HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.2 - 2046 Lau Residential Addition SDR PLPA-2018-000
Page 1 of 7
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: June 19, 2018
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing: Lau Residential Addition Appeal of Planning Commission
Approval of Site Development Review Permit (PLPA-2018-00002)
Prepared by: Robert Paley, Assistant Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to
approve a Site Development Review Permit for a residential addition at 6 735 Maple
Drive. The Site Development Review Permit is for a two-story addition to an existing
single-story, 1,846 square foot home (including garage). The proposed 1,076 square
foot addition includes a 176 square foot addition to the ground floor and the addition of a
900 square foot second story. The application was originally approved by the
Community Development Director and that action was appealed to the Planning
Commission. The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the appeal
and affirmed the Community Development Director’s decision and approved the project.
The decision of the Planning Commission has been appealed to the City Council. The
City Council will hold a public hearing to consider the appeal , and either affirm, affirm in
part, or reverse the project approval.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Disclose ex-parte contacts, conduct the public hearing, deliberate, and take one of the
following actions: Adopt the Resolution Affirming the Planning Commission’s Decision
and Approving a Site Development Review Permit for the Lau Residential Addition at
6735 Maple Drive; OR, direct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution affirming the
Planning Commission’s action in part, with or without additional conditions of approval,
or reversing the Planning Commission’s decision and deny the Site Development
Review Permit for the Lau Residential Addition located at 6735 Maple Drive .
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The Master Fee Schedule establishes an Appeal Fee of $200 for an appellant to file an
appeal to the City Council regarding a decision of the Planning Commission. The actual
cost of staff time, and other administrative costs associated with the appeal of the Lau
Residential Addition Site Development Review Permit, is estimated at approximately
$1,240. Sufficient funding is available in the General Fund Budget for Fiscal Year 2017 -
2018.
Page 2 of 7
DESCRIPTION:
The project is located at 6735 Maple Drive as shown in Figure 1. The subject property
has a General Plan land use designation of Single Family Residential which allows up
to six (6) dwelling units per acre. The site is within the Single -Family Residential (R-1)
Zoning District. Residential additions which are greater than 500 square feet are
subject to a Site Development Review (SDR) Permit approval by the Community
Development Director (Zoning Ordinance
8.104.040.A).
The Applicant is requesting a SDR Permit
for the expansion of the existing single-story
1,846 square foot home (including garage).
The proposal is for a 1,076 square foot
addition and includes a 176 square foot
expansion to the rear, northwest side of the
ground floor, and a 900 square foot second -
story addition located over the existing
garage, a portion of the existing house, and
the new ground floor expansion. The
proposed addition has been designed to be
consistent with the architecture of the
existing home while also enhancing its appearance through the addition of wood trim to
all windows and around the garage. The project plans are included as Attachment 6 to
this Staff Report.
Community Development Director Action:
The Community Development Director provided a public notice that a decision on the
Site Development Review permit was being considered. The Planning Division
received responses from the appellant in opposition to the pro ject during the public
comment period. Staff met separately with the applicants and appellants to discuss the
appellant’s comments and concerns. After reviewing the project plans, discussing the
project with staff, and receiving public comment, the Community Development Director
approved the Site Development Review Permit on April 17, 2018.
Jacob and Kristen Berg, whom reside immediately to the west of the subject property at
6765 Maple Drive, appealed the Community Development Director’s approval of the
Lau Residential Addition SDR permit. The Planning Commission is the hearing body for
an appeal of the Director’s decision.
Planning Commission Action:
On May 22, 2018 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the
appeal (Attachments 1 and 2). The Planning Commission voted unanimously (4-0-1 with
Commissioner Qureshi absent) to affirm the Community Development Director’s
decision and approve the project with the addition of the fo llowing condition of approval
(Attachment 3):
Page 3 of 7
Good-Neighbor Fence. The applicant shall install a good-neighbor fence on the
property line between the subject site and 6765 Maple Drive. The fence shall be 8
feet total height and comprised of a 6 -foot-tall solid wood fence topped with 2 feet of
a framed wooden lattice capable of admitting not less than 50% light.
On June 1, 2018, Jacob and Kristen Berg filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s
decision to approve the Lau Residential Addition SDR Permit (Attachment 4). The City
Council is the hearing body an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision.
APPEAL PROCESS:
Chapter 8.136 of the Zoning Ordinance contains the regulations and procedures that
must be followed if an action of the Planning Commission is appealed to the City
Council. In brief, an appeal and filing fee must be filed with the City Clerk within 10
calendar days of the Planning Commission’s action. The appeal must state the “extent
of the appeal and the reasons and grounds for the appeal”. The appeal must be
considered at a Public Hearing within 45 days of the filing of the appeal (July 15, 2018).
The City Council may defer decision on the appeal at the Public Hearing but must take
action within 75 days of the filing of the appeal (August 14, 2018) or the decision of the
Planning Commission is deemed affirmed.
Chapter 8.136 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the City Council may, by majority
vote, affirm, affirm in part, or reverse the Planning Commission’s decision to approve
the Project. If the City Council decides to affirm the Planning Commission’s decision to
approve the Project, the City Council may adopt additional conditions of approval that
address the specific subject of the appeal. The City Council’s action must be supported
by findings of fact based on information before the Council when it hears and considers
the appeal. Staff recommends that the City Council affirm the Planning Commission’s
decision and approve the project (Attachments 5 and 6).
ANALYSIS:
Homes located in the R-1 Zoning District are subject to the Developme nt Regulations
prescribed in the Zoning Ordinance (Section 8.36.020.B). Additions to a single -family
home must comply with these development regulations. Furthermore, residential
additions which are greater than 500 square feet are subject to a Site Development
Review Permit approved by the Community Development Director (Section
8.104.040.A). Chapter 8.104.090 also provides the findings which must be made in
order for an SDR Permit to be approved. The Municipal Code states that all of the
following findings shall me made in order to approve a Site Development Review and
shall be supported by substantial evidence in the public record:
A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this Chapter, with the General
Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans and design guidelines.
B. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance.
C. The design of the project is appropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding
properties and the lot in which the project is proposed.
Page 4 of 7
D. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the approved
development.
E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed.
F. Architectural considerations including the character, scale and quality of the
design, site layout, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings,
screening of unsightly uses, lighting, building materials and colors and similar
elements result in a project that is harmonious with its surroundings and
compatible with other development in the vicinity.
G. Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and
coverage of plant materials, and similar elements have been incorporated into
the project to ensure visual relief, adequate screening and an attrac tive
environment for the public.
H. The site has been adequately designed to ensure proper circulation for bicyclists,
pedestrians and automobiles.
APPELANTS GROUNDS FOR APPEAL:
The appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision is confined to the approval of the
Site Development Review permit on the grounds that the project is not consistent with
all the Required Findings necessary for approval of a Site Development Review Permit
(Section 8.104.090). Accordingly, this Agenda Statement addresses only wheth er the
findings made by the Planning Commission to approve the SDR Permit should be
affirmed, affirmed in part, or reversed.
The appellant does not believe that the proposed addition is consistent with SDR
Findings D and F as shown above. The appellant asserts that: 1) with the proposed
addition, the home will be too large for the subject lot and surrounding neighborhood
and, 2) the proposed addition will result in the loss of privacy and natural light. Staff’s
analysis regarding each of these claims is set forth below:
1. Size of the Home
The appellant asserts that the size of the lot for 6735 Maple Drive at 6,118 square feet
is too small for the type and intensity of the proposed development. More specifically,
the appellant states the majority of the homes in the neighborhood are less than 1,900
square feet with some exceptions of larger homes on larger lots ranging from 6,500 to
8,200 square feet. The appellant further asserts that the proposed development will be
larger than any other home in the neighborhood.
As stated, the subject property is located within the R-1 Zoning District and reviewed for
compliance with the development regulations for the District. The proposed project is in
conformance with all development standards, including, but not limited to, height,
setbacks, and lot coverage.
Page 5 of 7
Table 1. Development Regulations
Development Standards Allowed Proposed
Lot Size 4,000 sf (minimum) 6,113 sf
Lot Coverage (bldg. footprint) 35% (2,141 sf) 33% (2,022 sf)
Setback 5 feet (minimum) 6 feet 5 inches
Height 25 feet 23 feet 11 inches
The neighborhood is generally comprised of a mix of single story and two -story homes,
with lots generally ranging from 5,200-8,200 square feet. The minimum lot size in the R-
1 Zoning District is 4,000 sf (5,000 square feet for corner lots). While there are several
two-story homes on lots that are greater than 6,500 square feet, there are an equal
number of two-story homes on lots that are less-than 6,500 square feet (as shown in
Figure 2 below). In some cases, there are two-story homes on lots smaller than the
subject property. While the proposed residence will be larger than the majority of the
homes in the neighborhood, it remains consistent with the R -1 Development
Regulations. The home is designed in the same style and character of the other two-
story homes in that: a) the second story will be located over the garage side of the
existing residence; and, b) the residence will include building materials and colors, and
other similar elements like window and garage trim, that are compatible with other
residences in the vicinity.
In addition to the development standards, the Project was also reviewed for consistency
with the purpose and intent of the R-1 Zoning District which is to provide for and protect
Page 6 of 7
neighborhoods comprised of detached, single-family homes and residential use types
compatible with a quiet, family-living environment. The proposed partial two-story
addition is designed to match the existing residence and surrounding neighborhood
which is comprised of both single-story and partial two-story homes.
2. Privacy & Natural Light
The Appellant is asserting that two-story homes are generally adjacent to one another
and that the proposed addition will result in reduced privacy for their lot and to potential
impacts of natural light.
