Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.5 BlackMountainSDR Amend CITY CLERK File # 410-30 AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003 SUBJECT: Public Hearing: PA 00-009 Site Development Review Amendment to Black Mountain Site Development Review, Lot 8. Report Prepared by: Andy Byde, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1.Written Statement and Project Plans; 2. February 2001 Approved Site Plan; 3. Photos of proposed tree trimming; 4. HortScience Letters Dated May 16, 2003, and November 25, 2002; 5. Tree Protection Plan; 6. City Council Agenda Statement and Resolution, Dated February 20, 2001 (without Attachments); 7. City Council Agenda Statement, Dated January 16, 2001 (without Attachments); 8. Resolution Denying the Site Development Review Amendment. RECOMMENDATION: · 1. Open Public Hearing -- / ..--'D~ ~' 2. Receive Staff presentation; 3. Question Staff; 4. Take testimony from the Public; 5. Close Public Hearing 6. Deliberate; and 7. Deny Amendment to Site Development Review. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: No financial impact at this time. BACKGROUND: Hatfield Development Approval On August 12, 1985, the City Council approved PA 85-035.3 (Resolution 82-85), Hatfield Development Corporation Investec, Inc. Tract Maps 5072, 5073 and 5074. Lots 1 and 7 - 12 of Block 1 of Tract Map 5073 were not built upon when the rest of the homes were built in 1985. City Council Resolution 82-85 set forth the conditions of approval for the three tract maps. COPIES TO: Applicant Project File In-house Distribution CSDocuments and Settings\andy\Desktop\sdr amend-03.doc } ~)?'~[ BrittanF Lane/Black Mountain Development (PA 00-009): On December 12, 2000, the Planning Commission approved the Brittany Lane/Black Mountain Development (PA 00-009) Site Development Review (SDR), approving the design and location for single family homes on 7 lots (Lot Numbers: 1, and 7-12). The Brittany Lane/Black Mountain project was appealed to City Council on December 21, 2000. The appeal alleged conflicts with the following: (1) Heritage Tree Ordinance, (2) the Wildfire Management Plan, (3) the Zoning Ordinance, and (4) the Hatfield Development Approval. On January 16, 2001, the City Council heard the appeal of the SDR and directed the applicant to redesign the project to minimize impacts to the heritage trees on site. On February 20, 2001, the City Council approved the redesigned Brittany Lane/Black Mountain project, upheld the decision of the Planning Commission, and required some additional conditions of project approval. A horticultural report dated July 5, 1985, was originally prepared by Douglas Hamilton for the Hatfield Development Approval. As part of the subsequent project, the Brittany Lane/Black Mountain Site Development Review, a Tree Protection Plan was prepared by HortScience. The Tree Protection Plan was then peer-reviewed for the City by Jeffrey Gamboni, a Certified Arborist and Licensed Landscape Architect. Mr. Gamboni reviewed the Tree Protection Plan and determined that it is consistent with accepted practices and that the proposed construction as part of the Brittany Lane/Black Mountain Site Development Review would not harm the tree health. The City Council reviewed and approved the Tree Protection Plan as part of the Brittany Lane/Black Mountain project Site Development Review approval. Relocation of the Residence on Lot 8: The City Council, at the January 16, 2001, meeting, directed the Applicant to revise the location of the residence on Lot 8 to decrease the front yard setback from 20-feet to 13-feet, to eliminate the need to remove a significant limb of Tree No. 340 (as identified by the Tree Protection Plan) located on Lot 8 (according to the Tree Protection Plan, Tree No. 340 is a mature Coast Live Oak with two trunks that are 26" - 27" and 40" in diameter, the 26" trunk bows northward, touching the ground 25-feet from the trunk). The Applicant revised the site plan to reflect the reduced setback and the City Council subsequently approved the revised location. The newly revised site plan for Lot 8 depicted the drip line of Tree No. 340 5-feet beyond the rear of the residence, consistent with the Tree Protection Plan (see Attachment 2 for the approved Site Plan). Prior to the February 20, 2001, amendment to the Wildfire Management Plan, all new homes had to provide up to a 100-foot defensible space, trees within the space must be pruned up at least 6-feet from the ground. As a result of the requirement contained within the pre-February 20, 2001, Wildfire Management Plan, a large 26" - 27" trunk, which touched the ground, on Tree No. 340 was required to be removed. The Tree Protection Plan stated removal of this trunk would create larger wounds to the tree than preferred. However, On February 20, 2001, the City Council amended the Wildfire Management Plan to exempt certain trees, which qualified as "fire resistive" from the 6-foot pruning requirement, which allowed the residence to placed within 100-feet and not require the large 26" - 27" trunk touching the ground to be pruned. This Application is to amend the Site Development Review approval by requesting to modify two conditions of approval of the previously approved Site Development Review (SDR), PA-009 Black Mountain. Specifically, the requested amendment proposes to prune Tree No. 340, a Heritage Tree at 11183 Brittany Lane, a vacant lot (the property is also know as Lot 8 of the Hatfield Development) to facilitate the placement of the residence as approved by the City Council in February of 2001. ANALYSIS: In April 2002, during the review of the grading plan for the seven lots, Staff determined that the approved location of residence on Lot 8 conflicted with Tree No. 340. Specifically, the location of the tree was between 4 and 14-feet beyond the location shown on the site plan the City Council approved as part of the Brittany Lane/Black Mountain Site Development Review (see Attachment 2 depicting the approved February 2001 site plan and see Attachment 1 depicting the proposed tree trim line). The Applicant has staked the location of the foundation of the approved residence in the field. The required trimming would be 5 feet beyond that location (see Attachment 3, photo of tree #340 depicting stake location). The newly proposed pruning would result in trimming of the large 26" - 27" trunk, which extends approximately 54- feet from the base of the tree. The largest extent of the trimming would result in reducing the limb (and associated branches) by 12-feet, in addition the applicant also proposes to prune approximately one-foot from other smaller branches west of the large 26" - 27" trunk. As part of the application material submitted by the Applicant proposing the trimming of Tree No. 340, the Applicant's Arborist, Dr. James Clark of HortScience, examined the proposed tree trimming and determined the trimming is minor, would not affect the health or structure of the tree and are well within accepted tolerances of the tree (see Attachment 3). The conclusions reached by Dr. Clark were then peer- reviewed by the City's Arborist, Robert Cantrell. After a reviewing the plans and a site visit, Mr. Cantrell concurred with consulting arborist's conclusions. Significant modifications to the approved residence would be required if the Tree No. 340 is not trimmed, including reducing the square footage of the 2,812 square foot residence, by a minimum of 500 square feet. Additionally, the building permit for Lot 8 will expire and a new submittal and plan check fee will be required by the Building Division. Conditions of Approval: Condition 88(D) of the February 20, 2001, City Council Approval of the Brittany Lane/Black Mountain Development (PA 00-009) Site Development Review (Attachment 6) stated that only limited pruning was permitted on the Heritage Trees. Condition 78 established a tree protection zone around all of the trees on the properties, including Lot 8. Additionally, Condition 93 required that no work, including pruning, was to occur within the tree protection zone. In order for the Applicant to construct the residence on Lot 8 as shown on the approved site plan, a Site Development Review Amendment is required due to the inconsistency between the approved location of the residence, the newly discovered location of Tree No. 340 and the conditions of approval 88D and 93 of the February 2001, Site Development Review. CONCLUSION: The site plan approved by the City Council in February 2001, depicted the drip line of the Tree No. 340, 5-feet beyond the rear of the residence. During thc review of the grading permit, it was discovered that the tree was actually between 4 and 14 feet further north (closer to Brittany Lane) than depicted on the approved site plan. In order for the applicant to construct the residence as approved would require trimming of the tree a maximum of 12-feet. Staff has reviewed the application and finds the trimming of the tree is inconsistem with the intent of the Site Development Review approved for the Brittany Lane/Black Mountain Development Project. The City Council modified the Wildfire Management Plan and decreased the front yard setback from 20-feet to 13-feet to preserve the large 26" - 27" trunk of tree #340. If the City Council denies the Application, the Applicant would be required to submit an application for a new Site Development Review, modifying the design of the residence to accommodate the 5-foot required setback from the dripline of Tree No. 340. Moreover, other residences approved as part of the Brittany Lane/Black .Mountain Development have maintained the Heritage Trees as identified in the tree protection plan without significant modification or pruning and therefore pruning tree #340 would result in a development not consistent with the surrounding properties. Alternatively, if the City Council determines that trimming the tree is appropriate, Staff recommends that a third party land surveyor survey the dripline of the trees in conflict with residence, to determine the exact location of the dripline and the extent of the necessary trimming. Staff has determined that this is necessary given the large margin of error (between 4 and 14 feet) in depicting the location of the tree on the previous site plan. After such survey is complete Staff would return to the City Council to present the location and necessary trimming of the tree on Lot 8. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council, open the public hearing, receive the Staff's presentation, question Staff, take testimony from the public, close the public hearing, deliberate and deny the Site Development Review Amendment requesting the trimming of Tree No. 340. Alternatively, if the City Council determines that trimming the tree is appropriate, Staff recommends that a third party land surveyor survey the dripline of the trees, in conflict with residence prior to the approval of the Amendment. BLACK MOUNTAIN ffi DEVELOPMENT June 26,2003 Mr. Andy Byde City of Dublin Planning Department 100 Civic Drive Dublin, CA 94568 RE: Lot 8, 11183 Brittany Lane Dear Andy: Enclosed, please find the package displaying a minor change to the approved Lot 8 (2-20-01) City Council approved homesite. The change I am requesting from the original 2-20-01 approval is minor trimming of the oak tree. The situation occurred as I was finalizing the plan at the Building Department level. We realized the original topography drawing showing the tree line location was off by 2-5 feet. There has also been 2-5 feet of small branch growth that has taken place during the two-year processing time. In order to move forward, I am requesting the ability to trim 5-9 feet of branches in one small area of the tree in order to meet the necessary fire conditions per the Conditions of Approval. ! feel it is important to note that I have designed this home originally to meet two sensitive criterias, (1) keep the home as Iow as possible to preserve the views of the neighbors across the street and (2) to be sensitive to the oak tree. Cont. Lic. #584024 3925 Old Santa Rita Road, Suite 200 Pleasanton, CA 94588 (925) 520-0001 · FAX (925) 520-0002 www. blackmountaindev, com ATTACtt ENT l BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT June 26, 2003 Page Two I have discussed the trimming that will be required with Hortscience, my arborist, and have attached their letter. We have also met with the city arborist and explained what our intentions are. As I believe this tree to be an asset to my home, I feel that the minor trimming of this large tree helps meet the goals of the neighborhood, the tree and the future homeowner. Please feel free to give me a call. JW/sb y ~ Enclos~es Cont. Lic. #584024 3925 Old Santa Rita Road, Suite 200 · Pleasanton, CA 94588 (925) 520-0001 · FAX (925) 520-0002 www.blackmountaindev, com ~,"~.41 ~1~~ ~ ' ' ' ' ' -- ~ k FRONT LEFT RIGHT REAR ,~.~ ~ ~,.o~ LOT 8~ .... ~'~ ELEVATIONS ;g~ ....... ~ ~ BRITTANY DRIVE ~ I~~~~~~XI~I~__ ~ICHARD C. HAN~LEN, AIA ~ EDI ARCHITECTURE, INC. D U B L I N C A L I F 0 R N I A 00011 ~ 450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR 06 FEBRUARY g001 o,~'~. ~. T 415.362.~880 F 4t5.394.8767 ~,~ B~CK MOUNTAIN ,DEVELOPMENT 64'-0" VOLUME SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR LOT 8 FIRST FLOOR 2,157 SF FLOOR PLAN sscoN,~ FLOOR 655 SF LIVING TOTAL 2,812 SF BRITI ANY DRIVE x~X1X'I×IXIXIX1XIXIX).,XIX~XiXI}<3XI,XIXI~XIXIXIX ,~. :,.-o. RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AIA ~ 0001'1 Y'~ ~ EDI ARCHITECTURE, INC. D U B L I N C A L I F 0 R N I A o ,' z s,, m, 450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR ~ 06 FEBRUARY 2001 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310 ..... a oo~ afp~.a~g PAGE ~ T 415.362.2880 F 415.~94.8767 B~CK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT Tree .___A_v_e_r_ag_e__Slo_I/e_ = 19.5% ALLOWABLE HEIGHT Maximum height = 25' + 5' = 30' ~¢,~T PROPOSED HEIGHT 9' MAXIMUM HEIGHT above natural grade ~ MID POINT of NATURAL GRADE CONTACT J 16' MAXIMUM HEIGHT above finished grade ALLOWABLE for 50% of LOWER FLOOR LOT 8 m ALTERNATE CROSS SECTION ~ ~ ~ BRITTANY DRIVE ~ .... RICHARD C. HANDLEN, AIA ~ EDI ARCHITECTURE, INC. D U B L I N C A L I F 0 R N I A 00011 ~ 450 SANSOME, SECOND FLOOR 07 FEBRUARY 2001 o ,' ~'~'. SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3310 ~or~.a~g PAGE T 415.362.29g0 F 415.394.8767 ~ B~CK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT · - " ' ?7 P.O.Box 754 ~ .... '~- ,-fl .