3B Public Hearing 2006 0905 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

PLN2006-00074 (Appeal of the BZA Approval ofPLN2005-00063) 5 September 5, 2006 The Chief Building Official has reviewed the proposed building placement and structural configuration of the main dwelling and in-law unit and has made a preliminary determination that the site stability is such that the project should not affect the hillside. His review of the soil and geologic reports prepared for the 1989 subdivision as well as on-site observation of the granite-like Gabbro ("black granite") outcropping of the northern hill leads him to believe that the site is stable. This preliminary determination must be verified by specific soils studies and geotechnical reports for this specific project (which are also required by the Engineering Department) prior to issuance of any approvals for grading or building permits for the structures. Furthermore, the soils engineer ,that prepared the reports is required to be present on site at the time of grading for the building pad, to ensure that the depths and location of the soils borings correspond to the actual foundation placement. Summary of Public Outreach Efforts For the July 20, 2006, Board of Zoning Adjustments meeting, the following public outreach was performed: a legal advertisement for the public hearing was placed in the Daily Review newspaper; public hearing notification letters were mailed to property owners and business owners within 500 feet of the project site including property owners within unincorporated Alameda County, and to the Bay-O- Vista Improvement Association; and public notification placards were posted on the utility poles adjacent to the subject property. At the Board of Zoning Adjustments hearing, public comments were received from two residents from Midland Road in the unincorporated Alameda County area south of the subject site, expressing concern over the size of the home, traffic generation and soil erosion from the home's construction. Residents of Vista grand Drive expressed concern over the hill stability to the north of the site and the effect on their views by the proposed structure. The appellant, Wayland Lew, also spoke against the project, stating that the height of the structure would restrict views and restated the concern over hill stability. Finally, residents from outside the immediate area spoke both in favor and in opposition to the concept of the "monster home". Minutes from this meeting are attached in Exhibit 6. Additional neighborhood letters were handed to the City Clerk's office at the time that the appeal was filed. These letters, as well as any correspondence to the Board of Zoning Adjustments, are attached to this report in Exhibit 22. In addition to adding support to the above-mentioned issues in the appeal, these letters also express concern over the number of people that might live in the large home and question whether a precedent would be set by approval ofthe height exception. Finally, a meeting was set up for the appellant and the applicant to meet with Planning staff and the Community Development Director to explore the issues of the appeal and review the revised, lower profile design. At the writing of this report, this meeting was scheduled for August 31, 2006. Fiscal Impact Not applicable