One of the stated purposes of the Residential Zoning Districts is to e nsure adequate
light, air, privacy, and open space for each dwelling. This is primarily accomplished
through compliance with the development standards and partially through design review
which takes into account neighborhood context. As shown in Figure 2 above, the
neighborhood has a mix of single-story and two-story homes in no distinguishable
pattern. The purpose of the R-1 District development regulations is to promote
development that respects the layout of single-family residential homes through
setbacks, lot coverage and building height limitations. The project is in conformance
with these development standards and has been designed to integrate with the existing
single-family residence as well as the surrounding residences through a simple roof line
and modest window configuration. Furthermore, the design minimizes the impact on
surrounding residences by keeping the more active uses (kitchen, family and living
rooms) on the ground floor, while adding more passive uses (bedrooms, bathroom) to
the second story addition.
It is typical (and expected) that all four sides of a single-family detached home will have
windows. The proposed second-story addition includes the addition of two windows on
the façade facing the appellant’s home – one of which is a shower window, the other a
bedroom – both of modest size and both required per the California Residential Building
Code. The addition is designed to ensure that adequate light, air, privacy and open
space for the neighboring homes are maintained.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The Project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
pursuant to Section 15301(e)(2) (Existing Facilities) because: 1) the project is an
addition to an existing structure and the addition is less than 10,000 square feet in size;
2) the project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow
for maximum development permissible in the General Plan; and 3) the area in which the
project is located is not environmentally sensitive.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
In accordance with State law, a Public Notice regarding this Public Hearing was mailed
to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed Project including
the Appellants listed in the Appeal Letter. The Public Notice was also published in the
East Bay Times and posted at several locations throughout the City.
Page 7 of 7
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 22, 2018 without attachments
2. Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated May 22, 2018
3. Planning Commission Resolution Affirming the Community Development Director's
Decision and Approving the Project
4. Appeal Letter dated June 1, 2018
5. Resolution Affirming the Planning Commission Decision and Approving the Project
6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Project Plans
Page 1 of 3
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: May 22, 2018
TO: Planning Commission
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing: Lau Residential Addition Appeal of Community
Development Director approval of Site Development Review Permit
(PLPA-2018-00002)
Prepared by:Robert Paley, Assistant Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Yung Chen, the designer and applicant representing Kwok Hong Lau, the Owner of
6735 Maple Dr., is requesting approval of a Site Development Review permit for the
expansion of the existing single story 1,846 square foot home (including garage). The
proposal is for a 1,076 square foot residential addition, which includes a 176 square foot
addition to the ground floor and a 900 square foot addition to the second story. The
Community Development Director approved the application on April 17, 2018. The
action of the Community Development Director was appealed. The Planning
Commission will hold a public hearing to consider the appeal, and either affirm the
Community Development Director’s action in whole or in part, with or without additional
conditions of approval, or to reverse the action of the Community Development Director.
RECOMMENDATION:
Disclose ex-parte contacts, conduct the public hearing, deliberate and take the following
action: a) adopt a Resolution affirming the Community Development Director’s decision
and approving a Site Development Review Permit for the Lau Residential Addition
located at 6735 Maple Drive; OR b) direct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution
affirming the Community Development Director’s action in part, with or without
additional conditions of approval, or to reverse the action of the Community
Development Director, including findings of fact, no later than July 10, 2018.
DESCRIPTION:
The project is located at 6735 Maple Drive as shown in Figure 1. The subject property
has a General Plan land use designation of Single-Family Residential which allows up
to six (6) dwelling units per acre. The site is within the Single-Family Residential (R-1)
Zoning District. Residential additions which are greater than 500 square feet are
subject to a Site Development Review (SDR) Permit approval by the Community
Development Director (Zoning Ordinance 8.104.040.A)
Page 2 of 3
The Applicant is requesting a SDR Permit
for the expansion of the existing single
story 1,846 square foot home (including
garage). The proposal is for a 1,076
square foot addition and includes a 176
square foot expansion to the rear,
northwest side of the ground floor, and a
900 square foot second story addition
located over the existing garage, a portion
of the existing house, and the new ground
floor expansion. The proposed addition
has been designed to be consistent with
the architecture of the existing home while
also enhancing its appearance through the
addition of wood trim to all windows and
around the garage. The project plans are
included as attachment 2 to this Staff Report.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ACTION:
On March 30, 2018, the Community Development Director provided a public notice that
a decision on the Site Development Review permit was being considered. This notice
was provided to all property owners and occupants with in a 300 foot radius of the
property.
The Planning Division received comments from the residents next door at 6765 Maple
Drive expressing concerns about the project during the public comment period. On April
12, 2018 Staff held two separate meetings with the applicants and appellants to discuss
the appellant’s comments and concerns.
After reviewing the project plans, discussing the project with staff, and receiving public
comment, the Community Development Director approved the Site Development
Review Permit on April 17, 2018 (Attachment 1 and Attachment 2).
APPEAL PROCESS:
Chapter 8.136 of the Zoning Ordinance contains the regulations and procedures that
must be followed if an action of the Community Development Director is appealed to the
Planning Commission. In brief, an appeal and filing fee must be filed with the City Clerk
within 10 calendar days of the Community Development Director’s action. The appeal
must state the “extent of the appeal and the reasons and grounds for appeal.” The
appeal must be scheduled for a Public Hearing within 45 days of the filing of the appeal.
The Planning Commission may defer decision on the appeal at the Public Hearing but
must take action within 75 days of the filing of the appeal.
On April 27, 2018, Jacob and Kristen Berg appealed the approval of the Lau Residential
Addition SDR Permit (Attachment 3). The Bergs reside immediately to the west of the
subject property at 6765 Maple Drive. In accordance with Chapter 8.136, the Planning
Commission must hold a Public Hearing no later than May 22, 2018 (within 45 days of
the filing of the appeal) and must take action no later than July 10, 2018 (within 75 days
of the filing of the appeal) or the decision of the Community Development Director is
Page 3 of 4
deemed affirmed.
Chapter 8.136 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the Planning Commission may, by
majority vote, affirm, affirm in part, or reverse the Community Development Director’s
decision to approve the Project. If the Planning Commission decides to affirm the
Community Development Director’s decision to approve the Project, the Planning
Commission may adopt additional conditions of approval that address the specific
subject of the appeal. The Planning Commission’s action must be supported by
findings of fact based on information before the Commission when it hears and
considers the appeal. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission affirm the
Community Development Director’s approval.
ANALYSIS:
Homes located in the R-1 Zoning District are subject to the Development Regulations
prescribed in the Zoning Ordinance (Section 8.36.020.B). An addition to a single-family
home must comply with these development regulations. Furthermore, residential
additions which are greater than 500 square feet are subject to a Site Development
Review Permit approved by the Community Development Director (Section
8.104.040.A). Chapter 8.104.090 provides the findings which must be made in order for
an SDR Permit to be approved. The Municipal Code states that all of the following
findings shall me made in order to approve a Site Development Review and shall be
supported by substantial evidence in the public record:
A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this Chapter, with the General
Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans and design guidelines.
B. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance.
C. The design of the project is appropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding
properties and the lot in which the project is proposed.
D. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the approved
development.
E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed.
F. Architectural considerations including the character, scale and quality of the
design, site layout, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings,
screening of unsightly uses, lighting, building materials and colors and similar
elements result in a project that is harmonious with its surroundings and
compatible with other development in the vicinity.
G. Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and
coverage of plant materials, and similar elements have been incorporated into
the project to ensure visual relief, adequate screening and an attractive
environment for the public.
H. The site has been adequately designed to ensure proper circulation for bicyclists,
pedestrians and automobiles
Appellant’s Grounds for Appeal:
The appeal of the Community Development Director’s decision is confined to the
approval of the Site Development Review permit on the grounds that the project is not
consistent with all the Required Findings necessary for approval of a Site Development
Page 4 of 5
Review Permit (Section 8.104.090). Accordingly, this Agenda Statement addresses
only whether the findings made by the Community Development Director’s approval of
the SDR Permit should be affirmed, affirmed in part, or reversed.
The appellant does not believe that the proposed addition is consistent with SDR
Findings D and F as shown above. The appellant asserts that: 1) with the proposed
addition, the home will be too large for the subject lot and surrounding neighborhood
and, 2) the proposed addition will result in the loss of privacy and natural light. Staff’s
analysis regarding each of these claims is set forth below:
Size of the Home
The appellant asserts that the size of the lot for 6735 Maple Drive at 6,118 square feet
is too small for the type and intensity of the proposed development. More specifically,
the appellant states the majority of the homes in the neighborhood are less than 1,900
square feet with some exceptions of larger homes on larger lots ranging from 6,500 to
8,200 square feet. The appellant further asserts that the proposed development will be
larger than any other home in the neighborhood.
As stated, the subject property is located within the R-1 Zoning District and reviewed for
compliance with the development regulations for the District. The proposed project is in
conformance with all development standards, including, but not limited to, height,
setbacks, and lot coverage.
Development Standards Allowed Proposed
Lot Size 4,000 sf (minimum) 6,113 sf
Lot Coverage (footprint) 35% (2141 sf) 33% (2022 sf)
Setback 5 feet (minimum) 6 feet 5 inches
Height 25 feet 23 feet 11 inches
The neighborhood is generally comprised of a mix of single story and two-story homes,
with lots generally ranging from 5,200-8,200 square feet. The minimum lot size in the R-
1 Zoning District is 4,000 sf (5,000 square feet for corner lots). While there are several
two-story homes on lots that are greater than 6,500 square feet, there are an equal
number of two-story homes on lots that are less-than 6,500 square feet (as shown in
Figure 2 below). In some cases, there are two-story homes on lots smaller than the
subject property. While the proposed residence will be larger than the majority of the
homes in the neighborhood, it remains consistent with the R-1 Development
Regulations. The home is designed in the same style and character of the other two-
story homes in that: a) the second story will be located over the garage side of the
existing residence; and, b) the residence will include building materials and colors, and
other similar elements like window and garage trim, that are compatible with other
residences in the vicinity.