~ HortSeience, Inc. ,- '<.)/ ___..__~., ? / mlea~ton, CA 94566 - ~ ,, ,- ~ ~o~ ,,l:~..~... - Date of Approval ........ Tree ¢340 -~ . Site Plan~ree Location ~ :-'"' ' - '"- ..... ~' ',~.." / ~ ," -~ ,.-'~ . ' "' ."1 ..... ' .......... ' .......... '" ~'~-- ~ '-:' - -~ .~ ."' -" I .- ..~ ......... . ......... ~ ............................. ......~ .- -.. % ~ .... ~'. ~8" --. " ' .......... -3 . ~ .." ............. ~ ..... '-~ ~."~ ......... .... %._ I '1 ......... " ~.12~ ~.? .x I..' .................. L.'::::: .......... "...-.. .... .~ ..... -"'. ....... --" ........--"~..'~:~.:'.'..~, ~ ................. . ......-~ ....... ~ . .- . .... .._-- .. .. ~_.-W . _ .... .. -..~ '... ~ ',. . ',(C~.~ .. ~ · .~ '-.. . .............. -y ..~.. _ ~.] "~ ', '. ,V~ .... . .....~. ' - .... ~: ...... .~" ~/"' ~ ~ .~' ...... .,' "~. ' .... · ' . ~'~, -',',.~,:,~ ,'~-~ ~' .." . .-'~-~.~'2~ .............. .. -' " . . -~ ~ . -.. ~-~.....: ...... ~..:..~~j: HortScience, Inc. l ' _~1~ P.O.Box 754 ~"~ '.? L Pleasantorb CA 94566 ~ .? - , P -- - - n'7'? I ...... ~ - · ' ( i ~~ '~~~- ~- v':'- ,,' , ~ ,;~ , .. ~ , / /" _ ..'. ~ / / / ~i ~/,/ ' . . . t;:'-_ -:::' ................ ............... -7.... ~ ~.'-T..Z.Z. -~ · [" ~.. '"T ...... ~" ' ~,. L:T.'.'..L':T.T: .'..-.-:'..'.~:..'.. /' . ... /,. ..... "~, -~-~l~.~.~JDr, p kine by field measurement, Z-~/Z~'-~lNovember 12, 2002, by RMR Design ...... ~ ... ..... .......-. ....... . ...... Tree/GrOwth Branches .... ..... (.... Date~ 11-12-02 .......... Tree #340i ................ . ................. 7.~.'. -~-~_~' ..J ~. · ""' " -'"' ' .... ~ ......... .., o. 65 ............. -'-- ~' 6~"~-' ..... ' ............ "' ...... ,. ~ .. ~K~...- ........... .................... '-~-'o : :i:::~;-'.':.~ "-. .., .~:- ..~... . ........ . ........... .... 20 'DA ............................. . .......... . . ._ - 'c ..... '.~ ..................... ' .......... ..' .... ~ .......... . ..... .....- ..~ ...... ~...-'. ~ ......... ' ....... - ..... ~.. . .... .., .. .... .../ ...//' ,.-'~q~ . ...-~.. ATTACHMEN~ 5 ,From Lot8 to Lot7 [] Horticultural C,3nsultanis [] INC. May 16, 2003 Mr. Jeff Woods Black Mountain Development 3925 Old Santa Rita Rd., Suite 200 Pleasanton CA 94588 Subject: Brittany Lane, Lot 8 Dear Mr. Woods: I am writing as a follow-up to our meeting at the site earlier this week. You asked that I [] review the site plans that have been submitted to the City of Dublin for the proposed lot and the requirements for tree pruning. This letter summarizes my observations. The canopy of tree #340, a coast live oak (Ouercus agrifolia), extends to the ground on the south side of the lot. In order to construct the house and provide the required five foot fire clearance, you must reduce the size of the tree's canopy on the north side of the crown. In order to depict the amount of pruning needed, you had the civil engineer survey the lot and tree canopy, place poles at the edge of the home, and flag the projections of the deck areas. Pruning would extend 5' beyond these lines. A pier foundation will be utilized for this house. Piers would be drilled at the edge of the flagged areas. The house design and the required pruning of tree #340 have been discussed previously in letters prepared by my partner, Nelda Matheny. Nelda noted that impacts associated with the pruning and construction of the home are well within the tolerance of the tree. I concur with Nelda's assessment. The amount of pruning needed to provide clearance is minor and will not adversely affect the health or structure of the tree. Excavation for the piers is also a minor impact, well within the tolerance of the tree. This letter will also confirm your request'of my presence during the pruning of tree #340 at the time of construction. I hope my comments clarify any lingering concerns over this tree. James R. Clark, Ph.D. Certified Arborist WE-0846 ATTACHMENT [] R0. Box 754 ~C~IV~D Pleasanton, CA 94566 Phone: 925 484 0211 ~'~AY I 9 ZOO3 FAX: 925 484 5096 www. hortscience.co~ O[~SLI~N PLANNING 07/28/2003 ~4:50 1925§200002 BLACK HOUNT~IN DEV November 25, 2002 Jeff Woods Black Mountain Development 3925 Old Santa Rita Rd,, Suite 200 Pte~anton CA 94588 Subject: Bfit~ny Lane, Lot Dear Jeff: I have reviewed the Tee Dripline E~ibit for Lot 8 prepared by RMR Design Group, Nov. 14, 2~2. In my opinion the impacts depicted in the exhibit are well within the tolerance of the tree. The ve~ minor amount of pruning needed to provide cl~am~e for the proposed house will be insignifi~nt to the health, s~bility and appearance of the tree- Sincerely, N$1da Matheny ~nsulting Arbofi~ · P.O. 8~ 754 Www~O~Once.com JUL-~-~ ~3:44PH TEL)~9~5~ ID)CITY ~F DUBLIN Heritage Tree Protection Plan Brittany Drive Estates, Tract 5073 · Dublin, CA PREPARED FOR-' Black Mountain DevelOpment · 12 Crow Canyon Ct., Suite 207 San Ramon CA 94583 PREPARED BY-' HortScience, Inc. · 4125 Mohr Ave., Suite F Pleasanton CA 94566 February 2001 FEB ~..2.., ZOO1 CITY OF DUBLIN BUILDING INSPECTION DEPT. Heritage Tree Protection Plan Brittany Drive Estates, Tract 5073 Dublin, CA Table of Contents Page lntroduction and Overview 2 Survey Methods 2 Description of Trees 3 Suitability for Preservation 4 Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations for Preservation 6 Tree Preservation Guidelines 7 List of Tables and Exhibits Table 1. Condition ratings and frequency of occurrence for trees 3 Table 2. Suitability for Preservation 5 Attachments Tree Survey Map . Tree Protection Fencing Plan Tree Survey.Form Heritage Tree Protection Plan, Brittany Drive, T, 4073, Dublin ' HortScience, Inc. February 12; 2001 Page 2 · Introduction and Overview Black Mountain Development is proposing to.develop six lots located on Brittany Drive and one lot on Rolling Hills Dr. in Dublin, .CA. The project encompasses portions on the native oak woodland. The Tentative Tract map was approvedby 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 timea. Heritage Tree Ordinance (No. 29-99) has been enacted that requires .. preparation of a Heritage Tree Protection Plan. HortScience, Inc was asked to prepare that report. This report provides, the following information: 1 .. A surVey of trees within the project boundaries. 2. An assessment of the impacts of constructing the proposed project on the trees. 3.Guidelines for tree preservation and protection during the design, construction and maintenance phases of development. Survey Methods . Trees were surveyed in July 2000.. The survey included trees greater than 6" in diameter, located within the project boundaries. The survey procedure consisted of the following steps: 1. IdentifYing the tree as to species; 2. Tagging each tree with an identifying number;, 3. Measuring the trunk diameter at a point 54" above grade. 4. Evaluating the health and structural stability using.a scale of 1-5: 5- A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptoms of disease, with ~good structure and form typical of the species. 4 - Tree with slight.decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, minor structbral defects that could be corrected. ' 3 - Tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback; thinning of crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that might be mitigated with regular care. 2- Tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large branches,- significant structural defects that Cannot. beabated, 1 - Tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and/or trunk; most of foliage from epicormics; extensive structural defects that cannot be abated. O- Dead tree. Heritage Tree Protection Plan, Brittany Drive, T. 4073, Dublin . HortScience, Inc.. February 12, 2001 " . Page 3 5. Rating the suitability for preservation as 'good", ~fair~ or."poor"~ ~Suitability for' preservation considers the health, age and structural condition of the tree, and its potential to remain an asset to the site for years to come. Goo~ Trees with good health and Structurai stability that have the . · potential for longevity at the site. Fair. Trees with somewhat declining health and/or structural defeCts than can be abated with treatment. The tree will require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life spa~ than those in 'good'. category. Poor. Tree in poor health or with significant ~tructurai defects that cannot be mitigated. Tree is expected to continue to decline,. regardless of treatment. The species or individual may have characteristics that are undesirable for landscapes, and generally are unsuited for use areas. 6. Recording the tree's location on a map. Description of Trees Twenty (20) trees were evaluated. Descriptions of each tree are found in the Tree Survey (see Attachments). A summary is provided in Table 1. Tree locations are shown by tag number on the Tree Survey Map (see Attachments). The trees on the subject property are a portion of a small woodland associated with a drainage course south*of Brittany Dr. Two oak species were present'on the south:facing · stope: the evergreen coast live oak, which comprised 20% of the population and the deciduous vaIley oak with 80% of the population (Table 1 ). Two of the oaks were on a west,facing slope off Roli[ng Hills Dr. As is normal for native-oak woodlands, a range of tree condition was present, from excellent to poor. Tree condition ranged from excellent to poor, although most (80%) were in the good to fair category. Most Were large, matUre individuals. Treesize ranged from 14" to 61" diameter single-trunked trees. Average trunk diameteF was 28". There Were six. muitiple-trunked trees with individual trunks ranging in size from 6" to 40". Table 1: Condition ratings and frequency of occurrence of trees at T. 5073 Common Name Scientific Name Condition Rating No. of GoOd' Fair Poor Trees (4-5) (3) (1-2) Coast live Oak Quercus agrifolia 1 I 2 4 (20%) · Valley oak Quercus lobata 7 7 2 16 (80%) Total 8 ., 8 4 20 40% 40°/o 20% 100% Heritage Tree Protection Plan, Brittany Drive, T. 40.73, Dublin HortScience, Inc. February 12, 2001 Page 4 Heritage Trees : City of Dublin Ordinance NO. 29-99 identifies "Heritage Trees' as being any of the following: 1. Any oak,. bay, cypress, maple, redwood, buckeye and sycamore tree having a trunk of 24~ or more in diameter measured 4.5' above natural grade, 2. A tree required to be preserved as part of an approved development plan, zoning permit, use permit, site development review or subdivision map, 3. A tree required to be planted as a replacement for an unlawfully removed tree. By definition #1,13 trees are Heritage.' However, because the project was approved with the trees at the Tentative Tract Map stage, all trees are now designated as Heritage by definition #2. SUitability for Preservation Before evaluating the impacts that will occur during development, it is important to consider the quality of the tree resoume itself, and the potential for individual trees to function well over an extended length of time. Trees that are preserved on development ~ sites must be carefully selected to make s~re. that they may survive development impacts, adapt to a new environment and perform welt in the landscape. Our goal is to identify trees that have the potential for-long-term health, structural stability . and longevity. For trees growing in open fields, away from areas where people and property are present, structural defects and/or poor health presents a Iow risk of damage or injury if they fail. However, We must be concerned about safety in use areas. Therefore, where development encroaches into existing plantings, we must consider the potential for trees to grow and thrive in a new environment as welt as their structura'l stability. Where development will not occur, the normal life cycles of decline, structural .failure and death should be allowed to continue. Evaluation of suitability for preservation considers several factors: Tree health Healthy, vigorous trees are better able to tolerate impacts such as root injury, demolition of existing structures, changes in soil grade and moisture, and soil compaction than are non-vigorOus trees; · Structural.integrity .' Trees with significant amounts of wood decay and other structural defects that cannot be corrected ate likely to fail. Such trees Should not be preserved in areas where dam;~ge to people or property is likely:. ' · Species response There is a wide variation in the response of individua~ species to construction impacts and changes'in the environment. Coast live oak has good construction, while valley oak has moderate tolerance to impacts.. · Tree age and longevity Old trees, while having significant emotional and aesthetic appeal, have limited physiological capacity to adjust toan altered environment. Young trees are better able to generate new tissue and respond to change. Heritage Tree Protection Plan, Brittany Drive, T. 4073,, Dublin ' HortScience, Inc.' · February 12, 2001 Page 5 Each tree was rated'for suitability for preservation based upon its age,.health, structura~ condition.and ability to safely coexist within a development environment (see Tree SUrvey Form). A summary is prOvided in Table 2. · Table 2: Suitability for PreservatiOn of Trees in Tract 5073. Good These are trees with good health and structural Stability that have the potential for longevity at the site. Eight (8) trees were rated as haVing ' good suitability for preservation.' Tree No. Species ~ Diameter (in.) 335 Valley oak 27, 23, 23 337 Valley oak 25, 16 340 Coast live oak 40, 26 346 Valley oak 31 350 Valley oak. 31 352 Valley oak 28 353 Valley oak 19, 18, 15, 13 354 Valley oak 31 Moderate Trees in this category have fair health and/or structural defects that 'may be abated with treatment. Trees in this category require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life- spans than those in the "good"' category. Eight (8) trees were rated as having moderate suitability for preservation. Tree No. Species ' Diameter' '(in.) 338 Valley oak 29 342 Coast live oak 41 343 Valley oak 14, 13, i 2, 11, 6 344 Valley oak - 33 347 Valley oak 25 348 Valley oak 17 349 Valley oak 61 . 