refined the designs of the residences. The homes are attractive and will
complement the architectural quality of the surrounding neighborhood. The
residences are sited on the lots to minimize impacts to views from the other side of
Brittany Lane. Hip roofs have been incorporated into the design to minimize impacts to
views. Staff feels the project is in conformity with the General Plan, the Zoning
Ordinance, Resolution 82-85 adopted by the City Council and consistent with the
Heritage Tree Ordinance. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve
the project subject to the conditions of approval and concluded his presentation.
Cm. Johnson asked to heqr from the Fire Marshal.
Jim Ferdidnand, Fire Marshall stated that the City adopted the Wildfire Management
Plan in 1996. The document states trees will be limbed up 15 feet or 1/3 their crown
height ifwithin 100 feet of a home. The Wildfire Management Plan was drafted before
planning Commission
Regular Meeting
153
December 12, 2000
;/1'-/ ~ )4~
the Heritage Tree Ordinance was created. The Alameda County/City of Dublin
adopted Uniform Fire Code lowers the tree height from 15 feet to 6 feet.
Cm. Johnson opened the public hearing.
Jeff Woods Black Mountain development thanked Dennis and Staff for working on
project. Brought his architect.
Cm. Johnson explained the project review is a public hearing with a number of people
who wish to speak on the project. He stated that Mr. Bond, Mr. Bewley, and Mr. Wies
wished to speak as a group. He asked them to speak individually and the Commission
would be happy to hear from each of them.
Jerry Weis, 11158 Brittany Lane spoke with Jeff Woods on the custom homes. He has
concerns with his property value being effected with the loss of his view. He called a
local real estate agent to inquire on the affects of the project. The agent indicated the
loss of his view will lower his property value. An appraiser assessed a $10,000
premium for the view from his home compared to a ridge home without a view. He
requested that the homes be appraised before they are approved by the City.
Cm. Jennings asked Mr. Weis if he is asking the City to employ an appraiser to
appraise his home.
Mr. Weis responded that it should be determined whether the value of the homes
would increase or decrease. The City Council Resolution 82 - 85 approved in 1985
condition number 6 has been applied to the project with a deviation. The strict
interpretation of condition number 6, the houses would have to come down to open up
the view. It is subjective to state the project will minimize the impacts to the view. He
requested translating the impacts to home value.
Cm. Jennings stated it would be difficult to get a licensed appraiser to make that
determination. A different appraiser would give a different opinion.
Mr. Weis stated he does not want an exact appraisal, only if it will make a difference.
Cm. Jennings asked Mr. Weis if he is requesting the City to pay for the cost of an
appraIser.
Mr. Weis responded yes.
Cm. Johnson asked if the view from the street for the proposed homes is better on the
natural grade than going 25 feet high from the curb.
planning Commission
Regular Meeting
15+
December I2f 2000
~/s crt )-V1
Mr. Carrington stated the homes would have the same height view from the street.
Cm. Johnson if the view from across the street for the proposed homes are at 16 feet
high instead of 25 feet.
Mr. Carrington stated yes.
Susan Bewley, Brittany Lane resident stated that Mr. Carrington is referring to grading
that occurred in 1985, which makes the site plan incorrect. There is landfill that
would be removed.
Mr. Carrington explained there is a band of fill that is parallel to Brittany Lane. The
land will stair step with some areas removed and some filled in.
Mrs. Bewley asked if the plans are an accurate representation of the project.
Mr. Carrington responded yes. There is a profile on each home in the staff report.
Mrs. Bewley said Mr. Woods assured her that she would still have a view from her
living room.
Cm. Johnson stated the houses will be 16 feet high at street level.
Mrs. Bewley said the arch roof is taking away from her view and the setbacks are 5
feet and 10 feet from the fence.
Cm. Johnson stated staff report indicates the site line is over the top of the house
across the street.
Mrs. Bewley said that is only true or some lots. The Fire Marshall referred to the
Ordinance requiring distance of 100 feet from a home; it is inapplicable because there
is no home and it does not apply to a empty lot.
David Bewley 11166 Brittany Lane stated with him is Rich Bond 11182 Brittany Lane.
They have prepared overheads and would like to address the staff report line by line
as fast as they can. Resolution 82-85, condition 6 and 16 are conditions, which
preserve their view. The preservation of their view was granted to them in 1985 by the
City Council. Condition 6 is not being followed by way of interpretation. Staff is using
1997 ordinance which rewrites original condition of 25 feet and allows building heights
of 40 feet. The concern is condition 2, which allows for reasonable modification. The
developer, future home owners could come back and increase the height. Condition 6
states the height shall not exceed 25 feet as measured from natural grade, deviation or
natural refinement may be considered as part of Site Development Review. The problem
planning Commission
RetJUlar Meeting
155
December 12, 2000
~)b i ;45
is the definition of natural grade. Staff states as defined by the zoning ordinance the
contour of ground surface before grading; common engineering practice is define to
ground surface as ground that has never been graded or ground that has been grade.d
pursuant to improved grading permit so there is new ground surface} new ground surface
can be used to determine natural grade. He quoted from the ordinance, existing or
natural grade} the contour of natural grade before grading} b - rough grade the stage of
which the grade approx conforms to an approved grading plan. That land was graded in
1985 after the council approved. If use common engineering practice, which is not
written anywhere and has not been provided in written document anywhere in the City
or Ordinance. Can make that grade anything - nothing in condition 6 precludes
anyone from regrading subject to a 25 foot height ordinance, because it applies
specifically to homes. Therefore could have a grade lower or higher, can grade again
and make it higher, there is no natural grade. That is logical nonsense. The
Ordinance states existing or natural grade is the contour of the ground surface before
grading, not by common engineering practice.
Mr. Bond said he would like to address the staff report, point by point. He stated that
he would like to refer to the Arial photo on the wall to make a point; he stepped away
from the microphone and could not be heard or recorded.
Mr. Bond returned to the microphone and stated there is a large area of boulders and
presented the Commission with a photograph. He explained that part of the grading
plan was to put in keyways in with drainage pipes to stabilize the' ground. Either the
pipe was suppose to be put in the drains and was not put there or thrown away in the
stream. The grading plan for Brittany Lane ot 1985 shows the revene exposed. A
modern Arial photo of same area the revene is not exposed.
Cm. Muss~r stated the grading plan shows the revene closed in and not exposed. He
explained to Mr. Bond how the plans show the revene filled in.
Mr. Bond was not in full agreement with Cm. Musser.
Cm. Johnson asked Mr. Bond and Mr. Bewley to continue with their presentation. He
explained that there is usually a 3 minute time limit to address the Commission. He
suggested addressing other issues of concern.
Mr. Bewley stated that the lay of land today is rough grade not natural grade and
houses would be lower.
Cm. Johnson asked if they would be lower than 16 foot roof lines
Mr. Bewley stated yes. If go from natural grade, will drop 20 feet back will drop it
down.
planning Commission
ReLJUlar Meeting
156
December 12, 2000
rJ./1 ~ ;.~5
Cm. Johnson stated won't drop it down from street level for front elevation.
Mr. Bewley stated grade from street some cases it is 10 feet. He said he would try and
move quickly through the remainder of his presentation.
Cm. Johnson stated he'd appreciate that.
Mr. Bewley stated the 1997 Ordinance allows homes 40 feet in height, which is too
much. Interpretation of Ordinance under Section D states conflicts between other
requirements between this Ordinance and other regulations of the City, the most
restrictive shall apply. He stated that 25 feet is more restrictive than 40. The 40 foot
rule should not be used for interpretation.
Cm. Johnson asked if was concerned with the houses adding a 2nd story.
Mr. Bewley said yes.
Cm. Johnson stated that the point has been taken regarding natural grade; the
Commission appreciates his comments and asked him if he could move on.
Mr. Bewley responded yes.
Cm. Johnson asked if Mr. Bewley was speaking for everyone or were there other
speakers.
Mr. Bewley stated he was speaking for a majority and they may be other speakers.
Cm. Johnson stated they have had ample time to prove their point.
Mr. Bewley stated he needs to talk about Heritage Tree Ordinance.
Cm. Johnson asked Mr. Bewley if he could wrap it up in 2 minutes.
Mr. Bewley said that is not enough time.
Cm. Johnson asked Mr. Bewley if he provided Staff with documentation on his
presentation.
Mr. Bewley said he will provide Staff with documentation.