Page 5 of 6
In addition to the development standards, the Project was also reviewed for consistency
with the purpose and intent of the R-1 Zoning District which is to provide for and protect
neighborhoods comprised of detached, single-family homes and residential use types
compatible with a quiet, family-living environment. The proposed partial two-story
addition is designed to match the existing residence and surrounding neighborhood
which is comprised of both single-story and partial two-story homes.
Privacy & Natural Light
The Appellant is asserting that two-story homes are generally adjacent to one another
and that the proposed addition will result in reduced privacy for their lot and to potential
impacts of natural light.
One of the stated purposes of the Residential Zoning Districts is to ensure adequate
light, air, privacy, and open space for each dwelling. This is primarily accomplished
through compliance with the development standards and partially through design review
which takes into account neighborhood context. As shown in Figure 2 above, the
neighborhood has a mix of single-story and two-story homes in no distinguishable
pattern. The purpose of the R-1 District development regulations is to promote
development that respects the layout of single-family residential homes through
setbacks, lot coverage and building height limitations. The project is in conformance
with these development standards and has been designed to integrate with the existing
single-family residence as well as the surrounding residences through a simple roof line
and modest window configuration. Furthermore, the design minimizes the impact on
surrounding residences by keeping the more active uses (kitchen, family and living
rooms) on the ground floor, while adding more passive uses (bedrooms, bathroom) to
Page 6 of 6
the second story addition and only included windows that are required by the Building
Code on the elevation facing the adjacent residence.
It is typical (and expected) that all four sides of a single-family detached home will have
windows. The proposed second-story addition includes the addition of two windows on
the façade facing the appellant’s home - one of which is a shower window, the other a
bedroom - both of modest size and both required per the California Residential Building
Code. The addition is designed to ensure that adequate light, air, privacy and open
space for the neighboring homes are maintained.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The Project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
pursuant to Section 15301(e)(2) (Existing Facilities) because: 1) the project is an
addition to an existing structure and the addition is less than 10,000 square feet in size;
2) the project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow
for maximum development permissible in the General Plan; and 3) the area in which the
project is located is not environmentally sensitive.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
In accordance with State law, a Public Notice regarding this Public Hearing was mailed
to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed Project including
the Appellants listed in the Appeal Letter. The Public Notice was also published in the
East Bay Times and posted at several locations throughout the City.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Appealable Action Letter dated April 17, 2018
2. Exhibit A to Attachment 1 Project Plans
3. Appeal Letter dated April 27, 2018
4. Resolution Affirming the Community Development Director's Decision and Approving
the Project
5. Exhibit A to Attachment 4 Proposed Project Plans
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Tuesday, May 22, 2018
Planning Commission May 22, 2018
Regular Meeting Page | 1
A Regular Meeting of the Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 22,
2018, in the City Council Chamber. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM., by
Commission Chair Bhuthimethee.
1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance
Attendee Name Title Status
T ara Bhuthim ethee Comm ission Chair Present
Stephen W right Comm ission Vice Chair Present
Am it Kothari Planning Comm issioner Present
Sam ir Qureshi Planning Comm issioner Absent
Scott Mittan Planning Comm issioner Present
2. Oral Communications - None.
3. Consent Calendar
3.1. Approval of the Minutes of the May 8, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVED BY: Scott Mittan, Planning Commissioner
SECOND: Amit Kothari, Planning Commissioner
AYES: Bhuthimethee, Mittan, Kothari, Wright
ABSENT: Samir Qureshi, Planning Commissioner
4. Written Communication - None.
5. Public Hearing
5.1 Lau Residential Addition Appeal of Community Development Director
approval of Site Development Review Permit (PLPA-2018-00002)
Robert Paley, Assistant Planner, made a presentation and responded to questions
posed by the Commission.
Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, responded to comments
posed by the Commission.
Commissioner Bhuthimethee opened the Public Hearing.
Jacob Berg, Appellant and neighbor located at 6765 Maple Drive , addressed the
Commission and responded to questions.
Planning Commission May 22, 2018
Regular Meeting Page | 2
Kristen Berg, Appellant and neighbor located at 6765 Maple Drive, addressed the
Commission.
Angel Lau, Lau family representative, addressed the Commission.
Yung Chen, Designer and Applicant representing the property owner of 6735
Maple Drive, Kwok Hong Lau, addressed the Commission and responded to
questions posed by the Commission.
Commissioner Bhuthimethee closed the public hearing and deliberations began.
Commissioner Bhuthimethee reopened the public hearing.
Yung Chen responded to questions posed by the Commission.
Commissioner Bhuthimethee closed the public hearing.
Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, responded to questions
posed by the commission.
Lauren Quint, Assistant City Attorney, responded to questions posed by the
Commission.
Commissioner Wright made a motion to approve the project with the following
condition applied to the Resolution approving the Site Development Review
Permit:
• The Applicant shall install a new six-foot fence with an additional two feet of
lattice.
RESOLUTION NO. 18-16
AFFIRMING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S DECISION AND
APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE LAU
RESIDENTIAL ADDITION AT 6735 MAPLE DRIVE
PLPA-2018-00002
RESULT: APROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVED BY: Stephen Wright, Planning Commission Vice Chair
SECOND: Scott Mittan, Planning Commissioner
AYES: Bhuthimethee, Wright, Mittan, Kothari
ABSENT: Samir Qureshi, Planning Commissioner
6. Unfinished Business – None.
7. New Business – None.
Planning Commission May 22, 2018
Regular Meeting Page | 3
8. Other Business
Commissioner Wright initiated a discussion regarding the Ex-Parte contact policy.
Lauren Quint, Assistant City Attorney, responded to questions posed by the
Commission and provided comment on best practices and further explained the policy.
9. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned by Commission Chair Bhuthimethee at 7:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Jeff Baker
Assistant Community Development Director
RESOLUTION NO. 18-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AFFIRMING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S DECISION AND APPROVING
A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE LAU RESIDENTIAL ADDITION AT 6735
MAPLE DRIVE (APN 941-0207-094-00)
PLPA-2018-00002
WHEREAS, Yung Chen, the designer and applicant representing Kwok Hong Lau, the
Owner, is requesting approval of a Site Development Review permit for the expansion of the
existing single story 1,846 square foot home (including garage) located at 6735 Maple Drive;
and,
WHEREAS, the proposal is for a 1,076 square foot addition and includes a 176 square
foot expansion to the rear, northwest side of the ground floor, and a 900 square foot second
story addition located over the existing garage, a portion of the existing house, and the new
ground floor expansion; and,
WHEREAS, the project is located in a Single Family Residential (R1) Zoning District
with a General Plan Land Use designation of Single Family Residential; and
WHEREAS, on April 17, 2018, the Community Development Director approved a Site
Development Review permit to allow a 1,076 square foot addition to the existing residence;
and,
WHEREAS, on April 27, 2018, the decision of the Community Development Director
was appealed in accordance with Chapter 8.136 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance ; and,
WHEREAS, the Project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act pursuant to Section 15301(e)(2) (Existing Facilities); and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Commission
recommending the Planning Commission affirm the decision of the Community Development
Director; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on said
appeal on May 22, 2018 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard ;
and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports,
recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to
evaluate the project; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did affirm the Community Development Director’s
decision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this resolution.
2 of 7
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
make the following findings and determinations regarding the Site Development Review Permit:
A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.104
Site Development Review, with the General Plan, and with any applicable Specific Plans
and design guidelines in that: 1) the project site has a General Plan land use designation
of Single Family Residential and the residential addition will be consistent with the
residential use of the property; 2) the residential addition is well designed in relation to
surrounding properties and will be designed and painted to match the existing residence;
and, 3) the residential addition has been located and designed to be integrated within the
existing and surrounding residences which are mix of one -story and partial two-story
buildings.
B. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance in that: 1) the
residential addition, as proposed, meets all applicable development regulations including
building height, setbacks and lot coverage; 2) the residential addition is well designed in
relation to the existing single-family residence in terms of colors, materials and
architectural design.
C. The design of the project is appropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding properties
and the lot in which the project is proposed in that: 1) the residential addition is designed
to integrate with the surrounding residences which includes a mix of single-story and
partial two-story homes; 2) the residential addition will meet all required minimum
setbacks in accordance with the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; 3) the residential addition will
not exceed the maximum allowable lot coverage for the R-1 zoning district in which it is
located; and, 4) the residential addition incorporates colors and materials which are
consistent with the existing single family home and surrounding residences.
D. The subject site is suitable for the type and intensity of the approved development in that:
1) the subject site is a 6,118 square feet lot located in the R-1 Single Family Residential
Zoning District with an existing single-story 1,846 square foot residence (including
garage). The addition is designed to match the existing residence and surrounding
neighborhood which is comprised of both single-story and partial two-story homes; 2)
with the residential addition, site improvements will not exceed the maximum 35% lot
coverage as required in Chapter 8.36 Development Regulations of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance; and, 3) the residential addition meets all minimum setbacks for R -1 single-
family residences as required in Chapter 8.36 Development Regulations of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance.
E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed in that: (1) the site is
generally flat and no grading is proposed to the overall site.