351 Valley oak 17, 13 Low Trees in this category are in poor health or have significant defects in structure that cannot be abated with treatment. These trees can be expected, to decline regardless of management. The species or individual tree may possess either characteristics that are undesirable in landscape settings or be unsuited for use areas. Four (4) trees were rated as having Iow suitability for- preservation. Tree No. Species Diameter (in.) 336 Valley oak 20 339 Coast five oak 22 341 Coast live oak 15 345 Valley oak 14 Heritage Tree Protection Plan, Brittany Drive, T. 4073,-Dublin : Ho~tSciende, Inc. Februa~ 12, 2001 Page 6. · We ·consider trees with good suitability for preservation to be the best candidates for preservation. We donor recommend retention of trees with iow suitability for Preservation in areas where ·people or structures will be present. Retention of trees with moderate suitability for Presentation del~nds upon the intensity of proposed site changss. Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations for Preservation · ApproPriate'tree retention develoPs a Practical match between the location and intensity of construction activities and the quality and health of trees. The Tree Survey Form was the' reference' point for tree condition and quality. Potential impacts from COnstruction were evaluated using the Composite Site Plan (June 2000) and house layouts for lots 1, 8 and 9 prepared by EDi Architecture, Inc. (received Feb. 12, 2001). Potential impacts from Construction were assessed for each tree. The project has been deSigned to retain all trees. Normally we would not recommend retention of treeS in poor condition. HoWever, because this is a native stand of oaks and the trees in poor condition are downslope from the home areas, they Can be .retained. Only trees along'the north canopy edge wil~ be impacted bY construction. These include trees #335, 342, 340, 341,345, 346'and 353. Construction will occur a minimum of 5' . outside the driplines of all trees~ Roots of oaks typically extend for a long distance beyond the dripline. Construction of the homes on lots 1,7, 8 and 9 will encroach into the root area. However, we consider the encroachment to be within the tolerance level of the adjacent trees, We expect no observable reduction in plant growth or health from the construction. Fill placed outside the driplines.years ago When Brittany Drive was constrUcted has had no observable effect. No impacts to the trees will occur downslope from the trunks. A TREE PROTECTION ZONE at the driplines of trees shall be established. The WildfireManageme~t Plan contains several requirements that affect management of the trees: · · Pruning is required to, "thin foliage, remove dead wood, raise the foliage one-foot above the ground, and separate the crowns of the trees." Implementation of these requirements will be directed by the Fire Marshall, project arborist and City's arborist, tt iSunclear at this time how much pruning will be required to separate crowns of the tress because they exist in small groves of continuous canoPy. Specifications for pruning will be provided following on-site consultation with the Fire Marshall. · "Ground under the Fire Resistive Heritage Trees shall be kept free.of weeds and dead wood.; 'Weed controls must be appfied in a manner that will not harm trees. Pre-emergent herbicides and tilling are not acceptable methods of weed control. Post-emergent herbicides and hand-pulling weeds are allowable. · "An irrigated fuel brealc/greenbeJt shall be installed surrounding the Fire Resistive Heritage Trees." The irrigated area must be designed to protect the native trees from excessive water and exclude trenching to install irrigation lines within 'the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. The rock outcropping on lot 9 will'be removed to construct the home. To eliminate potential damage to trees on that lot we :recommend retaining any rocks in place within 30' of the trunks. Heritage Tree Protection Plan, 'Brittany Drive, T. 4073, Dublin HortScience, Inc. February 12, 2001 Page 7 Tree Preservation Guidelines The goal of tree preservation is not merely tree survival during developme?t 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.liabilitYrather than an asset. The response of individual trees will depend on the amount of excavation anc~ grading, the care with which' demolition is. undertaken, and the construction methods. Coordinating any construction activity inside the Tree Protection Zone can minimize these impacts. The following recommendations will help reduce impacts to trees from development and m aintain and improve their'health and vitality through the clearing, gr;~ding and construction phases. Design recommendations 1. A TREE PROTECTION ZONE shall be established at the dripline of all trees. No grading, excavation, construction or.storage of materials shall occur within that zone. 2.' All site development plans shall be reviewed by the Project Arberist for evaluatio~n' of impacts to trees and reoommendations for mitigation. . 3. Retain the roct~ o~cropping within 30~ of trees #335 and 342. 4. No underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer shall be. placed in the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. · 5. Tree Preservation Notes, prepared by the Consulting Arborist, should be included on all construction plans. 6. Irrigation systems must be designed so that no trenching wilt occur within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Surface water from irrigation runoff must be directed away from oak trunks. 7. No landscape improvements such as lighting, pavement, drainage or planting may occur within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE that may negatively affect the health or structural stability of the trees. 8. -As trees.Withdraw water from the soil, expansive soils may shdnk within the root area. Therefore; foundations, footings and pavements on expansive soils near trees should be designed to withstand differential displacement." Pre-construction treatments and recommendations 1. Prune trees to be preserved to clean the crown and to provide 1' clearance as required bythe Wildfire Management Plan, and to clear the croWn. All pruning shall be completed by a Certified Arborist or Tree Worker and adhere to the Tree Pruning Guidelines of th~ International Society of Arboriculture. Specifications 'for pruning shall be provided after consultation with the Fire Marshall. Brush shall be · chipped and spread beneath the trees within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. 2. Fence all trees to be retained to completely enclose the TREE PROTECTION ZONE at the ddplines as depicted on the Protection Fencing Plan (see Attachments). it' Heritage Tree. Protection Plan, Brittany Drive, T. 4073, Dublin HortScience, Inc. February 12, 2001 Page 8 is not necessary to fence'trees on the downhill side, away from ail construction. Fences shall be 6 ft. chain link or equivalent, as approved by consulting arborist. Fences are to remain until all grading and construction is completed. Recommendations for tree protection during construction 1. Prior'to beginning.work, the contractor is required to meet with the consultant at the site to review all work procedures, access routes, storage areas and tree protection measures. 2. No grading, construction, demolition or other work shall occur within the.TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Any modifications must be approved by the City of Dublin and monitored .by the Consulting Arborist. 3. Spoil from trench, footing, utility 'or other excavation shall not be placed within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE, neither temporarily nor permanently.. 4. If injury should occur to any.tree dudng construction, it should be evaluated as soon as possible by the Consulting Arborist so that appropriate treatments can be applied. 5. Nc) excess soil, chemicals, debris, equipment or other materials shatl be dumped or stored within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. 6. 'No tree pruning may be performed by construction pemonnel. Maintenance of impacted trees Native oaks in proximity to homes require regular mai ntenance. It is recommended that the future homeownem 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 likefihood of. failure of branches or entire trees increases. Therefore, annual inspection for hazard potential is recommended. HortScience, Inc. Tree Survey.Map ' % '..,.~.:,~ . × Brittany. Drive ~,. - . x Tract. 5073 · . x Dublin; CA Prepared fo.r: Black MOuntain 'Development San Ramon, CA · ' lStltl~ ...... .. ~ : .' -~ ;..-'~_ . .~; ._. ,- ' . -' .- .' -; ,; .... .:--..:.', ' .-...-.-' , ~... '. --:'.'..-;'. .... .:., : July 2000 ~_. , ..,' .,. . ~ .--'~ . .":. ,.., . ~ "i .... .~ . , . . · ,.~ -. - ¢~ .-..- ,~ '._'.~, ._ . - ~. . : · . .-" , ...... ; -:--.-'_ . -.....;:...::.-.....'~ .:.: 9_. ~~,~ '. .. -,..-..., · - .... ; .... tO' ~ ..-.'.;.~,;;'?..' - ,,,- ."7 t~ -.- \' NottO$cale .... t,~ 't~- t ..... - ....... ',rC.f 242 ~41 o~4C "~' .~.,4 . _'~,.-~.~ '. . : ' ;, . · ' '~ '=~.- ..... '; ' '-35' '"'~- '' ' -' '~.' ' - - _ ..... ~ ... , :?_ ,..,,: ,,,, ,,- ,~..-.~ ~......-.,. -. ...... .: ..... ..... .... ~...:....:..: .... ..~ :.._, ,,_,--~ : ,.. Notes: .. ; . :, . ,. Ba~e map provided by: " ; ~, ' '-- RMR Design Group ' . · ' " ' '' ...."' ' · ~'1'".? Concord, CA : · ..-,, .- ".". .... Dfiplines and numbered tree Iocatlon$~ ,' , · · , are approximate. × .× x x :~. , .. . ~.. 'Tree PrOtection '. . Fencing Plan ×. .Brittany Drive Tract- 5073 Prepared. for'. , ..Black Mountain Development San Ramon, CA February 2001 347...341 .e.340 34,5' No Scale ,335 '"' '" - .~,,. 336.' .:339 34'3-' Notes: . Base map provided by; ..-- --... RMR Design Group Conco[d, ~A · Driplin~s and numbered tree locations - '"' are approximate. "-.. '---- "--.:-..--.-, ', '~ ', '..."-~..'-,. -.. -. ,,~' '? ''"''"'' Tree Pr°tecti°nFencing < '- · , ~ "~i~ · Black MoUntain Development . ~ TREE SURVEY Brittany Lane Estates· ~~ July 2000 . . TREE SPECIES TRUNK CONDITION SUITABILITY, COMMENTS No. DIAMETER 1=poor .for. (in inches) 5=exCellent ' PRESERVATION .. " 335. Valley oak 27, 23, 23 4 Good 'Multiple stems from base; good form; one 23" trunk leans south ... over creek. , ' 336 Valley oak 20 2 Poor Suppressed growth; little foliage; large necrotic area at'base. 337 Valley oak 25, 16 4 Good Multiple attachments @ 3'; slightly suppressed with.crown tO south; .. some deadwood. .. ' 338 Valley oak . 29 3 Moderate SuppresSed growth; leaning to soUth-east; deadwOod in crown. 339 Coastlive oak 22 2 POor .'Suppressed by tree 340; major dieback in crown; decay fruiting bodies evident. 340 Coast live oak · 40, 26 4 Good Excellent large specihnen; some deadwoOd; grOwth cracks alOng some scaffolds; scaffolds on north lying on ground. 341 Coast live oak .15 2 Poor Suppressed by 342; poor form; heavy end weight. 342 Coast live oak 41 3 Moderate Good form; some'deadwood;'codominant with included unionat 3'~ 343 Valley oak 14, 13, 12, 11, 6 3 Moderate Multiple trunks at ground level; good form. 344 Valley oak 33. 3 .Moderate Partially failed; loTM scaffolds to southeast. 345 Valley oak 14 2 Poor Highly suppressed; leaning 45 degrees to north.' · . ~346 Valley oak 31 4 Good ' Highly desirable; excellent form and struclure; minor deadwood. 347 Valley oak. 25 3 Moderate CroWn slightly suppressed. ' ' 348 Valley oak 17 .'. ' 3 Moderate High crown, " 349 Valley oak. 61 ' 3 Moderate Very large; multiple attachments at 3'; number of cavities in'tmnk; included bark, · ' .. ' . Page 1 ~ ~ ~,*'~i.- Black Mountain Development ·... WU'Em SURVEY ' JulyDUblin'BrittanY2000cALane Estates TREE SPECIES TRUNK CONDITION SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER 1=poor for (in inches) 5=excellent PRESERVATION 350 Valley oak .... 31 5"'""' Good Multiple attachments @ 7'; good form; Iow 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 rightangles; low branches on down hill side. CITY CLERK File# [--q~,~]][~-~-I~ II~ [ AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 20, 2001 SUBJECT: Public Hearing: PA 00-009, appeal of Planning Commission approval of the Black Mountain Site Development Review for six single-family residences on six existing lots on Brittany Lane and one single-family residence on an existing lot on Rolling Hills Drive. (Report PrePared by: Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner/Zoning Administrator) ~ ATTACHMENTS: 1) Revised project plans for Lots 1, 8 and 9 2) Resolution of City Council affirming the December 12, 2000 Planning Commission action with changes reflecting revised Wildfire Management Plan 3) Revised Tree Protection Plan 4) Letter from the Director of Community Development approving the ~ Revised Tree Protection Plan 5) Analysis of Grounds for Appeal with Staff's Response BACKROUND ATTACHMENTS: 1) January 16, 2001 Staff Report including project plans 2) Letter dated December 21, 2000 appealing Planning Commission decision 3) Heritage Tree Ordinance 4) December 12, 2000 Planning Conmxission StaffReport without attachments 5) Plmming Commission Resolution 00-71. ~ 6) Study comparing topography profile prior to 1985, the 1985 f'mish grade profile and proposed finish floor elevations in relationship to Brittany Lane RECOMMENDATION: ~~// 1) Hear S~ presentation ·2) Open Public Hearing 3) Question Staff, Applicant and the Public 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 Appellants ITEM NO. . i ~] 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 Si.te Development Review for seven homes on seven existing lots FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is an appeal of the December 12, 2000 decision of the Planning Commission to approve a Site Development Review for the construction of seven single-family homes on seven existing lots created as lots 1 and 7 - 12 ofB10ck 1 of Tract Map 5073. The lots are located at 11299 Rolling Hills Drive and 11151, 11159, 11167, 11175, 111 $3 and 11191 Brittany Lane. The appeal shall be considered as required by Chapter 8.136, Appeals, of the Zoning Ordinance. The appellants filed a timely appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on December 21,2000. The appellants gave six grounds for the appeal. This report will address each ground for appeal in Attachment 5. Under Section 8.136.060.D, the City Council may affnma, affirm in part, or reverse the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the Site Development Review. Staff suggests two options: A. The. City Council could decide that the Planning Commission action be affirmed and direct Staffto prepare a