Cm. Johnson explained there will be another opportunity to speak on the project at
the City Council meeting.
planning Commission
Regular Meeting
157
December 12, 2000
~/$' ~ ;.15
Mr. Bond stated Mr. Woods gave them drawings of the project that are different than
the drawings submitted to the City, which impacts the views differently.
Mr. Bewley discussed the Heritage Tree protection plan. The Ordinance does not have
language for tree preservation. Heritage Tree Ordinance does not include definition of
tree preservation. Cutting away tree is not preserving tree. He requested that the
Ordinance be revised. He thanked the Commission for allowing him the time to speak
and apologized for taking up so much time. He submitted a letter for the Commission.
Charles Breed, 11296 Rothschild stated he would not take too much of the
Commission's time. He stated the project should not be approved. The Developers are
here to make money at the community's expense. These lots were not developed in
1985 because they are not buildable and have a lot of problems. He had concerns
with the proposed homes are larger than the surrounding neighborhood, the loss of
his view, and it will take away the only fire access.
Cm. Johnson asked Mr. Breed if he is referring to the flag lot.
Mr. Breed responded yes.
Cm. Johnson asked Mr. Breed if his house was adjacent to the flag lot.
Mr. Breed responded yes.
Cm. Johnson asked Mr. Breed if he was aware it was a flag lot when he purchased his
home.
Mr. Breed stated that the real estate agent was mis-informed and told them it was a
fire access road. He is not familiar with a flag lot.. The natural grade calculations are
wrong; the grade calculations is from dirt that was pushed back from the houses being
built. After the driveway is put in on the adjacent lot, there will be a drainage problem
and the water going into his backyard. He stated there are a number of potential
problems with the project and it shouldn't be approved.
Pete Body, 11293 Rothschild stated there is a large concrete drainage inlet in his back
yard and drains to one of the proposed lots. He asked where his drainage will go after
the house is built.
Cm. Johnson stated he is confident that drainage will be replaced.
Mr. Body stated there is a large tree hanging over his fence from the adjacent lot.
planning Commission
Regular Meeting
158
December 12, 2000 _
ri</r ~ ;yj
Cm. Johnson explained that Mr. Body can prune the part of the tree hanging over the
fence into his property.
Cm. Johnson asked if there were any other comments or questions; hearing none he
closed the public hearing.
Cm. Musser asked Staff to clarify the conflicting issues with the 1997 Ordinance and
the City Council Resolution 82-85.
Mr. Carrington stated Resolution 82-85 is in effect. He does not believe there is a
conflict with the 1997 Ordinance and Condition 6. The resolution specifically states
that for steep situations pursuant to Site Development Review can make a deviation or
modification. Staff applied this standard to the Bryce Davies lot adjacent to this
project.
Cm. Musser stated with respect to height requirement, these houses are below 25 feet.
Mr. Carrington responded yes. Many of the houses are right at 25 feet, but way below
35-40 feet. He suggested that the Commission could modify the conditions to prohibit
a height increase.
Cm. Musser asked if there is an arborist report and if the project is encroaching into
any trees covered by the Heritage Tree Ordinance.
Mr. Carrington stated yes there is an arborist report. There is one tree on lot 8 that is
affected, but the fire code reduces the drip line of the tree.
Cm. Jennings asked if the conditions have been reviewed by the arborists.
Mr. Carrington stated yes.
Cm. Jennings asked if the Applicant has read the conditions.
Mr. Carrington responded yes and he is in agreement with the conditions
Cm. Musser asked if project will conform to the Heritage Tree Ordinance.
Mr. Carrington stated yes. The Arborist requested changes, which were made.
Cm. Musser asked there is a fencing plan for the project.
Mr. Carrington said yes.
planning Commission
Regular Meeting
159
December 12, 2000
t/.-rJ. D cr6 ;2 ~.5
Cm. Jennings stated to her knowledge this is the first time a certified Arborist needs to
be present during grading and construction of the project.
Cm. Johnson asked if there were any other question~; hearing none he asked for a
motion.
On motion by Cm. Jennings and seconded by Cm. Musser with a 3-0-1 vote, with Cm.
Oravetz no longer sitting on the Commission, and with the noted amendments to the
conditions, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 00-71
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING PA 00-009 BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT
SITE DEVELOPMENT REV.EW FOR SEVEN SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES
ON EXISTING LOTS ON BRITTANY LANE
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Mr. Peabody went over the upcoming Planning Commission schedule.
OTHER BUSINESS
None
ADOURNMENT
Cm Hughes adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Community Development Director
planning Commission
Regular Meeting
160
December 12, 2000
c?-~/ ~ )Y5
ANALYSIS OF GROUNDS FOR APPEAL RECEIVED DECEMBER 21. 2000:
The appellants have given six grounds for their appeal. An analysis of each ground for appeal is as follows.
Staffhas used different fonts to help distinguish between grounds for appeal, footmarks, and Staff responses
to grounds for appeal. The texts ofthe grounds for appeal were divided into "grounds" such as 1-1, 1-2, etc.,
for clarity of analysis:
Ground for Appeal 1.
Ground 1-1.
"Unequal enforcement of 1997 Dublin Zoning Ordinance and Condition 6 of Resolution 82-85.
Issue: Natural Grade and conformity with Condition 6. Proposed housing on Brittany Lane lots 1
and 7-12 of Block 1 of Tract Map 5073 located at 11299 Rolling hills Drive and 11151, 11159,
11167, 11175, 1183 and 11191 Brittany Lane (hereinafter "Custom Lots") should be lowered from
the current proposed siting to reflect a siting on "Natural Grade" as defined in Section
8.08.020.G.at, of the Zoning Ordinance and Condition 62 of City Council Resolution 82-85,
August 12, 1985."
Footnote 1 to this groundfor appeal is the definition of "Grade" from the Zoning Ordinance that
follows:
Grade. The term Grade shall mean the vertical location of the ground surface, as follows:
a. Existing or natural grade: The contour of the ground surface before grading.
b. Rough grade: The stage at which the grade approximately conforms to an approved
grading plan.
c. Finish grade: The final terrain contour of a site that conforms to an approved grading
plan. Where there is no approved grading plan, Finish Grade is the lowest point of
elevation of the finished surface of the ground between the exterior wall of a building and
a perimeter drawn five feet distant from said wall, or the lowest point of elevation of the
finished surface of the ground between the exterior wall of a building and the property line
if it is less than five feet distant from said wall, whichever is lowest. In the case of walls
parallel to and within five feet of a public sidewalk, alley, or other public way, the
Finished Grade shall be the elevation of the sidewalk, alley, or public way.
Footnote 2 to this groundfor appeal is Condition 6 of City Council Resolution 82-85 the full text
of which reads as follows:
Condition 6. Condition 6 reads asfollows: "The height of custom or modified homes shall not
exceed twenty-five (25) feet as measured perpendicularly from natural grade. Skirt heights
screening undeveloped, non-living space for custom or modified homes (measured from natural
grade to finished floor elevations) shall not exceed a maximum of nine 9 feet. Deviation and/or
refinement of these standards may be considered as part of the Site Development Review process
covering these lots. "
1
ATTACHMENT 14
c;lo1fl 0{ :;LY5
Staff response to Ground 1-1.
Appellants unequal protection argument appears to be that when there are two
requirements which could bear upon a given situation, the two requirements are not both
strictly enforced by the City and a conflict results. Thus the appellants propose that the
residences in this project be lowered from the current proposed siting to reflect a siting
on "Natural Grade" as they understand it in the current Zoning Ordinance and Condition
6.
Staff is of the opinion that there is no conflict between the Definition of "Grade" in the
Zoning Ordinance and Condition 6, and that the height of the proposed homes has been
properly measured from "Finish grade" and "Existing or natural grade" for several
reasons:
1. When Resolution 82-85 was adopted in 1985 there was no definition of
"Natural Grade" in the resolution or in the Zoning Ordinance in effect at that time
which has since been superceded (Old Ordinance).