F. Architectural considerations, including character, scale and quality of the design, site
layout, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, screening of
unsightly uses, lighting, building materials and colors and similar elements result in a
project that is harmonious with its surroundings and compatible with other development in
the vicinity in that: 1) the residential addition has been designed to integrate with the
existing single-family residence and surrounding residences in terms of colors, materials
3 of 7
and architectural design; 2) the residential addition is for a 176 square foot ground-floor
expansion and relocation of the kitchen, and a 900 square foot second story addition over
the existing garage and expanded kitchen; and, 3) the addition will feature a stucco finish
painted to match the existing residence; composite shingles to match the existing roofing;
and new wood trim for all windows, existing and new, and the garage door.
G. Landscape considerations, including location, type, size, color, texture and coverage of
plant materials, and similar elements have been incorporated into the project to ensure
visual relief, adequate screening and an attractive environment for the public in that: (1)
the proposed project will not create new landscaping, and will not impact the existing
landscaping; and, 2) the applicant will continue to maintain the existing landscaping and
repair or replace the good neighbor fence located on the west property line.
H. The site has been adequately designed to ensure proper circulation for bicyclists,
pedestrians and automobiles in that: 1) the proposed additions will be located and
outside of all required setbacks and will not impact circulation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin hereby
affirms the Community Development Director’s decision and approves the Site Development
Review Permit for the Lau residential addition as shown on the project plans dated April 12,
2018 and included as Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance
of building permits, and shall be subject to Planning Division review and approval. The following
codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the
conditions of approval: [PL] Planning; [B] Building; [PO] Police; [PW] Public Works; [ADM]
Administration/City Attorney; [FIN] Finance; [PCS] Parks and Community Services; [F] Dublin
Fire Prevention; [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District; [LDD] Livermore Dublin Disposal;
[CO] Alameda County Department of Environmental Health; [Zone 7] Alameda County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7; [LAVTA] Livermore Amador Valley Transit
Authority; and [CHS] California Department of Health Services.
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency When Required, Prior
to:
GENERAL
1. Approval. This Site Development Review
approval for the Lau Residence is to allow for
the construction of a 1,076 square foot
residential addition, which includes a 176 square
foot addition to the ground floor and a 900
square foot addition to the second story to the
existing 1,846 square foot single-story residence
(including garage) located at 6735 Maple Drive.
(PLPA-2018-00002). This approval shall be as
depicted and indicated by the plans prepared by
PL On-going
4 of 7
Yung Chen dated received by Dublin Planning
on April 12, 2018, (included as Exhibit A) and
other plans, text and diagrams related to this
approval, stamped approved and on file in the
Community Development Department, except as
modified by the following Conditions of Approval.
2. Effective Date. This Site Development Review
approval becomes effective 10 days following
action by the Planning Commission unless
appealed before that time in accordance with the
Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
PL On-going
3. Permit Expiration. Construction or use shall
commence within one (1) year of Permit
approval or the Permit shall lapse and become
null and void.
PL 1 year from Approval
4. Time Extension. The original approving
decision-maker may, upon the Applicant’s
written request for an extension of approval prior
to expiration, and upon the determination that
any Conditions of Approval remain adequate to
assure that applicable findings of approval will
continue to be met, grant a time extension of
approval for a period not to exceed six (6)
months. All time extension requests shall be
noticed and a public hearing or public meeting
shall be held as required by the particular
Permit.
PL 1 year from Approval
5. Modifications. The Community Development
Director may consider modifications or changes
to this Permit approval if the modifications or
changes proposed comply with applicable
sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
PL On-going
6. Revocation of Permit. The Permit approval
shall 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 permit shall be subject to
citation.
PL On-going
7. Requirements and Standard Conditions. The
Applicant/Developer shall comply with applicable
City of Dublin Fire Prevention Bureau, Dublin
Public Works Department, Dublin Building
Department, Dublin Police Services, Alameda
County Flood Control District Zone 7, Livermore
Amador Valley Transit Authority, Alameda
County Public and Environmental Health, Dublin
San Ramon Services District and the California
Various Issuance of Building
Permits or Installation of
Improvements
5 of 7
Department of Health Services requirements
and standard conditions. Prior to issuance of
building permits or the installation of any
improvements related to this project, the
Applicant/Developer shall supply written
statements from each such agency or
department to the Planning Department,
indicating that all applicable conditions required
have been or will be met.
8. Fees. Applicant/Developer shall pay all
applicable fees in effect, including, but not
limited to, Planning fees, Building fees, Traffic
Impact Fees, TVTC fees, Dublin San Ramon
Services District fees, Public Facilities fees,
Dublin Unified School District School Impact
fees (per agreement between Developer and
School District), Fire Facilities Impact fees,
Noise Mitigation fees, Inclusionary Housing In-
Lieu fees, Alameda County Flood and Water
Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and
Water Connection fees; or any other fee that
may be adopted and applicable.
Various Issuance of building
permits
9. Indemnification. The 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, Community Development Director,
Zoning Administrator, or any other department,
committee, or agency of the City 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’s/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.
ADM On-going
10. Clarifications to the Conditions of Approval.
In the event that there needs to be clarification
to the Conditions of Approval, the Community
Development Director has the authority to clarify
the intent of these Conditions of Approval to the
PL On-going
6 of 7
Applicant without going to a public hearing. The
Community Development Director also has the
authority to make minor modifications to these
Conditions of Approval without going to a public
hearing in order for the Applicant to fulfill needed
improvements or mitigations resulting from
impacts to this project.
11. Controlling Activities. The
Applicant/Developer shall control all activities on
the project site so as not to create a nuisance to
existing/surrounding businesses and/or
residences.
PL Through Construction
and On-going
12. Clean-up. The Applicant/Developer shall be
responsible for clean-up and disposal of project
related trash to maintain a safe, clean, and litter-
free site.
PL Through Construction
13. Temporary Fencing. Temporary Construction
fencing shall be installed along perimeter of all
work under construction to separate the
construction operation from the public. All
construction activities shall be confined to within
the fenced area. Construction materials and/or
equipment shall not be operated or stored
outside of the fenced area or within the public
right-of-way unless approved in advance by the
City Engineer/Public Works Director.
Various During Construction
14. Construction Hours. Construction activities,
including the idling, maintenance, and warming
up of equipment, shall be limited to Monday
through Friday, and non-City holidays, between
the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. except as
otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
Extended hours or Saturday work will be
considered by the City Engineer on a case-by-
case basis. Note that the construction hours of
operation within the public right of way are more
restrictive.
PW During Construction
15. Colors, Materials and Design. The proposed
colors, materials and design for the addition
shall be consistent with the existing residence,
as noted on the approved project plans. All
exterior finishes shall blend evenly with the
existing residence with no visual distinction
between the existing home and the addition.
PL Final Inspection
PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITION
16. Good-Neighbor Fence. The applicant shall
install a good-neighbor fence on the property
PC Completion of
Construction and On-
7 of 7
line between the subject site and 6765 Maple
Drive. The fence shall be 8 feet total height and
comprised of a 6 foot tall solid wood fence
topped with 2 feet of a framed wooden lattice
capable of admitting not less than 50% light.
Going
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22th day of May 2018 by the following vote:
AYES: WRIGHT, MITTAN, BHUTHIMETHEE, KOTHARI
NOES:
ABSENT: QURESHI
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Assistant Community Development Director
June 1, 2018
Appeal of Dublin Planning Commission Resolution (5/21/18) RECEIVED
PLPA- 2018- 000002
JUN 1 2018
Dear Dublin City Council:
CiiY OF DUBLiN
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
Hello - thank you for the opportunity to appeal the proposed changes to the property at 6735
Maple Drive in Dublin. We live at the neighboring property of 6765 Maple Drive and previously
appealed the proposed changes to the Dublin Planning Commission. We have lived at 6765
Maple Drive for almost 11 years with our family, and we are against these proposed changes.
We have discussed the information below with the city planning department and planning
commission; you may also refer to our previous letter that was submitted in our appeal to the
planning commission. Primarily, our points below refer to Findings D & F (Dublin Municipal Code
section 8.104.090): "The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the
approved development" (D) and "Architectural considerations including the character, scale and
quality of the design, site layout, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings ...
result in a project that is harmonious with its surroundings and compatible with other
development in the vicinity" (F).
Our neighborhood is an older one, with houses that are 50 -plus years old. Many of the lots in
this area - commonly referred to as Echo Park - are small, and almost all of the homes are 3 -4
bedroom, single - family homes of less than 1,900 square feet. The proposed changes at 6735
Maple Drive, on a 6,100 square foot lot, would create a 6- bedroom home of more than 2,500
square feet. Simply put, this would be the largest home in our neighborhood and in the two
adjoining neighborhoods (the Allegheny loop and Spruce /Cedar loop). There are no 6- bedroom
homes in these areas; there are no homes that are 2,500 square feet in these areas. None.
Also, a 2 -story home at 6735 Maple Drive would be an invasion of privacy for our family. The
windows to our master bedroom, master bathroom and dining area face the neighboring home
at 6735; the installation of a 6 -foot fence and greenery is currently enough to afford the two
homes their expected privacy. We have two, 2 -story neighboring homes to the back of our home
(on Erie Court), and though they have a partial view of our backyard area, those homes do not
have a direct line of sight into our master bedroom, master bathroom and dining area windows.
We enjoy the ability to allow natural light come into our home and do not want that
compromised. Despite a suggestion from the Dublin city planner's office to change an upstairs
bedroom to a common room in the plans for 6735, the owner chose to keep all 6 bedrooms in
the plans, necessitating a window that looks directly into our home and backyard from the
second story. Other homes in our neighborhood do not have this privacy issue with neighboring
homes. According to Chapter 8.20.010 B, we have the right to "adequate privacy." The proposed
changes to the property at 6735 Maple Drive are outside the typical pattern of other two -story
homes in the neighborhood; the second stories of other homes generally are next to each other
and not next to a one story. This is by design.