resolution affirming the Planning Commission decision and-approving the Black Mountain Development Site Development Review for seven homes on seven existing lots with changes proposed by Staff as further set forth in this Staff Report. B. The City Counci1 could decide that the Planning Commission decision be reversed and direct Staffto prepare a resolution reversing_Planning Commission decision and denying the Black Mountain Development Site Development Review for seven homes on seven existing lots BACKGROUND: Original development. On August 12, 1985, the City Council approved PA 85-035.3, Hatfield Development Corporation Investec, Inc. Tract Maps 5072, 5073 and 5074. Lots 1 and 7 - 12 of Block 1 of Tract Map 5073 were not built upon when the rest of the homes were built in 1985. These lots are the location of the seven proposed residences of this project. City Council Resolution 82 - 85 set forth the conditions of appro,val for the three tract maps. Conditions 4 and 12 of that resolution require that a Site Development Review be processed for the development of these lots. Black Mountain Development Application. On May 22, 2000, Jeff Woods o£Black Mountakn Development applied for this Site Development Review. The project proposes five 3,400 square foot semi-eustom homes on Lots 7, 10, 11 and 12. On February 12, 2001, Jeff Woods of Black Mountain Development submitted revised project plans for the homes On Lots 1, 8 and 9 (Attachment 1). The homes on Lots 8 and 9 will be 2,800 feet in size and the home on Lot 1 will be reduced in size to 3,255 square feet to draw it back 5 feet from a Fire Resistive Heritage Tree. Planning Commission Action. On December 12, 2000, The Planning Commission voted 3 in favor with 2 absent to adopt Resolution 00-71 approving this Site Development Review. Timely appeal.. On December 21, 2000 a timely appeal of the December 12, 2000 decision was filed. January 16, 2001 Public Hearing. On January 16, 2001, the City Council heard the appeal of this Project. The CiW CoUncil continued the public heating on this project until February 20, 2001 and directed that the project be redesigned to minimize impacts to the heritage trees and provide for construction of the homes. It was recognized that the redesign of the homes to protect the heritage trees could result in impacts to views of adjacent homes on Brittany Lane~ The City CoUncil also directed that Staff look at ways to modify the Wildfire Management Plan' to take into consideration heritage trees in proximity to the homes while minimizing Fire Code pruning impacts to the trees. Staff was directed to bring back a resolution modifying the previous resolution establishing the Wildfire Management Plan General Plan. The proposed residences are located on existing single family tots that were created in conformity with the Single Family Residential plan designation of the Dublin General Plan. Zoning. The proposed residences are located on existing single family lots that were created in conformity with the R-1 Zoning District. The proposed residences conform to all applicable development .standards of the R-1 Zoning District. . ANALYSIS OF GROUNDS FOR APPEAL Staff has responded to specific grounds of appeal in the attached Analysis of Grounds for Appeal with Staff's ReSponse (Attachment 5). The analysis addresses and presents the staff response to each ground for appeal. PROJECT REDESIGN Front yard setback. City Council Resolution 82-85 requires a 20-foot front yard setback for homes in the development of which the subject 7 lots are a part. Condition 3 of that Resolution permits the stipulation of other regulations, including setbacks, via the Site Development Review process. Staff has proposed that the homes on lots 8 and 9 have the face of the garage' door at 18 feet from the curb and that living areas of the house be able to encroach to 13 feet from the curb. This level of encroachment will permit the placement of 2,800 square foot homes on these two lots and is typical of many homes in the Hansen Hills development to the south. No changes to the front yard setback were necessary for Lot t. The home on Lot 1 was reduced in size to move it away from the Fire Resistant Heritage Trees on Lot 1. Height. The peak of the roof on the redesigned home on lot 8 is at an elevation of 637 feet whereas the peak of the roof of the home that was originally proposed on this lot is at an elevation of 634 feet 7 and ½ inches. This results 'in an increase in height of 2 feet 4½ inches. The peak of the roof on the redesigned home on lot 9 is at an elevation of 646 feet whereas the peak of the roof of the home that was originally proposed on this lot is at an elevation of 640 feet 7 and ½ inches. This results in an increase in height of 5 feet 4 and ½ inches. Measured at mid-lot the home on Lot 8 will increase in height from 17 feet 6 inches to 19 feet 10 and ½ inches measured from the sidewalk. The home on LOt 9 will increase in height from 13 feet to 18 feet 4 and ½ inches measured from the sidewalk. The increase in height of the homes was necessary to preserve the Fire Resistant Heritage Trees on lots 8 and 9. The homes on Lots 7, 1.0, 11 and I2 average 13.16 feet high when viewed from the sidewalk on Brittany Lane. 3 Design of the homes. The seven homes will range in size from 2,800 square feet to 3,400 square feet. The homes on Lots 7, 10, 11, and 12 are identical to those described at the January 16, 2001 public hearing on this project. Two floor plans, one with a "straight-in" garage and one with a "side-in" garage are proposed. The home on Lot 1 was reduced in size to draw it away from the driplines of the Fire Resistive Heritage Trees on Lot 1. Other than a reduction in size, the home is identical to the design proposed earlier. The homes on lot 8 and 9 were redesigned to move them closer to Brittany lane and not encroach into the driplines of Fire Resistive Heri~rage Trees. The residences are sited on the lots to minimize impacts to views from other residences on Brittany Lane. Hip roofs have been incorporated into the design to minimize impacts to views. The homes on lots 7, 9, 10, I 1 and 12 will have a street presence of a single-story home. Landscaping plans were prepared by Gates and Associates and will provide an attractive landscape presence on Brittany Lane. WILDFIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN Changes to the Plan. The Fire Marshall and Staff are proposing the following changes to.the Wildfire Management Plan to allow construction of homes near Heritage Trees while insuring minimal impacts to the Heritage Treesand insuring the safety of the residents of the homes: A. Definition iof Fire Resistive Heritage Trees Fire ResiStive Heritage Trees - Coast Live Oak, Valley Oak, Blue Oak, or California Buckeye trees that o~erwise qualify as Heritage Trees under the Heritage Tree Ordinance, Chapter 5.60 of the Dublin Municipal Code B. Construction. requirements for buildings or lots containing Fire Resistive Heritage Trees. Modified Construction Requirements for Build/ngs/Lots Containing Fire Resistive Heritage Trees The following requirements shall be implemented in addition to the construction requirements set forth above when there is a Fire Resistive Heritage Tree within 100 feet of the exterior wall or deck projection as measured from'the drip line of the tree. 1. Exterior walls. Fire rated construction standards required for the exterior wall o£ buildings most exposed to.wildfire risk shall be extended to the adjacent exterior walls of the building. 2. Windows. Install dual tempered glass windows in openings on the elevation most exposed .to wildfire risk and adjacent elevations of the structure. 3. Metal Structural Members. Metal structural members shall be used in place of wood in construction of all underfloor areas that are enclosed to the ground with exterior walls as required above in the Wildfire Management Plan. 4. Automatic Fire Sprinklers. Provide fire sprinkler flow detection monitoring, through a central station company. 4 C. Vegetation standards. ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF FIRE RESISTIVE HERITAGE TREES ON APPROVED LOTS When any of the Vegetation Standards calls for pruning of limbs and trees that are identified as Fire Resistive Heritage Trees, the following standards may be implemented in place of required ground clearance. 1. An irrigated fuel break/greenbelt shall be installed outside the dripline of the.Fire Resistive Heritage Trees. Size and compatibility of the greenbelt shall be determined following consultation with a Certified Arborist and review of the degree of slope surrounding the trees. The greenbelt vegetation shall be fire resistive and require little watering. 2. ' All vegetation shall be maintained per the Wildfire Management Plan standards or Alameda County Fire Department Removal Standards, except as modified for Fire Resistive Heritage Trees. 3. Ground under the Fire Resistive Heritage Trees shall be kept free of weeds and dead wood. Leaf litter shall be allowed to remain as a mulch to protect the soil. 4. Limited pruning shall be completed to thin foliage, remove dead wood, raise the foliage one-foot above the :ground and where appropriate, separate the crowns of the trees. Crown separation shall be based on the recommendation of the Project Arborist and the City's Arb°rist. Branches larger than one inch in diameter shall not be pruned unless agreed to by the project arborist and the City's arborist. 5. All other applicable standards Shall continue to apply except as modified above. Liability issue The proposed changes to the Wildfire Management Plan will insure that the structures built adjacent to Fire Resistive Heritage Trees meet the reqtfirements of the 1998 California Fire Code. CHANGES TO PROJECT SINCE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING The following additional conditions of approval to Planning Commission Resolution 00-71 are proposed by Staff to address drainage issues and Fire Resistant Heritage Tree issues: Storm Drain Easement on Lot 1. This condition is proposed to reflect the existence of a "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 (Roiling 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. caSement. 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. 5 Perpetuation of Oak Grove/planting of additional oak trees. This condition is proposed because it was recommended for inclusion by the City's arborist. The Condition reads as follows: Perpetuation of Oak Grove/planting of additional oak trees.' Landscape improvements for this project shall include the planting of additional oak trees. Tree ProtectiOn Zone. This condition was revised to place a Tree Protection Zone around all of the trees, not just north of certain trees. Tree Protection Zone. A Tree Protection Zone shall be established at the driplines of all the trees. No grading, excavation, construction or storage of materials shall occur within this zone. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit. Construction Requirements. The wording of the condition is the same as in the modified Wildfire Management .Plato Vegetation Standards/pruning. The wording of the condition is the sma~e as in the modified Wildfire Management Plan. Tree pruning by construction personnel. This condition is recommended by the Project Arborist to minimize impacts to the trees. Tree pruning by construction personnel. No tree pruning may be performed by construction per. senn. el.. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing Encroachment of Driplines. This condition establishes a minimum distance of homes from a Fire Resistive Heritage Tree. Encroachment of Driplines. No structure shall encroach to within 5 feet of the dripline of a Fire Resistive Heritage Tree. ResPonsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit. The following changes to conditions of approval of Planning Commission Resolution 00-71 are proposed by Staff: Condition 39. Condition 39 of the Planning Commission Resolution of Approval is proposed to be deleted because it is not necessary. Condition 87. Condition 87 is proposes to be modified to substitute "1998 California Fire Code" for "1997 Uniform Fire Code" because the 1998 code has been adopted by the City and has the same requirements relating to this project. 6 Condition 106. Condition 106 is-proposed to be modified to add the word "unauthorized" to i~ake 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 ora 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 oft/me following the occupancy of the last residence occupied, not to exceed one year. The cash bond or security is to be released upon satisfaction of the Director of Community Development that the Heritage Trees have not been endangered. The cash bond or security deposit shall be forfeited as a civil penalty for any unauthorized removal or destruction of a Heritage Tree. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing REVISED TREE PROTECTION PLAN A revised Tree Protection Plan was prepared by HortScience to reflect the preservation of the Fire Resistive Heritage Trees. The Plan was revised to reflect the revised home plans for Lots 1, 8 and 9 and minimize any impacts to the Fire Resistive Heritage Trees. The requirements of the revised Tree Protection Plan are incorporated as conditions of approval. The Community Development Director has approved the revised Tree Protection Plan (Attachment 3). DECISION OPTIONS BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL If the City Council wishes to affirm the Planning Commission action, with changes proposed by Staff, it should choose Option A. Option A reads as follows: Option A: Decide that the Planning Commission action be affirmed and adopt resolution (Attachment 2) approving the Black Mountain Development Site Development'Review for seven homes on seven existing lots with changes proposed by Staff. If the City Council wishes to reverse the Planning Commission action, it should choose Option B below. Option B: Decide that the Planning Commission decision be reversed and direct Staffto prepare a resolution reversing_Planning Commission decision and denying the Black Mountain DeveloPment Site Development Review for seven homes on seven existing lots. Ihe resolution should identify how the project fails to comply with applicable Site Development Review £mdings and/or standards and how the project can be brought into compliance with such findings and/or standards. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The environmental impacts of this project were addressed under the Negative Declaration prepared for the 'PA 85-035 Hatfield Development Corporation planned Development Rezone, Annexation and Site Development Review of which the subject lots were a part. The Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the'City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. Further, the project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15304, Class 4, minor public or private alterations in the condition of the land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve remox~al of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry and agricultural purposes. Specifically, Subsection (I) providesprovides, Fuel management activities within 30 feet of 7 structures to reduce the volume of 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 ?D (R-l) Zoning District. AGENCY REVIEW This project has been reviewed by other City departments and interested agencies, and their comments have been incorporated as conditions of approval in the draft Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council open the public hearing; question Staff, Applicant and the Public; close the public hearing and deliberate, and either: Option A: 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:\pa01)-009/ccalSpealsr 2-20-01 8 REsOLuTION NO. 26 - 01 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 12, 2000, APPROVING PA 00-009 BLACK MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR SEVEN SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ON EXISTING LOTS ON BRITTANY LANE WITH CHANGES PROPOSED BY STAFF WHEREAS, Black Mountain Development has requested approval of a Site Development Review for seven single family homes on existing lots on Brittany Lane; and WHEREAS, a completed application for Site Development Review is available and on file in the Dublin Planning Department; and W~REAS, The environmental impacts of this project were addressed under the Negative Declaration prepared for the PA 85-035 Hatfield Development Corporation Planned Development Rezone, Annexation and Site Development Review of which the subject lots were a part. The Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. Further, the project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15304, Class 4, minor public or private alterations in the condition of the land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry and agricultural purposes. Specifically, Example 'T', Fuel management activities within 30 feet of structures to reduce the volume of flammable vegetation, provided that the activities will not result in the taking of endangered, rare, or threatened plant or animal species or significant erosion and sedimentation of surface waters. This exemption shall apply to fuel management activities within 100 feet of a structure if the public agency having fire protection responsibility for the area has determined that 100 feet of fuel clearance is required due to extra hazardous fire conditions. This project is adjacent to a wildfire area and the 1998 California Fire Code requires 100 feet of fuel clearance for this project; and WHEREAS, a Site Development Review is required for this project by Conditions 4 and 12 of City Council Resolution 82-85 approving PA 85-035.3, Hatfield Development Corporation Investec, Inc.; and WHEREAS, the project is consistent in all respects with the Heritage Tree Ordinance; and Wlt-EREAS, the project is consistent in all respects with the Wildfire Management Plan; and WI:IEREAS, the project is consistent in all respects with Dublin General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the project is consistent in all respects with the conditions of approval of City Council Resolution 82-85; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on December 12, 2000; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WltEREAS, a staff report was submitted to the Planning Commission recommending approval of the Site Development Review subject to conditions prepared by Staff; and WItEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgement and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth; and WltEREAS, on December 12, 2000, the Planning Commission did by a vote of 3 ayes and 2 absent approve PA 00-009. NOW, TItEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED TItAT TIlE Dublin City Council does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding said proposed Site Development Review: The approval of this application (PA 00-009) is consistent with the intent/purpose of Section 8.104 (Site Development Review) of the Zoning Ordinance. B. The approval of this application, as conditioned, complies with the policies o£the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, the Heritage Tree Ordinance, the Wildfire Management Plan and City Council Resolution 82-85. C. The approval will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare because all applicable regulations will have been met. 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 of this application,, as conditioned, is in the best interests of the public health, safety and general welfare as the development is consistent with all laws and ordinances and implements the requirements of the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, the Heritage Tree Ordinance and City Council Resolution $2-85. 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. 2 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. blOW, THEREFORE BE 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 majority of each residence will be placed on a framework of deep-seated piers and grade beams. This will minimize grading impacts to the lots. Functional padded exterior living areas are proposed in the front yards and in raised deck areas. Therefore the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of single-family residential development proposed. The environmental impacts of this project were addressed under the Negative Declaration prepared for the PA 85-035 Hatfield Development Corporation Planned Development Rezone, Annexation and Site Development Review of which the subject lots were a part. The Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. Further, the project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15304, Class 4, minor public or private alterations in the condition of the land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry and agricultural purposes. Specifically, Example "F', Fuel management activities within 30 feet of structures to reduce the volume of flammable vegetation, provided that the activities will not result in the taking of endangered, rare, or threatened plant or animal species or significant erosion and sedimentation of surface waters. This exemption shall apply to fuel management activities within 100 feet ora structure if the public agency having fire protection responsibility for the area has determined that 100 feet of fuel clearance is required due to extra hazardous fire conditions. This project is adjacent to a wildfire area and the 1998 California Fire Code requires 100 feet of fuel clearance for this project. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED TItAT ~ Dublin City Council does hereby affirm the decision of the Planning Commission on PA 00-009 on December 12, 2000, and hereby conditionally approves the Site Development Review Application for PA 00-009 to develop seven single family residences on seven lots with the Assessors Parcel Numbers 941-2775-30, 941-2775-36, 941- 2775-37, 941-2775-38, 941-2775-39, 941-2775-40 and 941-2775-41 as generally depicted by materials labeled Attachment 1, stamped "approved" and on file in the City of Dublin Planning Department. This approval shall conform generally to the project plans submitted by EDI Architecture dated ~'received 3 December 4, 2000" and "received February 12, 2001", the Heritage Tree Protection Plan for this project stamped "received February 12, 2001", the Site Development Plan by RMR Design Group dated "received December 4, 2000" and the Colors and Materials Boards submitted by EDI Architecture dated "received June 12, 2000" by the Department of Community Development, unless modified by the Conditions of Approval contained below. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Unless otherwise stated, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to final occupancy of any building and shall be subject to Planning Department review, and approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance with the Conditions of Approval: [PL] Planning, [BI Building, [PO] Police, [PW] Public Works, [ADM] Administration/City Attorney, [FIN] Finance, [PCS] Parks and Community Services, [FI Alameda County Fire Dept., [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District, [CO] Alameda COunty Flood Control and water Conservation District Zone 7. The bolded words at the beginning or each condition of approval identify the general topic of the condition of approval or constitute the condition if not followed by explanatory text. GENERAL CONDITIONS 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. ApplicanffDeveloper shall pay all applicable fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance, including, but not limited to, Planning fees, Building fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District Fees, Public Facilities Fees, Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees, City Traffic Impact fees, City Fire Impact fees; Noise Mitigation fees, Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu fees; Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees; and any other fees as noted in the Development Agreement. Unissued building permits subsequent to new or revised fees shall be subject to recalculation and assessment of the fair share of the new or revised fees. 4 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.I of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions of this approval shall be · subject to citation. Responsible Agency: PL Required By: On-going 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 ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. Responsible Agency: Bldg. When Required: Through Completion 8. Compliance. Applicant/Developer shall comply with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance, City Council Resolution 82-85, the Wildfire Management Plan, the Tree Protection Plan for this project and the City of Dublin General Plan. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Issuance of Building Permits and On-going 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. 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 ofpetmcible 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 o£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 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 ofrodenticides and herbicides within the project area shall be performed in cooperation with and under the supervision of the Alameda County Department of Agriculture and will be restricted, to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, to reduce potential impacts to wildlife. Responsible Agency: PL Required By: Issuance of Grading Permit 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 oltaer department, committee, or agency of the City the Site Development Review to the extent such actions are brought within the time period required by Government Code Section 66499.37 or other applicable law; provided, however, that the Applicant/Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the City's promptly notifying the Applicant/Developer of any said claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full cooperation in the defense of such actions or proceedings. Required By: Through completion of Improvements and Occupancy of the last Building 6 DRAINAGE/GRADING 18. 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 ofD.ublin ..1~. b. lic W. orks Department grading permit process and Plan Check-List. An information packet outhmng tt~e grading permit process and Plan Check List is attached. Responsible Agency: PW Required By: Grading Permit 20. Undocumented t'fll. 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 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 geotechnieal engineer to determine whether a hazard potential will exist if Ief~ 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 I. According to the final map for Tract 5073, an existing 10'- wide "Common Area Storm Drain Easement" extends across Lot 1 (Rolling Hills Drive flag lot) to allow storm nmoft'from the neighboring Lot 2 to discharge downslope to Martin Canyon Creek. No permanent structures, including the proposed residence, s.ha~ be const,.mete, d~over sa. id ?xi.s,ti~g easement. Concrete flatwork and landscaping may be allowed if the Apphcam demonstrates ma said improvement will not adversely impact the drainage pattern. Alternatively, the Applicant may demonstrate to the City that permission from the S!lv~ergate Highlands Owners Association has been obtained for the relocation of the easement and the associated drainage facilities. Responsible Agency: PW When required: Prior to issuance of Building Permits. DEDICATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS 24. Site Drainage and Erosion Control Plan. The project site shall drain in accordance with City of Dublin Grading Ordinance and State Regional Water Quality Control standards. A Site Drainage and Erosion Control Plan and "Best Management Practices" erosion control measures must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to approval of improvement plans. Responsible Agency: PW Required By: Approval of ImproVement Plans 25. 