2. "Grade" was defined in the Old Ordinance as "the lowest point of elevation
of the finished surface of the ground between the exterior wall of the building and
a point five feet distant from the said wall or the lowest point of elevation of the
finished surface of the ground between the exterior wall of the building and the
property line if it is less than five feet distant from the wall.. ,,"
3. There is no conflict between the New Zoning Ordinance definition of
"Natural Grade" and Condition 6. The New Zoning Ordinance defines the term
"Existing or natural grade", not "Natural Grade". As will be discussed below in
Ground 1-2, "Existing or natural grade" as modified by an approved grading plan
results in "Finish Grade". This in turn is the new "Existing or natural grade" which
would exist before yet further grading. "Natural Grade" as used in Condition 6 is
not defined but the intent of the condition is clearin light of the definition of
"Grade" in the Old Zoning Ordinance as being measured from "the finished
surface of the ground" and the New Zoning Ordinance which shows that "Finish
Grade" is the result of grading pursuant to an approved grading plan which
establishes a new "Existing or natural grade". Condition 6 results in measuring
building height from the same point as the definition of "Grade" in the New Zoning
Ordinance. Lots 1, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of this project (as were the rest of the lots in
Tracts 5072,5073 and 5074) were graded pursuant to an approved grading plan.
Lot 12 was graded pursuant to an approved grading plan at the time Brittany Lane
was constructed and no further grading of that lot was necessary for the purposes
of Tract 5073. The heights of the homes built on these lots will conform to the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance with regard to heights. Both the New
Zoning Ordinance and Condition 6 result in the measurement of height from the
same point, finish grade, as established by an approved grading permit.
4. A study was prepared comparing the topography profile for the Brittany
Lane lots prior to 1985, the 1985 finish grade profile and the proposed finish floor
2
;<cA:3 l~ J ~5
elevations in relationship to Brittany Lane (Attachment 16 to the Staff Report).
The study shows that the pad elevations of the proposed homes would average
below the 1985 finish grade. Lot 9 is four feet over finish grade because of the
requirements of acceptable driveway grades, lot usability, and consistency of
street presence of the homes. As stated above, all of the homes will meet the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance with regard to height.
Ground 1-2.
"The Dublin Planning Commission (hereinafter "Commission") and Dublin Planning Department
(hereinafter "Staff') have without proper authority created a heretofore-unknown definition of
"New Ground Surface" to replace natural grade in both the 1997 Dublin Zoning Ordinance and
Condition 6 of Resolution 82085 (page 3, Staffrepod). This constitutes an impermissible
revision or amendment of both the 1997 Ordinance and Resolution 82-85 and is beyond allowed
reasonable deviation and/or refinement in Condition 6, resulting in an increase in the heights of
homes developed on these Custom Lots. No evidence of an established or measurable Dublin City
Standard for such revision was introduced into the record at the December 12,2000 hearing and
therefore is an unequal enforcement as applied to this development.4"
Footnote 3 to this groundfor appeal reads asfollows: "Agenda Statement 12-12-00, Page 3
"Common engineering practice is to define the ground surface before grading as ground that has
never been graded or ground that has been graded pursuant to an approved grading permit so
that there is a "new" ground surface." Thefact is that common engineering practice is to define
this "new" ground surface as rough grade. Proof of this is seen in the 1986 engineering reports
and current Peer Review for this development. See Kleinfelder letter to City of Dublin, dated
October 13, 2000 page 2, paragraph 4: "The January 9, 1986 (ENGEO Inc) report provides
documentation concerning the general geotechnical observations and compaction testing
performed during the rough grading performed in 1985..." (Emphasis added) see Attachment #1.
The phrase "rough grade" is the accepted standard. Additionally, adopting a standard of "new"
ground surface via approved grading, could be used to redefine the height limitations of Condition
6 on a repeated basis, rendering the height limitation impossible to establish because you would
modify it with each new grading permit. For example, will the height limits be changed again
based on the new grading being allowed by proposed development P A 00-009? This is why the
height must be measured from the Natural Grade, otherwise the height limits in Condition 6 are
meaningless. "
Footnote 4 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: "See attached letter dated December 12,
2000 from the Residents of Brittany Lane, paragraph I and paragraph II as Attachment #2. It
should be noted that Resolution 82-85 was passed before any approved grading permits were
issuedfor this development. Subsequent grading therefore will not change the wording of
Resolution 82-85 Condition 6. The grading has resulted in an increase in the elevation of the
ground surface by over ten feet on some of the Custom Lots, which will result in an increase in the
height of the homes ifused as a "new" ground surface standard." A copy of this letter was
proved to the Planning Commission qt the time of the public hearing. It should be pointed out that
Attachments 3,4, 5, and 6 of the appeal package were not presented to the Planning Commission
at the December 12, 2000 hearing and are being placed in the public record for the first time at
this hearing.
3
;2/l- ~ ~.. J ~ :?
Staff response to Ground 1-2.
"Existing or natural grade" is defined under the Zoning Ordinance adopted in 1997 (New
Ordinance) as the contour of the ground surface before grading. The Staff report for the
December 12,2000 Planning Commission hearing on this item stated the following:
"Common engineering practice is to define the ground surface before grading as ground
that has never been graded or ground that has been graded pursuant to an approved
grading plan so that there is a "new" ground surface. This new ground surface can then
be used to determine Natural Grade." Staff was not creating a heretofore-unknown
definition of "New Ground Surface" but was trying to clarify that a sites "Natural Grade" is
not a static condition. Instead, it may change under the Zoning Ordinance from time to
time as the site is graded and re-graded pursuant to approved grading plans. The
language in the Planning Commission Report would have been more clear if it had stated
that, pursuant to the definition of "Grade" in the New Zoning Ordinance, a new ground
surface created pursuant to an approved grading plan is the final terrain contour of a site
or "Finish Grade". This "Finish Grade" then becomes a new "Existing or natural grade"
which would exist before any further grading.
Lot 12 and Brittany Lane were created by Tract Map 4859 pursuant to an approved
grading permit. Tract Map 4859 was approved by Alameda County on July 20,1981.
Lots 1, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 were created in 1985 pursuant to an approved grading Plan for
PA 85-035, Hatfield/lnvetec Tract Maps 5072,5073 and 5074 (which re-subdivided Tract
Map 4859). Lots that were graded pursuant to a valid grading permit create a new or
"Finish" grade and "Existing or natural grade" from which measurements of building
height should be made. This method was used to determine the height of the residences
of this project. Staff has not created a heretofore unknown definition of "New Ground
Surface" so there is no unequal enforcement as applied to this development.
It is not common engineering practice to determine the new ground surface as "rough
grade" as implied in footnote 4. "Rough Grade" is defined by the New Zoning Ordinance
as "The stage atwhich the grade approximately conforms to an approved grading plan."
As stated above, the final terrain contour of a site that conforms to an approved grading
plan is "Finish grade" not "Rough grade".
Section 8.04.060.D.1 states "If conflicts occur between requirements of this Ordinance,
or between this Ordinance and other regulations of the City, the most restrictive shall
apply." There is no conflict between the definitions of "Natural Grade" and Condition 6.
Applying both terms results in the same condition, the surface of the ground that existed
after grading of Tract Map 5073 pursuant to an approved grading plan.
To summarize, the "Existing or natural grade" of a ground surface may be re-established
over time by successive approved grading plans. Building height is measured from
whatever grade exists in conformance with an approved grading plan a the time building
permits are requested.
Ground for Appeal 2.
Ground 2-1.
4
clA5 ~ }-~,
"The height limit on these custom or modified homes should not exceed 25 feet if the impacts to
the views are to be properly minimized. Issue: Section 8.36.11 O.C.2 of the 1997 Dublin Zoning
Ordinance is being applied to this Site Development Review resulting in unequal enforcement.
Staff response to Ground 2-1.
Natural grade. The Appellants state that the heights of the residences are measured
from "natural grade". As stated above "Natural Grade" is incorporated into "Existing or
natural grade" under the New Zoning Ordinance. The "Finish grade" resulting from the
approved grading plans for Tracts 5072,5073 and 5074 and for the construction of
Brittany Lane created a new "Existing or natural grade" from which building heights are
measured. New Zoning Ordinance Section 8.36.110 C.2, Residential exception -
Sloping lots, permits the maximum height allowed for a dwelling.to be increased on
steeply sloping lots. Applying the slope exception, the maximum potential height for the
proposed homes would be 35 to 40 feet. In contrast, Condition 6 established a 25 foot
height standard which may, however, be refined through Site Development Review.
There is no identified maximum height under Condition 6.