When we decided to buy this home in 2007, we looked at the growth of East Dublin and the
amount of larger, 2 -story homes there, and we decided the smaller homes with larger yards and
space were what we preferred. To start converting these smaller homes on smaller lots into
bigger homes does not fit in with the design of the neighborhood. I do not believe the City of
Dublin wants to begin approving these types of projects in the older neighborhoods. I am hoping
the city agrees that this is not "harmonious" with the neighborhood and would set a poor
precedence and example moving forward. A home such as this does not fit in with the
compatibility and fabric of our neighborhood.
In closing, the property at 6735 Maple Drive has been unoccupied since last summer and was
previously occupied by renters for many years. Although we have not met or seen the new
homeowner, we can understand a desire to improve a property. When we spoke to the planning
commission on May 21, the commission asked good questions about neighboring properties in
our area; they seemed to agree with the concerns that we shared, but ultimately approved the
planning department's decision to approve the project. The planning commission's vote was
based on the fact that according to the planning department, the project met the developmental
standards for our area. These standards are strictly objective and based solely on numbers
such as square footage and easement. They do not adequately take the neighborhood and
other properties into consideration. Therefore, we are asking the Dublin City Council to take the
time to view this more subjectively. The planning commission calls these homes "McMansions."
Regardless of developmental standards, is this really what we want for this neighborhood?
It may be easier to explain our concerns and for you to visualize them if you are actually on our
property. We would welcome a visit from any city staff, so please let us know when you are
available to visit.
We are hoping you agree this proposal is not "physically suitable" nor "harmonious" for our
neighborhood, per the Dublin Municipal Code, and we hope the owner can further investigate
more appropriate options for this property that are in line with the compatibility of our
neighborhood. We are proud, long -time Dublin residents, and we thank you for your help and
leadership on this matter.
Sincerely yours, T
Kristen Berg (925- 548 -1323)
Jacob Berg (925 -895 -8329)
6765 Maple Drive
Dublin, CA 94568
kberc srvusd.net
jacobbergCED-yahoo.corn
RESOLUTION NO. XX - 18
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION AND APPROVING A SITE
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE LAU RESIDENTIAL ADDITION AT 6735
MAPLE DRIVE (APN 941-0207-094-00)
PLPA-2018-00002
WHEREAS, Yung Chen, the designer and applicant representing Kwok Hong Lau, the
Owner, is requesting approval of a Site Development Review permit for the expansion of the
existing single story 1,846 square foot home (including garage) located a t 6735 Maple Drive;
and,
WHEREAS, the proposal is for a 1,076 square foot addition and includes a 176 square
foot expansion to the rear, northwest side of the ground floor, and a 900 square foot second
story addition located over the existing garage, a portion of the existing house, and the new
ground floor expansion; and,
WHEREAS, the project is located in a Single Family Residential (R1) Zoning District
with a General Plan Land Use designation of Single Family Residential; and
WHEREAS, the Project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act pursuant to Section 15301(e)(2) (Existing Facilities); and
WHEREAS, on April 12, 2018, the Community Development Director approved the Site
Development Review Permit to allow a 1,076 s quare foot addition to the existing residence;
and
WHEREAS, Jacob and Kristen Berg appealled the Community Development Director’s
decision to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on May 22, 2018, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public
hearing and approved the Site Development Review permit to allow a 1,076 square foot
addition to the existing residence; and
WHEREAS, on June 01, 2018, Jacob and Kristen Berg appealed the Planning
Commissions decision to the City Council in accordance with Chapter 8.136 of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City Council recommending the City
Council affirm the decision of the Planning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on said appeal on
June 19, 2018 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations
and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate t he project;
and,
2 of 7
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council does hereby make the
following findings and determinations regarding the Site Development Review Permit:
A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.104
Site Development Review, with the General Plan, and with any applicable Specific Plans
and design guidelines in that: 1) the project site has a General Plan land use designation
of Single Family Residential and the residential addition will be consistent with the
residential use of the property; 2) the residential addition is well designed in relation to
surrounding properties and will be designed and painted to match the existing residence;
and, 3) the residential addition has been located and designed to be integrated within the
existing and surrounding residences which are mix of one-story and partial two-story
buildings.
B. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance in that: 1) the
residential addition, as proposed, meets all applicable development regulations including
building height, setbacks and lot coverage; 2) the residential addition is well designed in
relation to the existing single-family residence in terms of colors, materials and
architectural design.
C. The design of the project is appropriate to the City, the vicinity, s urrounding properties
and the lot in which the project is proposed in that: 1) the residential addition is designed
to integrate with the surrounding residences which includes a mix of single -story and
partial two-story homes; 2) the residential addition will meet all required minimum
setbacks in accordance with the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; 3) the residential addition will
not exceed the maximum allowable lot coverage for the R -1 zoning district in which it is
located; and, 4) the residential addition incorporates colors and materials which are
consistent with the existing single family home and surrounding residences.
D. The subject site is suitable for the type and intensity of the approved development in that:
1) the subject site is a 6,118 square feet lot located in the R-1 Single Family Residential
Zoning District with an existing single-story 1,846 square foot residence (including
garage). The addition is designed to match the existing residence and surrou nding
neighborhood which is comprised of both single-story and partial two-story homes; 2)
with the residential addition, site improvements will not exceed the maximum 35% lot
coverage as required in Chapter 8.36 Development Regulations of the Dublin Zonin g
Ordinance; and, 3) the residential addition meets all minimum setbacks for R -1 single-
family residences as required in Chapter 8.36 Development Regulations of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance.
E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed in that: (1) the site is
generally flat and no grading is proposed to the overall site.
F. Architectural considerations, including character, scale and quality of the design, site
layout, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, s creening of
unsightly uses, lighting, building materials and colors and similar elements result in a
3 of 7
project that is harmonious with its surroundings and compatible with other development in
the vicinity in that: 1) the residential addition has been designed to integrate with the
existing single-family residence and surrounding residences in terms of colors, materials
and architectural design; 2) the residential addition is for a 176 square foot ground -floor
expansion and relocation of the kitchen, and a 9 00 square foot second story addition over
the existing garage and expanded kitchen; and, 3) the addition will feature a stucco finish
painted to match the existing residence; composite shingles to match the existing roofing;
and new wood trim for all windows, existing and new, and the garage door.
G. Landscape considerations, including location, type, size, color, texture and coverage of
plant materials, and similar elements have been incorporated into the project to ensure
visual relief, adequate screening and an attractive environment for the public in that: (1)
the proposed project will not create new landscaping, and will not impact the existing
landscaping; and, 2) the applicant will continue to maintain the existing landscaping and
repair or replace the good neighbor fence located on the west property line.
H. The site has been adequately designed to ensure proper circulation for bicyclists,
pedestrians and automobiles in that: 1) the proposed additions will be located and
outside of all required setbacks and will not impact circulation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council hereby affirms the Planning
Commission’s decision and approves the Site Development Review Permit for the Lau
residential addition as shown on the project plans dated April 12, 2018 and included as Exhibit
A, subject to the following conditions:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance
of building permits, and shall be subject to Planning Division review and approval. The following
codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring comp liance of the
conditions of approval: [PL] Planning; [B] Building; [PO] Police; [PW] Public Works; [ADM]
Administration/City Attorney; [FIN] Finance; [PCS] Parks and Community Services; [F] Dublin
Fire Prevention; [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District; [LDD] Livermore Dublin Disposal;
[CO] Alameda County Department of Environmental Health; [Zone 7] Alameda County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7; [LAVTA] Livermore Amador Valley Transit
Authority; and [CHS] California Department of Health Services.
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency When Required, Prior
to:
GENERAL
1. Approval. This Site Development Review
approval for the Lau Residence is to allow for
the construction of a 1,076 square foot
residential addition, which includes a 176 square
foot addition to the ground floor and a 900
square foot addition to the second story to the
existing 1,846 square foot single-story residence
PL On-going
4 of 7
(including garage) located at 6735 Maple Drive.
(PLPA-2018-00002). This approval shall be as
depicted and indicated by the plans prepared by
Yung Chen dated received by Dublin Planning
on April 12, 2018, and other plans, text and
diagrams related to this approval, stamped
approved and on file in the Community
Development Department, except as modified
by the following Conditions of Approval.
2. Effective Date. This Site Development Review
approval becomes effective 10 days following
action by the Planning Commission unless
appealed before that time in accordance with the
Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
PL On-going
3. Permit Expiration. Construction or use shall
commence within one (1) year of Permit
approval or the Permit shall lapse and become
null and void.
PL 1 year from Approval
4. Time Extension. The original approving
decision-maker may, upon the Applicant’s
written request for an extension of approval prior
to expiration, and upon the determination that
any Conditions of Approval remain adequate to
assure that applicable findings of approval will
continue to be met, grant a time extension of
approval for a period not to exceed six (6)
months. All time extension requests shall be
noticed and a public hearing or public meeting
shall be held as required by the particular
Permit.
PL 1 year from Approval
5. Modifications. The Community Development
Director may consider modifications or changes
to this Permit approval if the modifications or
changes proposed comply with applicable
sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
PL On-going
6. Revocation of Permit. The Permit approval
shall 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 permit shall be subject to
citation.
PL On-going
7. Requirements and Standard Conditions. The
Applicant/Developer shall comply with applicable
City of Dublin Fire Prevention Bureau, Dublin
Public Works Department, Dublin Building
Department, Dublin Police Services, Alameda
County Flood Control District Zone 7, Livermore
Various Issuance of Building
Permits or Installation of
Improvements
5 of 7
Amador Valley Transit Authority, Alameda
County Public and Environmental Health, Dublin
San Ramon Services District and the California
Department of Health Services requirements
and standard conditions. Prior to issuance of
building permits or the installation of any
improvements related to this project, the
Applicant/Developer shall supply written
statements from each such agency or
department to the Planning Department,
indicating that all applicable conditions required
have been or will be met.