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/UndergroundingfUtility Plans. Applicam/Developer shall construct all joint utility trenches (such as electric, telephone, cable TV, and gas) in accordance'with the appropriate utility jurisdiction. All communication vauks, 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 geotcchnicaI 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 shalI 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. PHASED OCCUPANCY PLAN 32. Phased Occupancy Plan. I/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 ~he 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 ora bond for the value of the deferred landscaping and associated improvements. Responsible Agency: PL, B Required By: Prior to Occupancy for any affected building Construction Noise Management Program/Construction Impact Reduction Plan 33. Construction Noise Management Program/Construction Impact Reduction Plan. Applicant/Developer shalt conform to the following Construction Noise Management Program/Construction Impact Reduction Plan. Construction shall be conducted so as to minimize the impacts of the construction on the existing community and on the occupants of the new homes as they are completed. Responsible Agency: PL Required By: During any construction 34. Construction Noise Management Program/Construction Impact Reduction Plan. The following measures shall be taken to reduce construction impacts: Responsible Agency: PL Required By: During any construction a. Off-site truck traffic. Off-site truck traffic shall be routed as directly as practical to and from the freeway (1-580) to the job site. Primary route shall be from 1-580 along, San Ramon Road, Dublin Boulevard, Silvergate Drive, Rolling Hills Drive and Brittany Lane. An Oversized Load Permit shall be obtained from the City prior to hauling of any oversized loads on City streets. b. Watering. The construction site shall be watered at regular intervals during all grading activities. The frequency of watering should increase if wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Watering should include all excavated and graded areas and material to be transported off-site. Use recycled or other non-potable water resources where feasible. 9 c. - .Idling construction equipment. Construction equipment shall not be left idling while not In use. d. Muffling devises. All construction equipment shall be fitted with noise muffling devises. e. Erosion control measures. Erosion control measures shall be implemented during wet weather to assure that sedimentation and erosion do not occur. f. Mud and dust clean up. Mud and dust carried onto street surfaces by construction vehicles shall be cleaned-up on a daily basis. g. Excavation haul trucks. Excavation haul trucks shall use tarpaulins or other effective covers. h. Wind erosion. Upon completion of construction, measures shall be taken to reduce wind erosion. Replanting and repaying should be completed as soon as possible. i. Phasing. Houses will be constructed in phases such that most of the construction traffic can be routed into the subdivision without traveling in front of existing homes that are occupied. j. Fugitive dust. After grading is completed, fugitive dust on exposed soil surfaces shall be controlled using the following methods: k. Seeding and watering of inactive portions of the construction site. Inactive portions of the construction site should be seeded and watered until grass growth is evident. 1. Watering. Require that all portions of the site be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. m. On site speed limit. On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 mph. n. Air Quality District. Use of petroleum-based palliatives shall meet the road oil requiremerits of the Air Quality District. Non-petroleum based tackifiers may be required by the Director of Public Works. o. The Department of Public Works. The Department of Public Works shall handle all dust complaints. The Director of Public Works may require the services of an air quality consultant to advise the City on the severity of the dust problem and additional ways to mitigate impact on residents, including temporarily halting project construction. Dust concerns in adjoining communities as well as the City of Dublin shall be addressed. Control measures shall be related to wind conditions. Air quality monitoring of PM levels shall be provided as requked by the Director of Public Works. p. Construction interference with regional non-project traffic. Construction interference with regional non-project traffic shall be minimized by: 1. Scheduling receipt of construction materials to non-peak travel periods. 2. Routing construction traffic through areas of least impact sensitivity. 3. Routing construction traffic to minimize construction interference with regional non-project traffic movement. 4. Limiting lane closures and detours to off-peak travel periods. 5. Providing ride-share incentives for contractor and subcontractor personnel. 10 q. Emissions control of on-site equipment. Emissions control of on,site equipment shall be minimized through a routine mandatory program of low-emissions Vane-ups. r. Radios and loudspeakers. Radios and loudspeakers shall not be used outside of the residences during all phases of construction. s. Construction vehicles and worker' s vehicles. Construction vehicles and worker's · vehicles shall not be parked on the north side of Brittany Lane or in any driveways on the north side of Brittany Lane. t. Double-parking. No double-parking shall be allowed along Brittany Lane. u. Fencing of construction site. Fencing of construction site shall be to the satisfaction of the Building Official. PARKS 35. Public Facilities Fee. Applicant/Developer shall pay a Public Facilities Fee in the amounts and at the times set forth in City of Dublin Resolution No. 195-99, or in the 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 ARCmTECTURE 36. Exterior colors and materials. Exterior colors and materials for the structures shall be subject to final review and approval by the Community Development Dkector 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 dopes higher than ten feet, and/or fences of rear yards with a high visibility from adjoining down slope areas, may be designed with an open mesh material, subject to review and approval by the Planning Director as regards the location and material utilized. Responsible Agency: PL. When Required: Prior to approval of Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plans. 39. Pad elevations. All residences shall bc built at the pad elevations shown on the project plans by EDI Architects dated recx~ived February 12, 2001. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to occupancy. 40. Increase in height of residences prohibited. The increase in height of residences in this project beyor~'t~ori~}ally approved by the City is prohibited. 11 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 t° building permit 43. NPDES. The final landscaping and irrigation plan shall address erosion control as an ongoing prevention program that will meet the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. Responsible Agency: PW, PL Required By: Ongoing 44. Installation. Prior to final occupancy approval, all required landscaping and irrigation, shall be installed. Responsible Agency: PL, B Required By: Prior to occupancy 45. Drought-tolerant and/or native species. The landscape design and construction shall emphasize drought-tolerant and/or native species wherever possible. Responsible Agency: PL Required By: Prior to occupancy TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 46. Damage/Repairs. The Developer shall repair all damaged existing street, curb, gutter and sidewalk along Brittany Lane and Rolling Hills Drive, lot frontages that exist now, or that result from construction activities to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Responsible Agency: PW Required By: Prior to Occupancy of first residence POLICE SECURITY 47. Residential Security Requirements. The development shall comply with the City of Dublin Residential Security Requirements (attached). Security hardware must be provided for all doors, windows, roof, vents, and skylights and any other areas per Dublin Police Services recommendations and requirements. Responsible Agency: B, PO Required By: Prior to Occupancy of first residence 48. Projected Timeline. Applicant/Developer shall submit a projected timeline for project completion to the Dublin Police Services Department, to allow estimation of staffing requirements and assignments. Responsible Agency: PO Required By: Prior to Issuance of Building permits 12 FIRE PROTECTION 49. Applicable regulations and requirements. The Applicant/Property Owner shall comply with all applicable regulations and requirements &the Alameda County Fke Department (ACFD), including payment of all appropriate fees. Responsible Agency: F Required By: Ongoing 50. Rear yard accessibility. The rear yard shall be accessible from both sides of the structure. Responsible Agency: F Required By: Ongoing 51. Roofing material. The roofing material shall conform to the City o£Dublin Fire Area specifications which require Class A or better. Responsible Agency: F Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits 52. Wildfire Management Plan. Site development shall be in accordance with the City o£Dublin Wildfire Management Plan. Responsible Agency: F Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits 53. Water supply. Water supply shall be adequate to support required fire flow. Responsible Agency: F Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits 54. Fire Hydrants. The Developer shall construct any required new fire hydrants in streets to City and Alameda County Fire Department standards. The Developer shall comply with applicable Alameda County fire Department, Public Works Department, Dublin Police Service, Alameda Counfy Flood Control District Zone 7 and Dublin San Ramon Services District requirements. Responsible Agency: F, PW Required By: Prior to Occupancy of adjacent building 55. Delivery of any combustible material. Prior to the delivery of any combustible material for storage on the site, fire hydrants, water supply, and roadways shall be installed and sufficient water storage and pressure shall be available to the site. Approved roadway shall be first lift of asphalt. Responsible Agency: F Required By: Prior to delivery of any combustible material ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, ZONE 7 56. Wells. Any water wells, cathodic protection wells or exploratory borings shown on the map that are known to exist, are proposed or are located during field operations without a documented intent of future use, filed with Zone 7, are to be destroyed prior to any demolition or construction activity in accordance with a well destruction permit obtained from Zone 7 and the Alameda County Department of Environmental Services or are to be maintained in accordance with applicable groundwater protection Ordinances. Other wells encountered prior to or during construction are to be treated similarly. Responsible Agency: Zone 7, PW Required By: Prior to any demolition or construction 13 57. Salt Mitigation. Recycled water projects must meet any applicable salt mitigation requirements of Zone 7. Responsible Agency: Zone 7, PW Required by On-going 58. Requirements and Fees. Applicant/Developer shall comply with all Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District-Zone 7 Flood Control requirements and applicable fees. Responsible Agency: Zone 7, PW Required by Prior to Issuance of Building Permits DSRSD 59. Requirements and regulations. The Applicant/Propen'y Owner shall comply with all applicable requirements and regulations of the Dublin San Ramon Services District. Responsible Agency: DSRSD. Required By: Ongoing 60. Improvement plans. Prior to issuance of any building permit, complete improvement plans shall be submitted to DSRSD that conform to the requirements of the Dublin San Ramon Services District Code, thc DSRSD "Standard Procedures, Specifications and Drawings for Design and Installation of Water and Wastewater Facilities',, all applicable DSRSD Master Plans and all DSRSD policies. Responsible Agency: DSRSD. Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits 61. Sewers. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity flow to DSRSD's existing 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 wilt require specific review and approval by DSRSD of preliminary design reports, design criteria, and final plans and specifications. The DSRSD reserves the right to require payment of 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 62. Fees. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, all utility connection fees, plan cheek fees, inspection fees, permit fees and fees associated with a wastewater discharge permit shall be paid to ' DSRSD in aceordance with the rates and schedules established in the DSRSD Code. Responsible Agency: DSRSD. Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits 63. Signatures. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, all improvement plans for DSRSD facilities shall be signed by the District Engineer. Each drawing of improvement plans shall contain a signature block for the District Engineer indicating, approval of the sanitary sewer or water facilities shown. Prior to approval by the District Engqneer, the Applicant shall pay all required DSRSD fees, and provide an engineer's estimate of construction costs for the sewer and water systems, a performance bond, a one-year maintenance bond, and a comprehensive general liability insurance policy in the amounts and forms that are acceptable to DSRSD. The Applicant shall allow at least 15 working days for final improvement drawing review by DSRSD before signature by the District Engineer. Responsible Agency: DSRSD. Required By: Prior to issuance of Building Permits 64. Utility Construction Permit. No sewer line or water line construction shall be permitted unless the Proper utility construction permit has been issued by DSRSD. A construction permit will only be issued after all of the items in the condition immediately before this one have been satisfied. 