No conflict between Condition 6 and Section 8.36.110 C.2. In spite of this contrast,
Staff is of the opinion that there is no conflict between the Condition 6, Deviation and/or
refinement provision and Section 8.36.110 C.2. A strict application of the 25-foot height
limit of Condition 6 would make construction of a home with a useable floor plan almost
impossible. A typical two-story residence on a flat or stepped pad foundation can easily
conform to the 25-foot height limit. A residence on a steeply sloping lot would only
conform to the 25-foot limit if it resembled a stairway with shallow treads and had rooms
that were not very usable. In Staffs view Condition 6 anticipated this situation and
provided for deviation and/or refinement of its standards pursuant to Site Development
Review. In order to evaluate the proposed "Deviation and/or Refinement", Staff applied
the Zoning Ordinance slope exception for steep lots.
Minimal impacts to views. Staff worked with the applicant/developer to site the
residences as low on the lots as possible in order to preserve views. This project
contains 2 lots with slopes exceeding 22.5 % and 5 lots exceeding 30%. These homes
could be up to 35 and 40 feet high under the new Zoning Ordinance height exception. It
should be pointed out that the seven homes have roof peaks that average 13.6 feet
below the height allowed with the height exception because the building pads are located
down slope from Brittany Lane. The residences are designed to appear from the street
as single story homes. They average 13.16 feet high when viewed from the sidewalk on
Brittany Lane and 15.4 feet high at the front porch. Hip roofs are incorporated into the
design of the homes to provide minimum interference with views. The project plans
provide profiles for each proposed residence to show impacts to the views of the homes
on the opposite side of Brittany Lane. Staff believes that the proposed heights are
consistent with both Condition 6 and the New Zoning Ordinance and reflect site and
architectural design which minimizes impacts to views.
Bryce Davies home. Staff used Section 8.36.110.C.2 to approve PA 98-053, Bryce
Davies Site Development Review for a single-family residence at 11197 Brittany Lane
(Lot 6 of Block 1 of Tract Map 5073), which is adjacent to Lot 7 of this project. That
5
c?A&. ci ;qj
residence was similar in height, design and size to the proposed residences. It is located
on a lot with slopes in excess of 30% like the subject lots. The Bryce Davies residence,
when built, will have the presence on the Brittany Lane frontage of a single story home.
Staff applied Section 8.36.110.C.2 in light of Condition 6 of City Council Resolution 82-
85 and approved the project on January 15, 1999. Staff discussed the Bryce Davies
home proposal with most of the nearby residents before approving the project. There
were no appeals of the staff approval.
Ground 2-2.
Staff and Commission state in paragraph page 3 of the Agenda Statement that impacts to views are
being minimized because these homes could be 35 and 40 feet high. This creates the possibility
and potential that this developer or his successors, or future owners could assert a right to increase
the height of these homes.5
Footnote 5 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: "See General Condition 2: Modifications
or changes. "Modifications or changes to this Site Development Review approval may be
considered by the Community Development Director, if the modifications or changes proposed
comply with Section 8.104.100 of the Zoning Ordinance. ""
Staff response to Ground 2-2.
The appellants are concerned that the developer or his successors, or future owners
could increase the height of these homes to the maximum height (35 feet and 40 feet)
allowed by Section 8.36.110 C.2. Footnote 5 cites Section 8.104.100 of the Zoning
Ordinance as permitting this. Section 8.104.100 addresses a Site Development Review
Waiver for minor projects which are Categorically Exempt from CEQA such as the
physical expansion of a structure by no more than 1000 square feet or the exterior
modification of no more than 100 square feet of surface area of an existing structure.
This Section cannot be used to increase the height of a residence because Condition 40
of the Planning Commission Resolution of Approval for this project prohibits the increase
in height of residences in this project beyond that originally approved by the City. If the
City Council affirms the action of the Planning Commission approving this project, this
condition would apply to this project. If the project were approved by the City Council,
only the City Council could modify the condition to allow the residences to be increased
in height.
Ground 2-3.
The height limit should be 25 feet from natural grade according to Rt::solution 82-85 condition 6.6
Staff assertion that Section 8.36.11 O.C.2 ofthe 1997 Dublin Zoning Ordinance applies to this Site
Development Review is incorrect. This Ordinance states in simple and direct language that it is
not to be applied to other existing regulations or ordinances such as Resolution 82-85 ifthere is a
conflict. If a conflict exists between the 1997 Dublin Zoning Ordinance and other regulations then
the most restrictive shall apply. Resolution 82-85 is more restrictive because is (sic) allows for
only 25 feet height whereas the 1997 Dublin Zoning Ordinance Section 8.36.110.C.2 allows for
heights up to 40 feet on the Custom Lots7. Section 8.04.0608 and Section 8.04.060.D.19 clearly
show that the 1997 Dublin Zoning Ordinance never intended to rewrite and supersede Resolution
82-85.
6
pJ.1 ot I-~?
Footnote 6 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: See footnote 2 supra.
Footnote 7 to this groundfor appeal reads asfollows: See Staffreport Agenda Statement page 3
"Deviation and/or refinement" chart showing 15 feet can be added to the height of a home on a
slope over 30 percent.
Footnote 8 to this groundfor appeal reads asfollows: Section 8.04.060 "Interpretation." Of City
of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 1997 provides the rules for resolving questions about the meaning or
applicability of any part of Ordinance. Definitions and the meanings of words and prhases are set
out in this section. For example, Section 8. 04. 060A.3 states: " 'Shall, May and Should.' 'Shall'
is always mandatory and not discretionary. 'May' is permissive and discretionary. 'Should' is .
advisory and not mandatory. "
Footnote 9 to this groundfor appeal reads asfollows: Section 8.04.060.d.1 states: Conflicting
Requirements.
1. Other Municipal Code Provisions. "If conflicts occur between requirements of this
Ordinance, or between this Ordinance and other regulations of the City, the most restrictive shall
~. (Emphasis added)
Staff response to Ground 2-3.
As stated above, Staff is of the opinion that Section 8.36.1 DD.C.2 is applicable to this
project as permitted by Condition 6 of Resolution 82-85. Furthermore the application of
Section 8.36.1DD.C.2 in this situation is appropriate because there is no conflict between
Condition 6 and Section 8.36.1 DD.C.2. This is because Section 8.36.1 DD.Co2 is more
restrictive than Condition 6. Condition 6 allows the open-ended deviation and/or
refinement of the 25-foot standard to be considered as part of the Site Development
Review process covering these lots. Section 8.36.1 DD.C.2 provides for a finite limit of the
addition of 5, 10, or 15 feet to the height of a structure on steep slopes. The application
of Section 8.36.1 DD.C.2 does not rewrite or supersede Resolution 82-85.
Ground 2-4.
The Dublin City Council went into specific detail to require severe height limitations for only 12
lots (the Custom Lots) in a development of over 200 homes.
Staff response to Ground 2-4.
It is Staff opinion the City Council intended for the height limitations for steep lots to be
flexible. It is not possible to construct a residence with a useable floor plan if the 25-foot
height limit is strictly enforced. Furthermore, the Staff Report for the July 15, 1985
Planning Commission hearing for the Hatfield development addressed Condition 6. The
relevant sentance reads as follows: "Provides a standard for on (sic) building heights
and skirt heights for lots backing up to extreme up or down sloping areas (Condition #6)."
This is a clear indication of the intent of the Planning Department at that time to provide a
"standard for building heights for lots backing up to extreme up or down sloping areas".
In other words, the condition was intended to provide flexibility for the heights of buildings
on extreme up or down sloping lots, such as those of this project.
7
)!J-g ~ ~Ll'
Staff is of the opinion that the project has been designed in compliance with Condition 6.
The heights of the residences are being measured from the proper elevation. The
deviation and/or refinement of the standards is appropriate. The project is well designed,
well sited and minimizes impacts to the views of neighbors on the north side of Brittany
Lane.
Ground 2-5.
Staff does not challenge Condition 6 of the 1985 Resolution but instead incorrectly applies the
1997 Ordinance. This constitutes an impermissible revision of both the 1997 Ordinance and
Resolution 82-85 and is beyond reasonable deviation and/or refinement in Condition 6, resulting
in an increase in the heights of homes developed on the Custom Lots and a potential loss of
protected views for the current residents of Brittany Lane. This Council Should rule that the
homes on the Custom Lots cannot go any higher than 25 feet as mandated in Condition 6."
Staff response to Ground 2-5.
See the response to Ground 2-3 above. With regard to the words "a potential loss of
protected views" within Ground 2-5, it should be pointed out that it was always intended
that lots approved pursuant to Tract Map 5073, that were not built upon, would be built
upon eventually with the potential that views would be modified.