8. Fees. Applicant/Developer shall pay all
applicable fees in effect, including, but not
limited to, Planning fees, Building fees, Traffic
Impact Fees, TVTC fees, Dublin San Ramon
Services District fees, Public Facilities fees,
Dublin Unified School District School Impact
fees (per agreement between Developer and
School District), Fire Facilities Impact fees,
Noise Mitigation fees, Inclusionary Housing In-
Lieu fees, Alameda County Flood and Water
Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and
Water Connection fees; or any other fee that
may be adopted and applicable.
Various Issuance of building
permits
9. Indemnification. The 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, Community Development Director,
Zoning Administrator, or any other department,
committee, or agency of the City 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’s/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.
ADM On-going
10. Clarifications to the Conditions of Approval.
In the event that there needs to be clarification
PL On-going
6 of 7
to the Conditions of Approval, the Community
Development Director has the authority to clarify
the intent of these Conditions of Approval to the
Applicant without going to a public hearing. The
Community Development Director also has the
authority to make minor modifications to these
Conditions of Approval without going to a public
hearing in order for the Applicant to fulfill needed
improvements or mitigations resulting from
impacts to this project.
11. Controlling Activities. The
Applicant/Developer shall control all activities on
the project site so as not to create a nuisance to
existing/surrounding businesses and/or
residences.
PL Through Construction
and On-going
12. Clean-up. The Applicant/Developer shall be
responsible for clean-up and disposal of project
related trash to maintain a safe, clean, and litter-
free site.
PL Through Construction
13. Temporary Fencing. Temporary Construction
fencing shall be installed along perimeter of all
work under construction to separate the
construction operation from the public. All
construction activities shall be confined to within
the fenced area. Construction materials and/or
equipment shall not be operated or stored
outside of the fenced area or within the public
right-of-way unless approved in advance by the
City Engineer/Public Works Director.
Various During Construction
14. Construction Hours. Construction activities,
including the idling, maintenance, and warming
up of equipment, shall be limited to Monday
through Friday, and non-City holidays, between
the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. except as
otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
Extended hours or Saturday work will be
considered by the City Engineer on a case-by-
case basis. Note that the construction hours of
operation within the public right of way are more
restrictive.
PW During Construction
15. Colors, Materials and Design. The proposed
colors, materials and design for the addition
shall be consistent with the existing residence,
as noted on the approved project plans. All
exterior finishes shall blend evenly with the
existing residence with no visual distinction
between the existing home and the addition.
PL Completion of
Construction and On-
Going
7 of 7
PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITION
16. Good-Neighbor Fence. The applicant shall
install a good-neighbor fence on the property
line between the subject site and 6765 Maple
Drive. The fence shall be 8 feet total height and
comprised of a 6 foot tall solid wood fence
topped with 2 feet of a framed wooden lattice
capable of admitting not less than 50% light.
PC Completion of
Construction and On-
Going
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of June 2018 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
GENERAL NOTES :
I. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
A- ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS AT THE SITE.
B. ANY CONDITION WHICH IN HIS OPINION MIGHT ENDANGER THE STABILITY OF THE
STRUCTURE
THE CONTRACTORSHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT AND THE STRUCTURAL
ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCY OR OMISSION BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK,
Z All WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE MINIMUM STANDARDS OF THE LATEST EUDON OL
2016 WC BUILDING CODE, AND ALL OTHER REGULATING AGENCIES E%EflG51NG
AUTHORITY OViR ANY PORTION OF THE WORK, INCLUDING THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
DIVISION OF THE INDUSTRIAL SAFETY AND CAL / OSHA.
3. ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE BEST PRACTICE PREVAILING IN THE VARIOUS TRADES
COMPRISING THE WORK.
4. ANY ASTM DESIGNATIONS SHALL BE AS AMENDED TO DATE.
5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TEMPORARY ERECTION BRACING AND SHORING FOR ALL
STRUCTURAL MEMBERS OR AS REQUIRED FOR STRUCTURAL STABILITY OF THE STRUCTURE
DURING ALL PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION.
& SPECIFIC NOTES AND DETAILS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER GENERAL NOTES AND DETAILS.
CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE GENERAL
THE ARCHITECTURAL. ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL GENERAL NOTES SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER THESE GENERAL NOTES.
DIVISION 1 - GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. THE GENERAL NOTES ARE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION.
THEIR PURPOSE IS ONE OF INFORMING THE OWNER, CONTRACTOR AND SUB - CONTRACTORS OF
SOME SPECIFIC INFORMATION WITH WHICH TO BECOME AWARE AND FAMILIAR.
L THE GENERAL NATURE OF THESE NOTES SHALL IN NO WAY DIMINISH THE CONTRACTOR AND
SUB - CONTRACTORS FROM COMPLETING ALL WORK IN STRICT CONFORMANCE WITH ALL ASPECTS
OF THE BUILDING CODES AND WITH OTHER RULES, REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING
THE PLACE OF THE BUILDING. EACH SUB - CONTRACTOR SHALL BECOME FAMILIAR PATH ANY
PART OF THE AFOREMENTIONED BUILDING CODES. RULES. ETC. THAT MAY AFFECT HIS WORK.
SOME CODES THAT MAY AFFECT THE WORK ARE BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE CURRENT EDITION
OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE. UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE,
UNIFORM ELECTRICAL CODE. NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, UNIFORM FIRE CODE, ARCHITECTURAL
BARRIERS LAWS.
3. SCOPE OF PERMIT
a. LIMIT OF AUTHORIZATION : THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT IS NOT AN APPROVAL OR AN
AUTHORIZATION OF THE WORK SPECIFIED THEREIN. A PERMIT IS MERELY AN APPUGATION
FOR INSPECTION , THE ISSUANCE OF WHICH ENTITLED THE PERMITTEE TO INSPECTION OF
THE WORK WHICH IS DESCRIBED THEREN-
PERMITS ISSUED UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CODE SHALL NOT RELIEVE THE OWNER
OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR SECURING REQUIRED PERMITS FOR WORK TO BE DONE WHICH IS
REGULATED BY ANY OTHER CODE, DEPARTMENT OR DIVISION OF THE CITY IN WHICH THE
WORK IS PERFORMED.
b- VALIDITY OF OTHER LAWS- NETHER ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT NOR THE APPROVAL BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF ANY DOCUMENT SHALL CONSTITUTE AN APPROVAL OF ANY VIOLATION OF
ANY PROVISION OF THIS CODE OR OF ANY OTHER LAW OR ORDINANCE, AND A PERMIT OR
OTHER DOCUMENT PURPORTING TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE ANY LAW SHALL NOT BE
VALID WITH RESPECT THERETO.
L. ALL WORK, CONSTRUCTION AND MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL PROVISIONS OF THE
CURRENT EDITION OF THE GOVERNING BUILDING CODE AND WITH OTHER RULES, RECULATIONS,
AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THE PLACE OF THE BUILDING BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS
TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE DRAWINGS AND LABOR, MATERIALS OR BOTH TO INSTALL HIS
WORK IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE BUILDING CODE AND TO BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT ANY DISCREPANCIES OR CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUILDING
CODE AND THE DRAWINGS. DIVISION 1 SHALL APPLY TO ALL DIVISIONS.
L DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS AT THE JOB SITE SHALL BE VTAIEED BY THE CONTRACTOR (S).
DISCREPANCIES IN THE DRAWINGS OR BETWEEN THE DRAWINGS AND ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS
SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE ARCHITECT, CORRECTED DRAWINGS OR INSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE
ISSUED BY THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO THE INSTALLATION OF ANY WORK.
CONCRETE
1. CONCRETE USED IN THE WORK SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING ULTIMATE COMPRESSIVE
STRENGHT AT AGE 28 DAYS
LOCATION IN METHOD OF ULTIMATE
STRUCTURE PROPORTIONING SINGINGIH
A. SLAB ON GRADE STANDARD 2500
B. GONG. PILE & GRADE BEAM I OR II 3000
C COLUMN FOOTINGS I OR II 2500
D- CONCRETE COLUMNS IT 5000
E. CONCRETE WALLS I OR If 3000
F- STRUCTURAL CONCRETE SLABS I OR II 3000
C CONCRETE BEAMS I OR II 3000
2 ALL CONCRETE SHALL BE STONE CONCRETE GRADE A UTLIZING AGGREGATE CONFORMING TO
ASTM C33. CEMENT SHALL BE TYPE I OR II CONFORMING TO ASTM 0150.
3. CONCRETE COVER OVER REINFORCING STEEL SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS. U.N.O.:
A. CONCRETE AGAINST EARTH (UNFORMED) 3'
R CONCRETE AGAINST EARTH (FORMED) V
C. GO CRETE BEAMS AND COLUMNS (STRUCTURAL) 2"
0. CONCRETE SLABS (STRUCTURAL) 3/4' U.N.O.
E CONCRETE.WALLS - INTERIOR FACE. I'
- EXTERIOR FACE 1 - 1 1/2"
4. BEFORE CONCRETE IS PLACED THE CONTRACTOR STALL COORDINATE AND CHECK MIN ALL
TRADES TO EN5URE THE PROPER PLACEMENT OF ALL OPENINGS, SLEEVES, CURBS, INSERTS,
DEPRESSIONS, ETC., RELATING TO THE WORK, AS SHOWN IN THE DRAWINGS. ANY CHANGE OR
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER AND THE LOCAL BUILDING
AGENCY PRIOR TO PLACING OF CONCRETE.
