pages: PlanningBoard/2006-01-09.pdf, 9
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2006-01-09 | 9 | Ms. Jeanne Nader, appellant, 305 Spruce Street, noted that they had two young children and were very concerned that they lived next to a property with contaminated soil. They had been told the soil would be removed, but it has not been removed because of the unpermitted grading performed by the owner. She noted that there were serious flooding problems, and they did not know how much contamination is in the soil. She did not agree with staff's representation of their appeals, and noted that she and Mr. Lynch have spent considerable time on this issue. They have lived next to this site since 1997, and have had to deal with various owners not maintaining the property, violating Municipal ordinances. She took issue with the staff report claim that they had opposed development in 1998, when there was no development in 1998; they were opposed to the owner cutting down a Coastal Live Oak, which was a protected historic monument in Alameda. She noted that because of their appeal to the Historic Advisory Board, the ordinance that protected that species of tree was strengthened. She stated that staff also excluded some information from 2002 when they approached the Planning Board about problems with the design by the second owner. At that time, staff told the Planning Board that their testimony had been inaccurate, and they appealed to the City Council. The then-Planning & Building Director Greg Fuz decided that their testimony was indeed accurate, and the owner was asked to withdraw his plan at that time. Another plan was submitted, and the property was sold to the current owner. She believed the Residential Design Guidelines did apply to their neighborhood. She inquired whether the same standards had been applied to any other neighborhood in Alameda. She noted that staff said there was an increased setback; she noted that there was no increased setback at their house, and that it remained at seven feet. Mr. Dana Sack, applicant, noted that the three other applicants were Hai Lam, 1107 Buena Vista; Bill Wong, 373 Ninth Street #301, Oakland; and Ivan Chic, 373 Ninth Street #301, Oakland. He added that they did not wish to speak, and that they asked him to speak on their behalf. He noted that the appellants addressed events regarding prior owners, and that Mr. Lam was a local resident who wished to take over the property in compliance with the City Council and Planning Board. He added that he had done everything the City has asked for to protect the trees, take care of the hazardous material concerns, and had complied with every requirement. He noted that Mr. Lam paid to have a second test done by an appropriate lab, using the appropriate standard; that test showed that the piles and the land in general complied with the City and EPA standards, with the exception of arsenic. He added that arsenic is present in land that has come from the Valley in alluvial silt, and is present in most parcels in the area. He believed the piles and the hazardous materials were red herrings, and noted that the existing house on the neighboring lot has virtually no setback. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Board member Lynch noted that based on the document submitted by the appellant and the staff report, there were some inconsistencies; however, he believed the inconsistencies were motivated by different reasons. He believed the item was straightforward, and in his experience with grading permits, a 100 cubic yards plus or minus was a nominal difference. He believed there was some misinterpretation of the Regional Water Quality Control Board standards. He believed the staff report was very thorough, and found the neighbors' comments to be anecdotal. He believed the requirements placed on the property should be applied to the project before the Board today, which was for a single-family home. He was most concerned with the process followed by City staff, and Planning Board Minutes Page 9 January 9, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-01-09.pdf |