Ground for Appeal 3.
Ground 3-1.
"Staff and Commission failed to preserve tree 340 as required by Condition 1610 of Resolution 82-
85, August 12, 1985 and. . . .
Footnote 10 to this groundfor appeal reads asfollows: Resolution 82-85 Condition 16: "Project
grading performed within 25 feet of the drip line of existing onsite or ojfsite trees shall be
addressed by a horticultural report and the recommendations and findings of that report
incorporated into the grading and improvement plans of the project. " (Emphasis added)
Staff response to Ground 3-1.
Staff and the Planning Commission have preserved Tree 340 as required by Condition
16 of City Council Resolution 82-85. Condition 16 requires that project grading
performed within 25 feet of the drip line of existing onsite or offsite trees be addressed by
a horticultural report and the recommendations and findings of that report be
incorporated into the grading and improvement plans of the project. A horticultural report
dated July 5, 1985, was prepared by Douglas Hamilton for Tracts 5072, 5073 and 5074.
A Tree Protection Plan (Attachment 5) dated "received December 4,2000", was
prepared by Nelda Matheny of HortScience for this project. The project was designed
pursuant to the Tree Protection Plan. Conditions of approval of the SDR will ensure that
the requirements of the Tree Protection Plan are implemented, including the preservation
of Tree 340. A subsidiary trunk of Tree 340 will be removed as part of the pruning of all
8
JJ<? cI ~ V3
trees within 100 feet of proposed structures to a height of 6 feet above the ground. The
requirements of the Tree Protection Plan have been included as conditions of approval of
this Site Development Review.
Ground 3-2.
. . . .Section 5.60.40(b) ofthe Heritage Tree Ordinance 29-99, December 21, 199911 (hereinafter
the "Heritage Tree Ordinance") and. . . .
Footnote 11 to this groundfor appeal reads asfollows: Section 5.60.40(b) Heritage Tree
Ordinance states: "A tree required to be preserved as part of an approved development plan,
zoning permit, use permit, site development review or subdivision map. " (Emphasis added)
Staff response to Ground 3-2.
Staff and the Planning Commission have preserved Tree 340 as required by Section
5.60.40(b) of the Heritage Tree Ordinance. That Section defines a Heritage Tree as a
tree required to be preserved as part of an approved development plan, zoning permit,
use permit, site development review or subdivision map. All Heritage Trees on the
project site will be preserved. They will be pruned to meet the requirements of the 1998
California Fire Code. This will protect structures but will also help protect the trees from
fires in adjacent grass and litter.
Ground 3.;.3.
. . . ~Section 8.04.020(F) for the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance12, September 1997 for the health
and welfare of the citizens of Dublin. All three of these ordinances taken together require
preservation of tree 340."
Issue: Staff and Commission failed to address and enforce Condition 16 of Resolution 82-85,
Section 5.60.40(b) of the Dublin Heritage Tree Ordinance, and Section 8.04.020(F) of the City of
Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
Footnote 12 to this groundfor appeal reads asfollows: Section 8. 04. 02 0 (F) Purpose: "Protect
and preserve the natural environment of the City of Dublin. " (Emphasis added). "To promote and
protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort, convenience and general welfare and to preserve
and enhance the aesthetic qualitY of the City... "
Staff response to Ground 3-3.
Staff and the Planning Commission have preserved Tree 340 as required by Section
8.04.020(F) of the Zoning Ordinance. This provision is one of the "Purposes" of the
Zoning Ordinance. It reads as follows: "Protect and preserve the natural environment of
the City of Dublin." Staff is of the opinion that this SDR does protect and preserve the
natural environment of the City of Dublin. Seven existing approved lots are proposed to
be developed. Heritage Trees do exist on the lots proposed to be developed with single-
family residences. A Tree Protection Plan was prepared and approved by the Director of
Community Development after approval during a peer-review by the City's arborist. The
9
~SD vi J.L15
requirements of the Tree Protection Plan have been included as conditions of approval of
this Site Development Review.
Ground 3-4.
"Under these sections, Staff and Commission were required to establish a tree preservation plan
instead of a tree protection plan.
Appellants contend that preservation is defined as follows: 2. a keeping of something
unchanged: maintenance of something, especially something of historic value, in an unchanged
condition13. Tree protection plans are more suitable for Heritage Trees defined under Section
5.60.40(a) Heritage Tree Ordinance, which addresses trees of a certain size but does not mention
any requirement of preservation."
Footnote 13 to this groundfor appeal reads asfollows: Encarta@ World English Dictionary ~ &
(P) 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developedfor Microsoft by Bloomsbury
Publishing PIc.
Staff response to Ground 3-4.
The Appellants assert that the City should have established a tree preservation plan
instead of a tree protection plan. They state that Tree Protection Plans are more suitable
for Heritage Trees defined as "Any Oak, Bay, Cypress, Maple, Redwood, Buckeye, and
Sycamore tree having a trunk or main stem of 24 inches or more in diameter measured
at 4 feet 6 inches above natural grade." Staff is of the opinion that Section 5.60.90 of the
Heritage Tree Ordinance requires that a Protection plan be prepared prior to issuance of
any permit. That Section requires that a plan to protect Heritage Trees be submitted to
the Director prior to the issuance of demolition, grading or building permits. No mention
is made in the Ordinance of a tree preservation plan. Staff is of the opinion that a Tree
Protection Plan is appropriate for any tree meeting the definition of a Heritage Tree, not
just the first of three definitions as asserted by the Appellants.
Ground 3-5.
Tree 340, was not preserved by proposed Resolution approving P A 00-009 and no effort was made
to investigate tree preservation which is the spirit of the Heritage Tree Ordinance as stated in
Section 5.60.20 Purpose and Intent.
Staff response to Ground 3-5.
The Appellants state that Tree 340 was not preserved by the resolution approving PA 00-
009 and no effort was made to investigate tree preservation which is the spirit of the
Heritage Tree Ordinance as stated in Section 5.60.20, Purpose and Intent. That section
reads as follows: "This Chapter is adopted because the city has many Heritage Trees,
the preservation of which is beneficial to the health and welfare of the citizens of this city
in order to enhance scenic beauty, increase property values, encourage quality
gevelopment, prevent soil erosion, protect against flood hazards and the risk of
landslides, counteract pollution in the air and maintain the climatic balance within the city.
10
cJ.. 3/ ot;1. '/:5
For these reasons the City finds it is in the public interest, convenience, necessity, and
welfare to establish regulations controlling the removal of and preservation of Heritage
Trees within the City. In establishing these regulations, it is the City's intent to preserve
as many Heritage Trees as possible consistent with the reasonable use and enjoyment
of private property." The Tree Protection Plan was adopted pursuant to the Heritage
Tree Ordinance which implements the stated purpose and intent.
Ground 3-6.
For example, housing could be sited a sufficient distance from the trees to prevent unnecessary and
severe pruningl4.
Footnote 14 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: See letter from Jeffrey Gamboni,
December 6,2000 paragraph 1.6: "Potential negative impacts resultingfrompruning: the
pruning of tree # 340 is major surgery requiring the removal of a 27 inch trunkfrom a 40 inch
diameter trunk... " (Emphasis added)
Staff response to Ground 3-6.
The Appellants suggest that the housing could be sited a sufficient distance from the
trees to prevent unnecessary and severe pruning. The 1998 California Fire Code
requires pruning of trees within 100 feet of structures. A staff analysis revealed that, if no
Heritage Trees were to be pruned, all proposed homes would have to be 100 feet from
the trees. This would eliminate homes on Lots 1, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
They cite Point 1.6 of a December 6, 2000 letter from Jeffrey Gamboni describing the
removal of a subsidiary trunk of Tree 340 as major surgery. The complete text of that
point reads as follows: "Potential negative impacts resulting from pruning: the pruning of
tree #340 is major surgery requiring the removal of a 27" trunk from a 40" trunk, however
we agree that the oak's vigorous condition bodes well for its ability to compartmentalize
the wound and eventually seal over the pruning cuts." Staff cites the responses to
Grounds 3-1 through 3.5 to address this Ground.
Ground 3-7.
No investigation was made to determine if the ground surface could be removedl5 under the tree
limbs to prevent their removal creating larger wounds to the tree than preferred.16
Footnote 15 to this groundfor appeal reads asfollows: Staffnoted on page 6, paragraph 1 of the
12-12-00 Agenda Statement, that removal of existing soil to natural grade could potentially
destabilize Brittany Lane. Appellants contacted Dr. Robert Pyke, B.E., PhD, to look at the Custom
Lots to assess if th~~ current grading is necessary for the geological stability for Brittany Lane.
