pages: PlanningBoard/2006-01-09.pdf, 8
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2006-01-09 | 8 | 9-B. DR04-0075; 301 Spruce Street; Applicants: Bill Wong for Hai Ky Lam; Appellants: Patrick Lynch and Jeanne Nader (AT). Public hearing to consider an appeal of the Planning and Building Director's approval of a Major Design Review to construct a new 2- story single family residence on a vacant lot at 301 Spruce Street. The site is located within an R-4, Neighborhood Residential District. President Cunningham advised that more than five speaker slips had been received. M/S Lynch/McNamara and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes. AYES - 6; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - - 0 Mr. Tai summarized the staff report. The appellants claim that staff has not complied with the conditions of approval established by previous City Council and Historical Advisory Board actions. He emphasized that these conditions stand separate from the Design Review process, and that they are parallel; they would be in place prior to Building Permit approval. Staff recommended that the Planning & Building Director's approval be upheld by the Planning Board. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Patrick Lynch, appellant, 305 Spruce Street, noted that his property was adjacent to the subject vacant lot. He distributed written comments to the Planning Board, and noted that a copy of an article from the August 28-31, 1998 Alameda Journal was included in that packet. The article referenced a Use Permit for Alameda Point, and the level of contamination on the site. In this particular case, the Planning Board decided to go against staff's recommendation, and did not approve the Use Permit. He noted that subsequent testing at this site proved that the Planning Board made the proper decision. He noted that the staff report stated that soil samples collected from illegal fill placed at the site in 2002 are free form chemical contaminants. He included a table with the results of two samples performed for Vanadium, a Proposition 65 chemical. The May 2005 sample exceeded the preliminary remediation goal, as well as an environmental screening level established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. He believed this information meant that the site was not safe for residential use until a more thorough investigation was done into the source and contamination levels in the illegal fill. Mr. Lynch noted that the City Council resolution also required specific analytical methods be used to test the soil. The soil report was required to be submitted prior to Design Review approval, and he believed it did not comply with the criteria established in the City Council resolution. The analytical methods used was Method 620A, and the City Council resolution specified that Method 610C be used. In addition, the lab must also be accredited to perform the analysis; the lab used was not accredited to perform Method 610C. The City Council resolution also required that a minimum number of samples be collected for different analysis based upon the volume of the stockpile. The grading permit was issued for 100 cubic yards of soil after the fact with an enforcement penalty. He noted that there was over 100 cubic yards of soil at the site. Planning Board Minutes Page 8 January 9, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-01-09.pdf |