5. ALL CONCRETE WITH A COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH IN EXCESS OF 2500 P. AT 28 DAYS AND
ALL FOUNDATION CONCRETE SHALL BE PLACED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A DEPUTY
INSPECTOR LICENSED BY THE LOCAL BUILDING UMCIAL.
6, PLACEMENT DRAWINGS FOR REINFORCING STEEL SHALL BE PROVIDED AT THE JOB SITE A
MINIMUM OF ONE WORKING DAY PRIOR TO PLACING OF REINFORCING STEEL
7. CONCRETE QUALITY : INSPECTION AND TESTS SHALL CONFORM TO THE LOCAL BUILDING CODE
REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCRETE DESIGNED BY ULTIMATE STRENGTH METHOD.
B. ALL CONCRETE MIXES SHALL CONFORM TO THE PROPORTIONS ESTABLISHED BY CODE FOR THE
VARIOUS CONCRETE STRENGTHS REQUIRED FOR THE WORK. CONTRACTOR SHALL ENGAGE A
CERTIFIED INDEPENDENT TESTING LABORATORY TO PREPARE MIX DESIGNS FOR THE WORK.
COPIES OF SUCH MIX DESIGN, AS WELL AS, 7 DAYS AND 28 DAYS CYLINDER TEST RESULTS
SHALL BE SENT TO THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER AND THE LOCAL BUILDING OFFICIAL. OBTAIN
APPROVAL PRIOR TO ITS USE IN THE WORK FROM THE LOCAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
REINFORCING STEEL
L ALL REINFORCING STEEL SHALL BE NEW STOCK DEFORMED BARS CONFORMING TO
ASTM A615, AS FOLLOWS:
a STIRRUPS ._... GRADE 60 DES ...... GRADE 40
b. STEEL IN MASONRY WALLS ......... GRADE 60 L I N _0- ON SECTIONS
. ALL OTHER ........ ... . ...................... GRADE 60
d. WALL DOWELS TO FOOTINGS ........ GRADE 40
2. WELDED WIRE FABRIC SHALL BE MADE OF COLD DRAWN WIRE AND SHALL CONFORM TO
ASTM A185.
3. ALL BARS SHALL BE FREE OF RUST, GREASE, MILL SCALE OR ANY MATERIAL WHICH MIGHT
AFFECT ITS BOND TO CONCRETE.
4. ALL BAR BEND SHALL BE MADE COLD.
5. BAR LAPS SHALL BE MADE AWAY FROM POINTS OF MAXIMUM STRESS OR AT LOCATIONS
SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS AND AS INDICATED BELOW. THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF ANY LAP
SHALL BE 2 FEET.
a. COLUMNS -- 36 DIAMETERS.
b. HORIZONTAL STEEL IN CONCRETE SLABS, WALLS, BEAMS, AND GIRDERS -- 36 DIA.
e- CONCRETE BLOCK MASONRY - 40 DIAMETERS.
6. ALL TESTING OF REINFORCING STEEL SHALL BE AS REQUIRED BY LOCAL BUILDING CODE OR
AS OTHERWISE NOTED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS.
7. PRIOR TO WELDING PROCEDURE, APPROVAL IS REWIRED FOR WELDING OF GRADE 60
REINFORCING STEEL
WOOD FRAMING
I. ALL LUMBER SHALL BE STRESS GRADE DOUGLAS ER (COAST REGION) UNLESS OTHERWISE
NOTED.
a- 2.4 & 3x4 STUDS .............. ........................ STUD GR. 12
B. ROOF JOISTS & 2X6 STUDS ........................ D.F. N0. 2 SJP
c. FLOOR JOISTS ................................ .-------------------- _- D.F. N 2
d. ALL BEAMS ................. _ ................ _ ... ...................... D.F. N0. I
e. BEAMS WHEN CALLED FOR ON PLANS ................... SELECT STRUCT. B & S 1600 PSI
L. POSTS D.F.
2. ALL WOOD IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE GROUND, OR WITH MASONRY OR CONCRETE WITHIN
18 INCHES OF THE GROUND, SHALL BE TREATED IWTH A PRESRVATIVE, OR SHALL BE DECAY
RESISTANT WOOD AS PRESCRIBED IN DNISION 31 ( WOOD PRESERVATIVE ). ( IF REDWOOD IS
USE INCREASED NAILING BY 54% )
3 ALL WALLS SHALL BE BOLTED TO FOUNDATIONS ( CONCRETE OR CONCRETE BLOC( ) WITH
5/8" DIA ANCHOR BOLTS WITHIN 12 INCHES OF THE ENDS OF EACH WALL PANEL AND NOT
MORE THAN 4' -0" O.C. OR 7/32" DIA SHOT PINS AT 3' -0" O.C. EXCEPT AS CALLED OUT
FOR SHEAR WALLS, REFER TO SHEAR WALL SCHEDULE
SHOT PINS TO BE OMARK - RR1 2333, HIED - RR 12582.
4. 2 X JOISTS SHALL BE BLOCKED AT SUPPORTS AND AT 8 FEET O.C. ( AND RAFTERS
GREATER THAN 10 INCHES DEPTHS AT SUPPORTS AND 10 FEET O.C.) WITH 1 X 4 WOOD
CROSS BRIDGING SOLID 2X BLOCKING. 2 INCHES SHALLOWER THAN JOISTS OR APPROVED
METAL CROSS BRIDGING. BLOCKING AT ENDS MAY BE OMITTED WHERE JOIST HANGERS
APPROVED FOR USE WITHOUT SOLID BLOCKING ARE USED.
5. A DOUBLE PLATE MADE OF TWO MEMBERS OF THE SAME SIZE AS THE STUDS SHALL BE
PLACED AT THE TOP OF EVERY BEARING PARTITION OR EXTERIOR WALL. SUCH DOUBLE
PLATES SHOULD BE LAPPED AT CORNER, AND JOINTS, IN UPPER AND LOWER MEMBERS
SHALL BE AT LEAST FOUR FEET APART, EXCEPT AT CORNERS 7 -16d NAILS MIN. AT 4' -0"
SPLICE.
6. EXTERIOR WALLS AND BEARING PARTITIONS SHALL BE FRAMED OF 2 X 4 STUDS AT 16' 0 -C.
WHEN SUPPORTING LOADS FROM ROOF AND MAXIMUM OF ONE FLOOR ABOVE AND SHALL BE
FRAMED OF 3X4 OR 2X6 STUDS AT 16" OC. WHEN SUPPORTING LOADS FROM ROOF AND
TWO OR MORE FLOORS ABOVE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON DRAWINGS. AT STAGGERED
STUD WALL USE 2 -2X4 AT 16" O.C.. STAGGERED AT ALL FLOORS. SEE ARCHITECT.
7. EVERY WOOD STUD BEARING WALL OR BEARING PARTITION SHALL BE BRACED AT EACH END
OR AS NEAR THERETO AS POSSIBLE, ANO AT LEAST EVERY 25 FEET OF ITS LENGTH. THE
TYPE OF BRACING SHALL MEET THE CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS PURPOSE.
8. FLOOR JOISTS SHALL BE DOUBLED UNDER PARTITIONS RUNNING PARALLEL TO THE JOISTS.
USE DOUBLE STUDS OR 4X4 POSTS UNDER DOUBLE JOISTS OR 4X BEAMS OR LARGER, TYP.
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON FRAMING PLANS.
9. ALL NAILING SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE NTH THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE
LOCAL BUILDING CODE, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE SHOWN, AND SHALL BE DONE WITH COMMON
WIRE NAILS UNLESS OTHER TYPE OF NAILS IS ALLOWED BY THE LOCAL BUILDING CODE.
( SEE ALSO PLYWOOD NOTES ).
10. BOLTS SHALL BE UNFINISHED BOLTS CONFORMING TO ASTM A -307.
11. PLYWOOD SHALL BE INTERIOR TYPE NTH EXTERIOR GLUE CONFORMING TO PSI -84 OF GRADE
CALLED FOR BELOW, LAID WITH FACE GRAIN PERPENDICULAR TO SUPPORTS. USE COMMON
NAILS ONLY UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER AND LOCAL
BUILDING OFFICIAL
o. ROOF SHEATHING SHALL HE : 1/2' PLYWOOD, STRUCT II (STO.) NAILED WITH 8d
NAILS AT 6" O.C. AT ALL DIAPHRAGM AND WALL BOUNDARIES CONTINUOUS PANEL
EDGES ARE NOT BLOCKED, 8d NAILS 6' O.C. AT PLYWOOD PANEL EDGES AND 8d NAILS AT
If O.C. TO INTERMEDIATE SUPPORTS- INDEX 1 32/16, U.N.O.
b. FLOOR SHEADNG SHALL BE 3/4" PLYWOOD, STRUCT. II (STD.) NAILED PATH ION NAILS AT 6"
6" AT ALL DIAPHRAGM AND WALL BOUNDARIES. CONTINUOUS PANEL EDGES ARE NOT
BLOCKED, 10d NAILS AT 6' O.C. AT PLYWOOD PANEL EDGES AND 10d NAILS AT 10
O.C. TO INTERMEDIATE SUPPORTS. INDEX 132/16, U.N.O.
C. PLYWOOD SHEADNG SHALL BE INSPECTED AND APPROVED BY BUILDING INSPECTOR
PRIOR TO COVERING WITH FLOOR OR ROOF MATERIAL
d. SOLID BLOCKING AT EDGES REQUIRED FOR PLYWOOD ONLY WHERE CALLED FOR ON
DRAWINGS.