Dr. Pyke is an expert in the area of geotechnical analysis and has extensive experience with
landslide problems in the East Bay and other regions of California. He told us that any notion
that the grading of these Custom Lots is necessary to support the stability of Brittany Lane is
"poppycock". We have attached his resume and recent work experience as Attachment #3 for
reference.
11
l-. 1;)., crt;; tJ 5
Footnote 16 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: See HortScience Inc., Heritage Tree
Protection Plan, T 5073 page 7 paragraph 3. "This pruning will create larger wounds than
preferred..... "
Staff response to Ground 3-7.
It is asserted by the Appellants that no investigation was made to determine if the ground
surface could be removed under the tree limbs to prevent their removal creating larger
wounds to the tree than preferred. Staff did investigate the soil under the trees and also
analyzed the 1985 grading plans for any grading or placement of fill under the Heritage
Trees. It was determined that the ground surface under the Heritage Trees was not
modified during the grading for Tracts 5072,5073 and 5074. The removal of the soil
under the dripline of Tree 340 in order to have the subsidiary trunk and its foliage be 6
feet above the soil (and therefore not be pruned) would require excavation of 6 or more
feet of soil from under the tree. This excavation would eliminate the root system and kill
Tree 340.
Ground 3-8.
Establishment of a one-year bond17 for the protection ofthe Heritage Trees where there is major
surgery is not adequate and the reasonableness of a longer time period needs to be addressed.
Footnote 17 to this groundfor appeal reads asfollows: General Condition 103
Staff response to Ground 3-8.
The Appellants state that the establishment of a one-year bond is not adequate and the
reasonableness of a longer time period needs to be addressed. Staff points out that
Section 5.60.1 OO(b) reads as follows:
"(b) The cash bond or other security shall be retained for a reasonable period of time
following the acceptance of the public improvements for the development, not to exceed
one year (Emphasis added). The cash bond or security is to be released upon the
satisfaction of the Director that the tree(s) to be preserved have not been endangered.
The cash bond or security deposit shall be forfeited as a civil penalty for any
unauthorized removal or destruction of a Heritage Tree."
A condition of approval, should the City Council affirm the decision of the Planning
Commission in part, reads as follows: "The applicant/developer shall guarantee the
protection of the Heritage Trees on the project site through placement of a cash bond or
other security deposit in the amount of $100,000. The cash bond or other security shall
be retained for a reasonable period of time following the occupancy of the last residence
occupied, not to exceed one year. The cash bond or security is to be released upon
satisfaction of the Director of Community Development that the Heritage Trees have not
been endangered. The cash bond or security deposit shall be forfeited as a civil penalty
for any unauthorized removal or destruction of a Heritage Tree.
Responsible Agency: PL
12
;<,g CP~ )~j
When Required:
Ongoing"
Ground 3-9.
Another issue that needs to be addressed is what time of the year is best for pruningl8.
Furthermore, building structures should not be allowed within the drip lines of any Heritage Trees.
Footnote 18 to this groundfor appeal reads asfollows: We noted that development adjacent to
San Ramon Road in San Ramon, included fencing beyond the drip lines of the existing oak trees.
Consulting Arborist Stephen Batchelder, recommended pruningfor heavy lateral branches be
performed during the months of August or September. Se letter dated May 5,2000 to City of San
Ramon as Attachment 4. See also photos of protected trees in Dublin as Attachment #7.
Staff response to Ground 3-9.
The Appellants suggest that another issue that needs to be addressed is what time of
the year is best for pruning. Furthermore, building structures should not be allowed
within the drip lines of any Heritage Trees.
A condition of approval of this Site Development Review requires that all pruning shall be
completed by a Certified Arborist and Tree Worker in the presence of the City's arborist
and be in conformance with the guidelines of the International Society of Arboriculture,
Tree Pruning Guidelines, current edition, on file in the Community Development
Department. In addition, pruning shall be in conformity with the provisions of the Pruning
Specifications of the Tree Protection Plan for this project. Staff relies on the
professionalism of the Certified Arborist and of the City's arborist in determining the
correct time of the year to prune the trees.
Buildings or structures will not be placed within the driplines of the Heritage Trees after
they have been pruned to conform to the requirements of the 1998 California Fire Code.
Ground for Appeal 4.
Ground 4-1.
City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan Resolution 84-96, July 9, 1996 was not fully
considered, resulting in a denial of Due Process.
Issue: Staff and Commission failed to consider the necessity of two roads and proper fire accessl9
to the proposed Custom Lots adjacent to open space and/or undeveloped land outside the current
Dublin Urban Limit Line.
Footnote 19 to this groundfor appeal reads asfollows: See page 9 Dublin Wildfire Management
Plan: "OPEN SPACE ACCESS".
Staff response to Ground 4-1.
13
~3'/ t6J" J.~j
The Wildfire Management Plan adopted by Resolution 84-96, has been referenced and
is a minimum requirement for construction of homes on Lots 1 and 7-12. Staff reviewed
compliance with the Wildfire Management Plan, as reflected in the Planning Commission
Staff Report and conditions of approval. Responding to the substance of the Appellants
concerns as per Page 3 of the Plan, Open Space is defined as those lands, which are
set aside to remain permanently undeveloped. Undeveloped Land is that which is
available for development but no Tentative Map, Master Tentative Map, of Development
agreement has been approved. The access for the Lots 1 and 7-12 is bordered by
Undeveloped Land and meets the requirements of the Plan. Open space access as
addressed in the Plan on page 9 is not called for, yet is available via Martin Canyon
Road and at the west-end of Brittany Lane. The Martin Canyon Road access is
maintained and will be utilized in the event of any vegetation fire in the undeveloped
land. The 21-foot gate at the end of Brittany Lane allows access to the undeveloped
lands to the south and west as well as access to the DSRSD water tank. (See attached
photos exhibit 1, 2,)
Should there be a vegetation fire, fire attack tactics will place equipment on the downhill
side via Martin Canyon Rd., and on Brittany Lane to protect the homes on both sides of
the street. Hose lines will be advanced downhill between the structures to the defensible
space and fire attack will proceed in the open space. The grade of the open space in a
number of areas similar to that, which borders Brittany Lane precludes the use of motor
vehicles.
Ground 4-2.
Issue: Staff and Commission failed to consider the proper construction requirements20 for building
on lots adjacent to undeveloped land.
Footnote 20 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: See page 5 of Dublin Wildfire
Management Plan: "CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDINGS ON LOTS OR
PARCELS ADJACENT TO OPEN SPACE AND UNDEVELOPED LAND".
Staff response to Ground 4-2.
As per the Wildfire Management Plan and related Planning Condition 53, the minimum
construction standards for the homes located on Lots 1 and 7-12 shall be as follows:
1. Roof Covering - Shall be a Class-A rated assembly. Roof decking shall be solid.
Space sheathing shall be prohibited.
2. Protection of Eaves - Shall be protected on the exposed underside by materials
approved for 1-hour fire resistive construction. Fascias are required and must be
protected on the backside by materials approved for 1-hour fire resistive construction
or of 2-inch nominal dimension lumber.
3. Gutters and Downspouts - Shall be constructed of non-combustible materials.
14
~35 1/' J~6
4. Exterior Walls - Walls of buildings or structures shall be constructed with materials
approved for 1-hour fire resistive construction on the exterior side or of non-
combustible materials. Exception - Heavy timber construction shall extend form the
top of the foundation to the underside of the roof sheathing.
5. Unenclosed Underfloor Protection - Buildings and structures shall have all underfloor
areas enclosed to the ground with exterior walls. (no open areas are allowed under
decks or foundation.
6. Appendages and Projections- Unenclosed accessory structures attached to buildings
with habitable spaces and projections, such as decks, shall be of 1-hour fire resistive
construction, heavy timber or constructed with non-combustible materials.
7. Windows - Exterior windows, window walls and skylights shall be tempered glass or
multi-layered glazed panels.
8. Exterior Doors - Exterior doors, other than vehicular access doors to garages, shall
be of non-combustible or solid core not less than 1-3/4 inch thickness. When
windows are within doors, they shall be tempered glass or multi-layered glazed
panels.