14 Responsible Agency: DSRSD. Required By: Ongoing 65. Hold Harmless. The Applican~Property Owner shall hold DSRSD, its Board of Directors, commissions, employees, and agents of DSRSD harmless and indemnify, and defend Lhe same from any lifigation~ claims, or fines resulting from completion of the project. Responsible Agency: DSRSD. Required By: Ongoing 66. Limited construction permit. The ApplieanffProperty Owner shall obtain a limited construction permit from the DSRSD prior to commencement of any work. Responsible Agency: DSRSD. Required By: Prior to commencement of any work 67. Construction by Applicant/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 68. DSRSD Water Facilities. Water facilities must be connected to the DSRSD or other approved water system, and must be installed at the expense of Applicant/Developer in accordance with District Standards and Specifications. All material and workmanship for water mains and appurtenances thereto must conform with all of the requirements of the officially adopted Water Code of the District and shall be subject to field inspection by the District. Responsible Agency: DSRSD. Required By: Completion of Improvements 69. Fire flows. The applicant shall coordinate with the District and Alameda County Fire Department on required fire flows. Responsible Agency: DSRSD. Required By: Approval of Improvement Plans MISCELLANEOUS 70. Compliance. The Applicant/Property Owner shall comply with all applicable Alameda County Fire Department, Public Works Department standard conditions, Dublin Police Services, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the Dublin San Ramon Services District regulations and requirements. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits or the installation of any improvements related to this project, the Applicant shall supply written documentation from each such agency or department to the Community Development Department, indicating that all applicable conditions required .have been or will be met. Responsible Agency: B, PL. Required By: Ongoing 71.. Compliance. The ApplicanffProperty Owner shall comply with all applicable regulations and requirements of the Uniform Building Code and the Building Inspection Department. Responsible Agency: B Required By: Ongoing 72. Building permits for the proposed project shall be secured and construction commenced within one (1) year after the effective date of this approval or said approval shall be void. This one (1) year period may be extended an additional one (1) year after the expiration date of this approval (a written request for the extension must be submitted prior to the expkation date) by 15 the Community Development Director upon the determination that the Conditions of Approval remain adequate to assure that the above stated Findings of Approval will continue to be met. [B, PL] 73. Building permits. To apply for building permits, the Applicant shall submit thirteen (13) sets of full construction plans for plan cheek. Each set of plans shall have attached an annotated copy of these Conditions of Approval, including any attached Special Conditions. The notations shall clearly indicate how 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 74. Construction plans. Construction plans shall be fully dimensioned (including building elevations) accurately drawn (depicting all existing and proposed conditions on site), and prepared and signed by an appropriately qualified design professional. The site plan, landscape plan and details shall be consistent with each other. Responsible Agency: B, PL, PW. Required By: Prior to issuance of building permits 75. 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 76. Compliance. The Applicant/Property Owner shall develop this project and operate all uses in compliance with the Conditions of Approval of this Site Development Review and the regulations established in the Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions specified may be subject to enforcement action. Responsible Agency: PL. Required By: Ongoing 77. Postal authorities. The developer shall confer with the local pOstal authorities to determine the type of mail receptacles necessary and provide a letter stating their satisfaction with the type of mail service to be provided. Specific locations for such units shall be to the satisfaction of the Postal Service. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit. FIRE RESISTIVE HERITAGE TREES: 78. Tree Protection Zone. A Tree Protection Zone shall be established at the driplines of all trees. No grading, excavation, construction or storage of materials shall occur within this zone. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit. 79. Plot plans to be reviewed by project arborist. All plot plans shall be reviewed by the project arborist for evaluation of impacts to trees and recommendations for mitigation. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit. 80. Rock outcropping. The rock outcropping within 30 feet of trees #335 and 342 shall be retained. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 16 81. Underground services. No underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer lines shall be placed in the Tree Protection Zone. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 82. Tree Preservation Notes. Tree Preservation Notes, prepared by thc consulting arborist, shall be included on all construction plans. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit 83. Irrigation systems. Irrigation systems must be designed so that no trenching will occur within the Tree Protection Zone except that necessary to protect the tree from surface runoff. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit. 84. Landscape improvements. No landscape improvements such as lighting, pavement, drainage or planting may occur which may negatively affect the health or structural stability of the trees. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 85. Foundations, footings and pavement. Foundations, footings and pavement on expansive soils near the Fire Resistive Heritage Trees should be designed to withstand differential displacement due to expansion and shrinking of the soil. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit. 87. Construction Requirements. The following requirements shall be implemented in addition to the construction requirements set forth in the Wildfire Management Plan when there is a Fire Resistive Heritage Tree within 100 feet of'the exterior wall or deck projection as measured from the drip line of the tree. Exterior walls. Fire rated construction standards requked for the exterior wall of buildings most exposed to wildfire risk shall be extended to the adjacent exterior walls of the building. B. Windows. Install dual tempered glass windows in openings on the elevation most exposed to wildfire risk and adjacent elevations of the stmcture. C. Metal Structural Members. Metal structural members shall be used in place of wood in construction of all underfloor areas that are enclosed to the ground with exterior walls as requked above in the Wildfire Management Plan. D. Automatic Fire Sprinklers. Provide fire sprinkler flow detection monkoring through a central station company. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit. 88. Vegetation Standards/prunin.g. When any of the Vegetation Standards of the Wildfire Management Plan call for pmmng of limbs and trees that are identified as Fire Resistive Heritage Trees, the following standards shall be implemented in place of required ground clearance. A. An irrigated fuel break/greenbelt shall be installed outside the dripline of the Fire Resistive Heritage Trees. Size and compatibility of the greenbelt shall be 17 determined following consultation with a Certified Arborist and review of the degree of slope surrounding the trees. The greenbelt vegetation shall be fire resistive and require little watering. B. All vegetation shall be maintained per the Wildfire Management Plan standards or Alameda County Fire Department Removal Standards, except as modified for Fire Resistive Heritage Trees. C. Ground under'the Fire Resistive Heritage Trees shall be kept flee of weeds and dead wood. Leaf litter shall be allowed to remain as a mulch to protect the soil. D. Limited priming shall be completed to thin foliage, remove dead wood, raise the foliage one-foot above the ground, and separate the crowns of the trees. Branches larger than one inch in diameter shall not be pruned unless agreed to by the project arborist and the City's arborist. E. All other applicable standards shall continue to apply except as modified above. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit. 89. Irrigation of Irrigated Fuel Break/Greenbelt. Irrigation systems must be designed so that no trenching will occur within the Tree Protection Zone. Surface water from the irrigation runoff must be directed away from oak trunks. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit. 90. Pruning. Fire Resistive 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 Arborieulmre, Tree Pruning Guidelines, current edition, on file in the Community Development Department. In addition, pruning shall be in conformity with the provisions of the Priming Specifications of the Tree Protection Plan for this project. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit. 91. 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 defme 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. 92. Meeting to review work procedures, access routes, storage areas and tree protection measures. Prior to work the contractor must meet with the Consulting arborist at the site to review all work procedures, access routes, storage areas and tree protection measures. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit. 18 93. 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. 94. 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 95. 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 96. 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 97. 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 98. Tree pruning by construction personnel. No tree pruning may be performed by construction personnel. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 99. 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 100. Chipping and hauling of brush. Brush shall be chipped and chips shall be spread underneath trees to a maximum depth of 6 inches, leaving the trunk dear of mulch. Wood shall be hauled off' the site. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 101. Trees shall not be climbed with spurs. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 19 102. Thinning cuts are to be employed rather than heading cuts. Trees shah not be topped Or headed back. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 103. Vehicles and heavy equipment. Vehicles and heavy equipment shall not be parked beneath the trees. If access by equipment is required to accomplish the specified pruning, the soil surface shall be protected with 6 inches to 8 inches of wood chips before placing equipmem or vehicles. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 104. 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 105. Certified arborist. A certified arborist shall be present on the project site during grading or other construction activity that may impact the health of the Fire Resistive Heritage Trees in this project. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 106. 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, fertiiization, 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 107. Cash bond or other security deposit. The applicant/developer shall guarantee the protection of the Fire Resistive Heritage Trees on the project site through placement of a cash bond or other security deposit in the amount of $100,000. The cash bond or other security shall be retained for a reasonable period of time following the occupancy of the last residence occupied, not to exceed one year. The cash bond or security is to be released upon satisfaction of the Director of Community Developmem that the Fire Resistive Heritage Trees have not been endangered. The cash bond or security deposit shall be forfeited as a civil penalty for any unauthorized removal or destruction of a Heritage Tree. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 108. 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 2O 109. Removal of Heritage Tree. No heritage Tree on the project site shall be removed unless its condition presents an immediate hazard to life or property. Such Heritage Tree shall be removed only with the approval of the Director of Community Development, City Engineer, Police Chief, Fire Chief or their designee. The Fire Marshall has indicated the Fire Resistive Heritage Trees conform with the Wildfire Management Plan and that no Heritage Tree on the project site will be removed pursuant to the Wildfire Management Plan. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 110. Designation of oaks as Heritage Trees. All nineteen Oak trees on the project site addressed by the Tree Protection Plan are designated as Heritage Trees by this Site Development Review and shall be protected by the provisions of the Heritage Tree Ordinance pursuant to Section 5.60.40.b, Heritage Tree Definition. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing 111. Encroachment of Driplines. No structure shall encroach to within 5 feet of the dripline of a Fire Resistive Heritage Tree. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Prior to issuance of Building Permit. 112. Perpetuation of Oak Grove/planting of additional oak trees. Landscape improvements for this project shall include the planting of additional oak trees. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 20th day of February, 2001. AYES: Councilmembers Oravetz and Zika and Mayor Houston NO ES: Councilmembers Lockhart and McCormick ABSENT: None Mayor ATTEST ~__ K2/G/2~20-0 l/reso-blkmtn, sdr. doc (Item 6.2) G:pa00-009/ce reso sdr 21 ,~>~. CITY CLERK File#[ AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 1.6, 2001 SUBJECT: Public Hearing: PA 00-009, appeal of Planning Commission approval of · - the Black Mountain Site Development Review for six single-family residences on six existing lots on Brittany Lane and one single-family residence on an existing lot on Rolling Hills Drive. (Report Prepared by: Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner/Zoning Administrator) ATTACHMENTS: 1) 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 Staff's 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: ~4/~2) Hear Staff'presentation ) Open Public Hearing 3) Question Staff, Applicant and the Public COPIES TO: PA 00-009 File. &TT/ GHMEItT Appellants 4) Close public heating 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 °fB10ck 1 of Tract Map 5073. The lots are located at 11299 Rolling Hills Drive and 11151, 11159, 11167, 11 ! 