12. ALL FASTENERS, BOLTS, NAILS AND CONNECTOR THAT ARE EPOSED TO WEATHER SHALL
BE HOT DIPPED ZINC COATED GALVANIZED, STAINLESS STEEL, SILICON BONZE OR COPPER PER
SECTION 2304.4 CDC.
ti
SITE PLAN
SCOPE ❑F WORK;
2ND STORY ADDITION ON TOP HE GARAGE
2 BED RMS, AND 2 BATH, LAUNDRY ROOM
RECEIVED
APR 12 2018
DUBLIN PLANNING
0 BACK YARD DRAIN INLET
- - 3" DRAIN PIPE
WATER DRAIN DIRECTION
(E)SINGL STORY
SECTION
City of Dublin
APPROVED
MAPLE R. LPA
P
Resolution No.:
Resolution Date: 5122-11 R
7,,p, arswo.
6735 MAPLE DR
VICINITY MAP
A -O 6735 MAPLE AVE, DUBUNM, CA.
I PROJECT DATA
OWNER /AGENT: MR CHEN
6735 MAPLE OR
DUBLIN, CA.
SITE INFORMATION:
6735 MAPLE DR.
DUBLIN, CA.
OCCUPANCY TYPE: SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: VB
ZONING DISTRICT: RI
APN, 941 - 207 -94
LOT CALCULATION:
EXIST BUILDING AREA: 1446 SO FT.
EXIST BUILDING FLUOR AREA: 1446 SO FT.
NEW ADDED BACK YARD: 176 SF
GARAGE: 400 SF
2ND STORY ADDIT1114 900 SF
LOT AREA: 6118 SO. FT.
LOT COVERAGE: 2022/6110 - 1007=337.
APPLICABLE CODES:
CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (CFO) 2016 EDITION
CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CODE (CRBC) 2016 EDITION
CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CELT 2016 EDITION
CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CEDE (CMG) 2016 EDITION
CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CPC) 2016 EDITION
CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC) 2016 EDITION
CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE 2016 EDITION
CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARD CODE(CGBC)2016 EDITION
CITY ORDINANCES AND ANY OTHER APPLICABLE LOCAL
AND STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS.
(n
LLj
O
Z z
J Q
Q �
CEf 0-
W W
Z �
W
CD (n
P3
Q
N
1')
t\
p I
n
Ld
Z Q U Z
W g W
S Z =
U J U
7 m
EC r -D ED
}
SHEET
INDEX
AO
TITLE SHEET, SITE
PLAN AND GENERAL NOTES
Al
EXISTING /PROPOSED
FLOOR PLAN
A2
PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR PLAN, ROOF PLAN
A3
EXISTING /PROPOSED
ELEVATIONS
A4
EXISTING /PROPOSED
ELEVATIONS
A5
EXISTING /PROPOSED
ELEVATIONS
A6
EXISTING /PROPOSED
ELEVATIONS
A7
CROSS SECTIONS
a
co D cV
DAIS
I PROJECT DATA
OWNER /AGENT: MR CHEN
6735 MAPLE OR
DUBLIN, CA.
SITE INFORMATION:
6735 MAPLE DR.
DUBLIN, CA.
OCCUPANCY TYPE: SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: VB
ZONING DISTRICT: RI
APN, 941 - 207 -94
LOT CALCULATION:
EXIST BUILDING AREA: 1446 SO FT.
EXIST BUILDING FLUOR AREA: 1446 SO FT.
NEW ADDED BACK YARD: 176 SF
GARAGE: 400 SF
2ND STORY ADDIT1114 900 SF
LOT AREA: 6118 SO. FT.
LOT COVERAGE: 2022/6110 - 1007=337.
APPLICABLE CODES:
CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (CFO) 2016 EDITION
CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CODE (CRBC) 2016 EDITION
CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CELT 2016 EDITION
CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CEDE (CMG) 2016 EDITION
CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CPC) 2016 EDITION
CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC) 2016 EDITION
CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE 2016 EDITION
CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARD CODE(CGBC)2016 EDITION
CITY ORDINANCES AND ANY OTHER APPLICABLE LOCAL
AND STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS.
(n
LLj
O
Z z
J Q
Q �
CEf 0-
W W
Z �
W
CD (n
P3
Q
N
1')
t\
p I
n
Ld
Z Q U Z
W g W
S Z =
U J U
7 m
EC r -D ED
}
Z
O
W �
D �
W
U
Q CD
F-
Z �
r) m c�
a
co D cV
DAIS
10 -26 -2017
REV
DRAWN
: YUNG CHEN
SHEET
A 0
-6"
11B
v
o �
- (N)KITCH N
6
NEW STAIR TC UPPER LEVEL
(N)ISLAND
r
E)EAMILY RM
i
J A
(F)IST F -_OOR PLAN
A -�
1/11,
'I - C_09
(E)CLST
2 CARS GARAGE
0
a
0
0
(E)BED RM
(E)C,LST
fo f)BAl
(E)DINING RM
20' -9" '2'-6'7f�
R 0'
B
(-72--� (N)IST FLOOR PFAN
A -1 1/4" a 1'-0"
2'-0'
(E)48X54 S-
- (E)BED RM
(E)BED RM
«L ANG RM
\`_ )
an
z
z Q
Q w
J Z
Cl� CY
O O
� w
z CD
O
O
Y a-
W a—
i
i
O
cV
rn
I I
cl�
r
p
w
d v C
w
J Q
o
U
�z�
Z Q
Z
r-mo
u7
I0-26 -2017
�e)
�
0
�(D 0
z
A -1
z
O
� o
o �
w
d v C
o
o
�z�
r-mo
DATE :
I0-26 -2017
REV:
DRAWN T •AJNG CHEN
SHEET
A -1
i (N)M FLOOR PLAN
A
1/4" _ 1'-0"
(-2---- (F)(N)R OOF PLAN
��-J2 1/4" = l'-o"
3 (N)2ND FLOOR ROOF PLAN
A -2 1/4" - 1'4'
z
0-
a
� z
o ¢
o J
0 0
z o
N �
N
M
C
W
J Q �
d
Z Q U Z
W - W
2 Z =
r m
Q0 0 z
O
� 0
�o
w
Q o
�J
o Imo
�oN
DATE = 10 -20 -2017
REV
DRAWN : YUNC CHEN
SHEET
A -2
(E)ASPHALT
(E)SOUTH ELEVATION
-A -3 114" = l' -0°
SHINGLE ROOF
L
3° -WOOD 1R
i
4" WOOD
(N)STU °CT FINISH -
(E)SflJCCO FINISH
CI O O D C-1 L7
O O I= F C7 0 3"
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
2 (N)SOUTH ELEVATION
A-
_ 3 1/4" = 1' -0"
(E)ASPHALT
SHINGLE ROOF
I. -�.3' WO ED TRIM
- d'. WOOD SILL
(E)STUCCO FINSH
z
Q
T=
w
w
z
0
� o
d �
w
J Q �
N Q o
w sz�
o J
1 M
r- - z
a 7 d
CJ
i
DATE - 12 - -19 -2017
REV
DRAWN : TUNG CH€N
SHEET Q
! t
M
n
W
-i Q
W Q U
W
_ z
S
J
m
tr
CD
5 cfl �
Z
r
z
0
� o
d �
w
J Q �
N Q o
w sz�
o J
1 M
r- - z
a 7 d
CJ
i
DATE - 12 - -19 -2017
REV
DRAWN : TUNG CH€N
SHEET Q
! t
(E)WEST ELEVATION
(N)ASPHALT
SHINGLE ROOF
i
(E)ASPHALf
SHINGLE ROOF
row
(N)WES I ELEVATION
A -4 1/4" = V -0°
i
�n
z
0
Q
w
w
N
I
r7
o I
J Q �
a
z Q U z
W W
= Z =
U Ln J U
CC r -D
(D c Z
z
O
� O
D o
Q
LIT
J Q >
Q U C
°c Lc) J
HATE : 12 -10 -2017
REV
DRAWN : YUNG CHEN
SHEET
A -4
(L)NORTH LLLVATION
A -5 1/4" = 1' -0"
(F)STUCCO FINISH -
I
-2 (N)NOR IH L LLVA T iON
A -s 1/4" = 1' -0"
\
NJASPHALT _I
SHINGLE ROOF
i
1
3" W D TRIM
i
(N)STUCCO FNISH - -- -� 4" WOOD SILL -
I--
O
w
w
v
N
M
Lo
p I
� Q
2
Z Q V Z
LU - W
= Z =
C -,J U
7 M
2 f- > CD
(0 p Z
z
0
C�
Q
�Q>
n-
�' o
z ~
3 4� J V7
I-) m o
1- =D z
C CV
DATE : 12 -10 -2017
REV
DRAWN i YUNG NEN
SHEEf
A -5
�T
(E)EAST ELEVATION
A -6 1/4" = I' -0'
-6
III I Will 11 Imill Il 11 wil 11111 willill
(N)ASPHALT
SHINGLE ROOF
— 3" WOOD TRIM
72' -6"
i
(N)STUCCO FINISH - (E)ASPHALT
SHINGLE ROOF
I
i - - - - - - - (E)STUCCO FINISH - -'
a
2 (N)EAST ELEVATION
z
0
LLJ
Q
J
W
N
I
�
I
a a
W .
J Q
D
Z Q
Z
W_
W
zs
M, M
� Z ~
drop
Z
L7
Ln M
s
}
b �
0
a a
-f CD
O
� Z ~
L7
Ln M
riM D
1 o c z
a
Qo d N
I
DATE -
12 -10 -2017
REV
DRAWN
: YUNG CHEN
SHEET
A-6 6