9. Vents - Attic ventilation openings, foundation or underfloor vents, or other ventilation
openings in vertical exterior walls and vents through roofs shall not exceed 144
square inches. Attic ventilation openings shall not be located in soffits, eave
overhangs between rafters at eaves, or in other overhang openings.
10. Detached Accessory Structures and Fences - Structures located less than 50 feet
from a building containing habitable space shall be constructed with materials
approved for 1-hour fire resistive construction, heavy timber or non-combustible
materials.
11.Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems - Shall be required in all buildings that are adjacent
to open space or undeveloped land.
12. Gates at Martin Canyon Road and the west end of Brittany Lane shall meet the key
control requirements of the fire department.
Vegetation maintenance surrounding the structures shall meet the requirements of the
Zones indicated within the Plan. Additionally, maintenance of the combustible vegetation
shall conform to the requirements of the 1998 California Fire Code adopted by
Resolution #86-99 by the City of Dublin. Article 11 - General Safety Precautions Section
1101.1 refers to Article 11 and Appendix II A. Section 1103.2.4 dictates that cut or uncut
weeds, grass, vines or other vegetation shall be removed ...when a fire hazard. When
total removal is impractical due to size or environmental factors approved fuel breaks
shall be established. Appendix II-A Section 16 details the particular facts as to removal
and firebreak creation. 16.1.1 Exception- relates to single specimens of trees provided
that they do notform a means of rapidly transmitting fire to any structure. The Alameda
15
rJ% ~ :<Y5
County Fire Department Removal Requirements are the accepted standard for
abatement of hazardous growth.
The Plan dictates the establishment and maintenance of vegetation into permanently
designated open space on Page 10. Where Fire Buffer Zones extend into designated
open space the plantings established in the Buffer Zone will include only native grasses
and trees. Grasses in the Open Space Fire Buffer Zone shall be kept mowed to a height
of 3 - 4 inches. Mowing will only occur from the months of May through November.
Where trees are established and/or maintained they will be established or maintained in
accordance with the appropriate Zone. Defensible space between the structure and the
open space will be created as per the Plan and maintained throughout the year.
Exhibit #1 - Martin Canyon Road Access
16
~8? vb ;lV5
Exhibit #2 - Brittany Lane Access
Ground 4-3.
These issues were not allowed to be discussed or addressed before the Dublin Planning
Commission by verbal order of the Chairman of the Planning Commission. This is a denial of
Due Process and therefore is a proper issue in appeal for the Health, Safety and Welfare of the
residents of the City of Dublin in this appeal. Tree 340 as it sits today before development, is not
in violation of the Wildfire Management Plan. Only if housing is placed within 100 feet of the
tree do the provisions requiring tree trimming apply. We are not aware of any Development
Agreement mandating the particulars of this proposed development. Confusion exists as to what
standard is being used to determine what grade or ground level is being applied to determine the
9
17
:<:;5 crt ;tf5
height ofthe tree limbs. It is unclear if Staff and the Commission are using "natural grade" or
"rough grade" or undocumented fill to apply the Standards For Vegetation Establishment And
Mantenande21.
Footnote 21 to this ground for appeal reads as follows: See page 8 Dublin Wildfire Management
Plan: "Vegetation Establishment Guidelines 10% to 20% slope.
Staff response to Ground 4-3.
Six persons spoke before the Planning Commission on this issue. The speakers,
whether or not they are appellants and the time spoken are listed below:
Speaker Appellant? Time spoken
Jerry Weis yes 6 minutes
Susan Bewley yes 5 minutes
David Bewley yes 41 minutes with Richard Bond
Richard Bond yes 41 minutes with David Bewley
Charles Breed no 3 minutes
Pete Body no 3 minutes
The Planning Commission hearing was conducted according to the Planning
Commission Rules of Procedure (Resolution 95-12). Section VI.G addresses the
limitation of time that persons can speak. That section reads as follows:
"G. The Chairperson may limit the time for the presentation of testimony by each
person and shall announce said limitation prior to any presentations. Persons
may speak more than once only after obtaining permission from the Chairperson.
Notwithstanding the above, the Chairperson may terminate the speaking period of
any person when the time taken by the person becomes excessive or when the
testimony becomes repetitious or irrelevant."
As shown above, six persons testified before the Planning Commission on this Agenda
Item. One presentation by Mr. David Bewley and Mr. Richard Bond was terminated after
a period of time by Chairman Johnson after he determined that the time taken by Mr.
Bewley and Mr. Bond had become excessive. No other speakers had their presentations
terminated by the Chairman.
Ground for AppealS.
Ground 5-1. Denial of Due Process22
18
~j9 rf ~V5
Footnote 22 to this groundfor appeal reads asfollows: See Letter to Guy S. Houston dated
IJ,ecember 17, 2000 by Richard and Christina Bond as Attachment #5.
Staff response to Ground 5-1. See Ground 4- 3.
Ground 5-2. Issue: Appellants were not allowed to present Issues and Points for Review ofthe
Agenda Statement.23
The issues and points contained in the attached Issues and Points for Review are hereby
incorporated by reference.
Footnote 23 to this groundfor appeal reads asfollows: See attached Issues and Points for Review
section 1 through 9, and exhibits referenced therein (Pages 1 through 8) Attachment 6.
Staff response to Ground 5-2.
The Issues and Points for Review were not considered by the Planning Commission at
the time of the Public Hearing for PA 00-009 and therefore cannot be incorporated by
reference to this appeal.
Ground for Appeal 6. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITYOF
DULBIN APPROVING P AOO-009 BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT SITE
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR SEVEN SINGLE-F AMIL Y HOME SON EXISTING LOTS
ON BRITTANY LANE IS NOT CONSISTENT IN ALL RESPECTS WITH:
A.
B.
C.
D.
The Heritage Tree Ordinance
The Dublin General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
The City Council Resolution 82-85
City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan Resolution 84-96
Staff response to Ground 6.
See above responses to relevant issues
19
'J. ,
"
)
~' ~.
',;2.90 ~ J.~5
RESOLUTION NO. 95-12
(
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AMENDING AND ADOPTING THE DuBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION
RULES OF PROCEDURE
WHEREAS, the Dublin Municipal Code states that the Dublin Planning Commission shall adopt rules for
the transaction of the Commission's business; and
WHEREAS, on March 21, 1994, the Planning Commission did previously adopt amendments to the Dublin
Planning Connnission Rules of Procedure; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 1995, the Planning Co~ssion did review additional amendments to the Dublin
Planning Commission Rules of Procedure.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission does hereby adopt the
following Rules of Procedure:
REVISED 3/20/95
DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION RULES OF PROCEDURE
1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
(
A. These rules of procedure shall be known as the "Dublin Planning Commission Rules of Procedure:'
A copy of these rules, and amendments thereto, shall be filed in the offices of the Planning.
Department and the City Clerk for. examination by the public.
B. These rules, and any amendments hereto, shall be effective on the date of the adoption hereof and
shall govern the meetings and conduct of hearings by the Commission.
n. OFFICERS
A. . Election and Term of Office
The Chairperson, Vice Chairperson and Secretary are elected by the majority of the Commission for
a one-year term and hold office until their successors are elected or until their terms as members of
the Commission expire. The officers are elected at the first meeting of the Commission in December
of each year. Elections; whether regular or to fill vacancies, shall be held only if at least four
. Commission members are present.
B. Vacancies
In case of any vacancy in the office of Chairperson, Vice Chairperson or Secretary, the vacancy
. shall be filled by an election held at the first regular meeting after the occurrence of such vacancy.
Persons so elected shall serve the balance of the term.
(
1
AnAcHMENT J 5
C.
Duties of Officers
;z. ~I .06 ;I L/5
The Chairperson performs the following duties:
(
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Presides at all meetings of the Commission.
Appoints committees and chairpersons of committees.
Signs correspondence on behalf of the Commission.
Represents the Commission before the City Council.
Performs otQ.er duties necessary or customary to the office.
In the event of the absence of the Chairperson or his/her inability to act, the Vice Chairperson
presides in place of the Chairperson. In the event of the absence of or inability to act of both the
Chairperson and Vice Chairperson, the remaining members shall elect one of their members to act as
temporary Cpairperson.
D. Committees
The Chairperson, upon approval of the Commission, may appoint several of its members, but fewer
than a quorum, to serve as or on a committee. On certain occasions, such as when a particular kind
of expertise or public representation is desirable, the Chairperson may appoint non-members to the
committee. Committees make recommendations directly to the Commission. A committee may not
represent the Commission before the Council or other bodies unless it has first received the
authorization. of the Commission to do so.
m. MEETINGS
A.