75, 11183 and 11191 Brittany Lane:'. Thc 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 affmning 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 Stall'Report. B. The City Council could decide that the Planrfing Commission decision be reversed and direct Staffto prepare a resolution reversing_Planning Commission decision and denying the Black Mountain Development Site Development Review for seven homes on seven existing lots BACKGROUND: On August 12, 1985, the City Council approved PA 85-035.3, Hatfield Development Corporation Investec, Inc. Tract Maps 5072, 5073 and 5074. Lots 1 and 7,12 ofBloek 1 of Tract Map 5073 were not built upon when the rest of the homes were built in 1985. These lots are the location of the seven proposed residences of this project. City Council Resolution 82 - 85 set forth the conditions of approval .. for the three tract maps. Conditions 4. and 12 of that resolution require that a Site Development Review be processed for the development of these lots. On May 22, 2000, Jeff Woods of Black Mountain Dev. elopment applied for this Site Development Review (Attachment 1). The project proposes seven 3,400 square foot semi-Custom homes on existing lots ranging between 11,635 square feet and 21,942 square feet. 2 General Plan. The proposed residences are located on existing single family lots that were create~in conformity with the Single Family Residential plan designation of the Dublin General Plan. Zoning. The proposed residences are located on existing s. ingle family lots that were created in conformity with the R-1 Zoning District. The proposed residences conform to all applicable development standards of the R-1 Zoning District. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission voted 3 in favor with 2 absent to adopt Resolution 00-71 approving this Site Development Review. The Minutes from their meeting are in Attachment 13. The follOwing major issues were addressed in the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 11): A. Conformity with City Council Resolution 82-85. The project conforms to the following applicable conditions of approval of City Council Resolution 82-85: Condition 3. Standards for setbacks, minimum lot size and width and other applicable regulations of the R-1 Zoning District are me~t 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, I0, 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 tots (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 Hatfield/Investec (Tract Maps 5072, 5073 and 5074) project which created these lots. A Tree Protection Plan was prepared for this project by the Applicant's arborist and peer reviewed by the City's arborist, Jeff Gamboni. The recommendations and findings of that Plan are incorporated into the 3 grading and improvements plans of this project. Several Planning Commission conditions ~ 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 Hatfield/Investec project. As stated above, the residences have been designed to have the appearance of a single story home from the street, have no chimneys and incorporate hip roofs to minimize impacts to views. 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 Kleinfelder, Inc. for the City. Kleinfelder found that the grading of the subject lots was done properly and meets the current standard of engineering practice in the Bay Area. Kleinfelder recommended (and the Planning Commission approved) a condition of approval relating to removal of an area of boulders on Lots 8 and 9. 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 prtmed 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 Her/rage 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 Arboriculmre, 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 bgth the Project Arborist and the City's arborist. If the scaffold projects to within 5 feet of the residence, the residence shall be modified to move it until it is at least 5 feet from the 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 from 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 Attaclunent 14 and believes that the Planning 'Commission and Staff have addressed concems 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 condition is proposed to reflect the existence of a "Common Area Storm Drain Easement" on Lot 1 that was pointed out by a member of the public at 'the December 12, 2000 Planning Commission public hearing on this issue. The proposed house will have to be relocated to avoid the easement. The condition reads as follows: Storm Drain Easement on Lot 1. According to the final map for Tract 5073, an existing 10'- wide ,Common Area Storm Drain Easement" extends across Lot 1 (Roiling Hills Drive flag tot) to : allow storm runoff from the neighboring Lot 2 to discharge d0wnslope to Martin Canyon Creek. N° permanent structures, including the proposed residence, shall be constructed over said existing easement. Concrete flatwork and landscaping may be allowed if the Applicant demonstrates that said improvement will not adversely impact the drainage pattern. Alternatively, the Applicant may demonstrate to the City that permission from the Silvergate Highlands Owners Association has been obtained for the relocation of the easement and the associated drainage facilities. Responsible Agency: PW 'When required: Prior to 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 Reqnired: 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 ch~mges to conditions of approval of Planning Commission Resolution 00-71 are proposed by Staff: Condition 39. Condition 39 of the Planning Commission Resolution of Approval is proposed to be deleted because it is not necessary. Condition $7. 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 ora cash bond or other secUrity deposit in the amount orS100,000. 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 re[eased 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 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 tnmk to be removed and the remainder of Tree 340 which shall remain are treated as one tree in the Tree Protection Report because they are located immediately adjacent to each other and form portions of the same canopy and dripline. The removal of this subsidiary trunk is permitted by the Director as part of this Site Development Review pursuant to Section 5.60.50.b.2. Responsible Agency: PL When Required: Ongoing DECISION OPTIONS BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL If the City Council wishes to afl'mn 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 Plarming Commission action, it should choose Option B below. Option B: Decide that the Planning Commission decision be reversed and direct Staff to prepare a resolution reversing_Planning Commission decision and denying the Black Mountain Development Site Development Review for seven homes on seven existing lots. The - · resolution should identify how the project fails to comply with applicable Site Development Review findings and/or standards and how the project can be brought into compliance with such findings and/or standards. 6 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The environmental impacts of this project were addressed under the Negative Declaration prepared for the PA 85-035 HatfieldDevelopment 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 o.r significant erosion and sedimentation of surface waters. This exemption shall apply to fuel management activities within 100 feet of a structure if the public agency having fire protection responsibility for the area has determined that 100 feet of fuel clearance is required due to extra hazardous fire conditions. This project is adjacent to a wildfire area and the 1998 California Fire Code, as adopted by the City, requires 100 feet of fuel clearance for this project. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING The proposed Site Development Review is consistent with the Single Family Residential designation of the General Plan and the PD (R-l) Zoning District. AGENCY REVIEW This project has been reviewed by other City departments and interested agencies, and their comments have been incorporated as conditions of approval in the draft Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council open the public hearing; question Staff, Applicant and the Public; close the public hearing and deliberate, and either: Option A: Decide that the Planning Commission action be affirmed and adopt resolution (Attachment 2) approv/ng 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 Staffto prepare a resolution reversing_Planning Commission decision and denying the Black Mountain Development Site Development Review for seven homes on seven existing lots. The resolution should identify how the project fails to comply with applicable Site 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 RESOLUTION NO. - 03 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DENYING THE AMENDMENT TO PA 00-009 BRITTANY LAND/BLACK MOUNTAIN SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TO AUTHORIZE THE TRIMMING OF TREE NO. 340 ON AN EXISTING LOT (LOT 8) AT 11183 BRITTANY LANE WHEREAS, the Applicant, Jeff Woods of Blackmountain Development has requested an Amendment to the Brittany Lane/Black Mountain Development (PA 00-009) Site Development Review for 7- single family home on a existing lots; and WHEREAS, the requested amendment would authorize the trimming of tree #340 ((as identified by the approved Tree Protection Plan for the Brittany Lane/Blackmountain Development Site Development Review); WHEREAS, a completed application for Site Development Review Amendment is available and on file in the Dublin Planning Department; and WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of the construction of the original project were addressed under the Negative Declaration prepared for the PA 85-035 Hatfield Development Corporation Planned Development Rezone, Annexation and Site Development Review of which the subject lots were a part. The Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines; WHEREAS, the Site Development Review Amendment is classified as Categorical Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15301 Classl, because the trimming of the tree would be a minor alteration to the tree #340 because a certified Arborist examined the proposed tree trimming and determined the trimming is minor, would not affect the health or structure of the tree; WHEREAS, a Site Development Review Amendment has been requested for this project because in April 2002, during the review of the grading plan for the seven lots, Staff determined that the approved location of the residence on Lot 8 conflicted with Tree No. 340. Specifically, the location of Tree No. #340 is between 4 and 14-feet further northeast than the location shown on the approved site plan; and WHEREAS, the applicant has chosen to apply to an amendment to the SDR to remove a portion of Tree No. 340, rather than applying for an amendment to the SDR to reduce the size of the proposed residence; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing on said application on August 5, 2003; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby make the following findings regarding said proposed Site Development Review Amendment: A. The approval of this Amendment is not consistent with the intent/purpose of Section 8.104.020.A (Site Development Review) of the Zoning Ordinance because trimming off~ ATTACHMENT~ tree #340 would not promote development compatible with the individual site environmental constraints because it would significantly alter the tree from its natural form. Moreover, other residences approved as part of the Brittany Lane/Blackmountain Development have maintained the Heritage Trees as identified in the tree protection plan without significant modification or pruning and therefore pruning tree #340 would result in a development not consistent with the surrounding properties. In addition the proposal to trim the 26" - 27" limb of Tree No. 340 does not promote a harmonious development of the lot because the Applicant could apply for an Amendment to the approved Site Development Review, which would eliminate the conflict between the house and Tree No. 340. B. The proposed Amendment would not be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, specifically the intent/purpose of Section 8.104 (Site Development Review), as indicated in A above. C. The proposed Amendment will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and general- welfare. D. The proposed structure and setback of the structure from Tree No. 340 will not provide a desirable environment for the development because it would require a change to the existing form of the tree and the Applicant could reduce the size of the proposed residence as an alternative. E. The subject site is not physically suitable for development because of the proximity of the proposed structure to Tree No. 340. F. Impacts to views have been addressed and would not be affected bythe proposed trimming of the subject tree. G. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed. H. Architectural considerations, including the scale of the structure, would adversely affect the compatibility of this project with the existing character of surrounding development. H. Landscape considerations, including the locations, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant materials, provisions and similar elements have been considered to insure visual relief and an attractive environment for the public and'would not be directly impacted by the proposed Amendment. I. The proposed Amendment is not inconsistent with the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT DETERMINED THAT THE City of Dublin City Council hereby denies the Site Development Review Amendment Application for PA 00-009 to trim Tree No. 340 (as identified by the Tree Protection Plan) located on Lot 8 of the Hatfield Development and further identified as Assessors Parcel Number 941-2775-37, and as generally depicted by materials labeled Attachment 1 to the August 5, 2003 Agenda Statement, labeled "denied" and on file in the City of Dublin Planning Department, because the Council cannot make all of the findings for approval required by Dublin Municipal Code section 8.104.070. The original approval Brittany Lane/Black Mountain Development (PA 00-009) Site Development Review remains in effect, as do all of the conditions associated with that approval. 2 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin on this 5tn day of August 2003, by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk G:LPA#X2000\00-009 Black MountainX2003\black mountain deny reso 2.DOC