Regular meetings shall beheld on the first and third Mondays of each monthat 7:30 p.m. in the
Council Chambers at the Dublin Civic Center, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California.
(
\
B. If the regular meeting place is unable to accommodate. the meetings, the Commission may recess the
meeting to another place. lithe Commission anticipates that the regular meeting place will be
inadequate, the. Commission, or Chairperson in the event of an emergency, may order that the
meeting be held in another place.
C. Items for public hearing will normally be considered at the beginning of each meeting.
D. Special meetings may be called by the Chairperson or a majority of the members of the Commission.
E. A majority of the voting members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum for the Commission.
F. No new public hearing item will begin after 10:30 p.m., and the meetings will be adjourned by 11:00
p.m., except under unusual circumstances where the Commission votes to hear the item or to extend
the meeting for 30-minute increments. .
IV. VOTING
A. No official action shall be transacted by less than the affirmative vote of a majority of the quorum
present, and at least three affirmative votes shall be required to recommend matters to the City
Council for adoption.
(
2
~
B.
(
C.
V. AGENDA
.' )' .'. :< tJ~ ut cJ- ~ 5
A motion may refer''toitems by agenda number. A motion may noJe withdrawn by the mover
without the consent of the member seconding it. Motions on items or matters not involving a hearing
maybe adopted by voice vote unless any member requests a roll call vote.
Tie votes result in defeat of a motion, and unless a subsequent motion is passed regarding an item,
results in its denial. Abstentions shall notbe counted as either for or against a motion under any
circumstances.
The agenda of each regular or special meeting shall, at a minimum, include:
a. The date, time, and location of the meeting.
b. A brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting.
c. A specified period of time for members of the public to address the Commission on items ofinteiest
to the public that are within the jurisdiction of the Commission, including a provision that no person
may speak longer than five (5) minutes, and including language that the Commission can only briefly
respond with questions, refer to Staff, or place the item on a future agenda.
The agenda of each meeting will nonnally include the following items:
(
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10. "
11.
Call to Order
Roll Call
Pledge of Allegiance
Additions or Revisions to the. Agenda
Minutes
Oral Communications
Written Communications
Public Hearings
New or unfinished Business
Other Business (Commission/Staff Infonnational Only Reports)
Adjournment
At least 72 hours before each regular meeting, and at least 24 hours before each special meeting, the
Secretary shall post a copy of the agenda at the kiosk in front of the Dublin Civic Center, 100 Civic Plaza,
Dublin, California.
The Secretary shall execute a Declaration of Posting which shall be filed in the Dublin Planning Department.
VI. HEARING PROCEDURES
A. The Chairperson shall announce the public hearing item. Commission members shall state any
known conflicts of interest and shall not participate in the hearing.
The Chairperson shall determine if the Applicant or representative is in attendance at the public
hearing. If the Applicant or representative fails to' attend the public hearing, the Planning
Commission may take action to deny, continue, or approve the item. The item may be continued if
the Planning Commission receives written notification of the Applicant's inability to attend the
meeting.
~ 11-- -.. ~ ~\~ ~~ t:j~r\ ~~
B.
(
"
3
"D-<- (I" 4 ~ ~V-C^-ei
C.
r
The order of presentation shall be as follows:
;2. t/:3 ~ J. 15
(
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Summary Presentation by Planning Staff
Questions by Planning Commission
Comments by Applicant
Comments by Other Proponents
Comments by Opponents
Rebuttal by Applicant if necessary
Additional Comments by Staff as appropriate
D. The Chairperson or Commission shall close the public hearing and the item is turned over to the
Commission for discussion and action. The audience is not pennitted to make any further comments
unless invited by the Commission.
E. The Planning Staff shall retain copies of all documents or exhibits presented.
F. All those wishing to give testimony shall identify themselves by name and address. The Chairperson
may require the use of speaker slips.
G. The Chairperson may limit the time for the presentation of testimony by each person and shall
announce said limitation prior to any presentations. Persons may speak more.than once only after
obtaining pennission from the Chairperson. NotWithstanding the above, the Chairperson may
terminatethe speaking period of any person when the time taken by the person becomes excessive or
when the testimony becomes repetitious or irrelevant.
H. A member of the Commission, Staff or public may ask the speaker questions only with 1pe consent
of the Chairperson. All responses and answers shall be made to the Commission through the
Chairperson.
1. A member of the Commission may not consider a fact not presented as part'of the record unless he
discloses said fact prior to the closing of the public hearing.
J. No evidence shall be taken after the closing of the public hearing. The public hearing may be
reopened for the taking of further evidence at the discretion of the Chairperson.
K. Applause and other demonstrations are prohibited during public hearings. Such demonstrations tend
to intimidate those in the audience who may have valid but opposing viewpoints.
VII. DELffiERATIONS AND DECISIONS
,
A. The Commission shall not deliberate nor make a decision on the application until the close of the
public hearing.
B. Deliberations and decisions shall be based on the staff report, documents and exhibits, evidence
presented at hearings and stated open and notorious facts.
VIII. ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
A.
No action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the posted agenda for a regular or special
meeting, unless:
(
4
(
,.
i
\.
1.
th PI ...! .. de . b " ~k~ . ~ LJ ~ e6 ) y 5
e anmng ConumssiOn termmes y maJonty vote U1aI. an emergency SItuatJon eXIsts, as
defined in Government Code Section 54956.5;
2.
the Planning Commission determines by a two-thirds vote, or by a unanimous vote if only
three members are present, that the need to take action arose after the agenda was posted; or
3. the item was included in a posted agenda for a prior meeting held within five (5) calendar
days and was continued to the meeting at which the action is taken.
B. When an item not on the agenda is raised by a member of the public, the Commission may briefly
respond, may ask questions for clarification, may refer the item to Staff, or may request Staff to
report back at a subsequent meeting, unless the Planning Commission determines to take action
under SectionVIII (A-2).
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of March, 1995
AYES:
Commissioners Zika, Geist, Jennings, Johnson and Lockhart
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
None
4,a fJf
" Planni Conumssio .. erson
ATTEST: _ ( .
dr~~~~
Planning Director .
(g:\minutes\doc2)
5
) )
LOT 11 LOT 10 LOT 9 LOT 8 LOT 7
. PROPOSED FINISH FLOOR ELEVATIONS
/ f f
1985 FINISH GRADE PROFILE
~ L t
BRIT,T ANY LANE PROFILE
643.7 t
, ....
, '" ","1.0
" ..... 1I"''b TOPOGRAPHY PRIOR TO 1985
"
"
"
/. -
to~\_o - 0
rl.'"
/11
- -- ----- ~~~
-- II .
---......-....- /*
.
/
0
O'
(,~ FF 618.0
/
~~
(pO
.
PROFILE COMPARISON SOUTH SIDE OF BRITTANY LANE ~
)~ ~
AnACHMENT ~
>t::.
V\
MORGAN D. KING, J.D.
JAN C. NIELSEN, ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY
LAW OFFICES OF
MORGAN D. KING
LUSO-AMERICAN BLDG.
7080 DONLON WAY
SUITE 222
DUBLIN, CA 94568
(925) 829-6363
FACSIMILE
(925) 829-7262
TRACY
(209) 832-8328
TOLL FREE
(800) 205-1010
January 16, 2001
doc:bewley.011
TO: The Dublin City Council
RE: Appeal of Dave Bewley, et seq. regarding a proposed con-
struction of a residence on the street where Mr. Bewley resides.
The purpose of this memorandum is to apprise the City of the
current status of the proposed residential development in connec-
tion with the Silvergate Highlands Homeowners' Association.
1. The property in question is within the jurisdiction of the
Silvergate Homeowners Association and is subject to the provi-
sions of the Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (ICC&R's")
applicable to that association.
2. Under the CC&R's no alteration whatever of any property sub-
ject to the jurisdiction of the Association may be commenced
without prior approval of the plans by the Association. The Board
of Directors passes on all applications for approval;
3. No application has been submitted to the Board of the Associa-
tion;
4. At the present time the Board is reviewing and drafting new
standards for trees;
5. Pursuant to the CC&R's, either the Association or any individ-
ual member has standing to seek civil remedies to enforce the
CC&R's, including injunctive relief.
;01~ ,
~-------------=::::::>
~_._--