File #: PH 19-085   
Section: Public Hearing Status: Agenda Ready
Meeting Body: City Council
Agenda Date: 10/29/2019 Final action:
Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of a Three Story, 40-Unit Townhouse Style Development on a 1.66-acre Site Located at 21229 Oak Street (APN 415-0170-019-00, 415-0170-020-00, 415-0170-021-00, 415-0170-022-00, 415-0170-023-00, 415-0170-024-00, 415-0170-025-00, 415-0170-029-02) Requiring Site Plan Review Application No. 201800932. Ann E. Maris PhD, Organizer, Grove Way Neighborhood Association (Appellant); Steven Kodama, Kodama Diseno Architects (Applicant)/ Robert Chen (Owner)
Attachments: 1. Attachment I Staff Report, 2. Attachment II Resolution, 3. Attachment III Appeal Letter August 5, 2019, 4. Attachment IV Appeal Letter received May 7, 2019, 5. Attachment V Notice and Mailing List, 6. Attachment VI Plans, 7. Attachment VII PC Minutes of 7/25/2019, 8. Attachment VIII City Fees
DATE: October 29, 2019

TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: Development Services Director

SUBJECT
Title

Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of a Three Story, 40-Unit Townhouse Style Development on a 1.66-acre Site Located at 21229 Oak Street (APN 415-0170-019-00, 415-0170-020-00, 415-0170-021-00, 415-0170-022-00, 415-0170-023-00, 415-0170-024-00, 415-0170-025-00, 415-0170-029-02) Requiring Site Plan Review Application No. 201800932. Ann E. Maris PhD, Organizer, Grove Way Neighborhood Association (Appellant); Steven Kodama, Kodama Diseno Architects (Applicant)/ Robert Chen (Owner)

End
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation

That the City Council denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission's approval of Site Plan Review Application 201800932 to allow the construction of a 40-unit townhouse style development based on the analysis in this report and contained within the attached Findings, subject to the Conditions of Approval, per the attached Resolution (Attachment II).
End

SUMMARY

The appellant is requesting denial of Site Plan Review No. 201800932 based on: that the neighborhood was not adequately included in the planning review process; that the development should be considered in light of all other developments and not as an isolated building in an established functional neighborhood; that the project should not be exempt from CEQA; that the developer should provide additional public amenities; and that the County and the Castro Valley Municipal Advisory Council should have been informed of this proposed development.

On July 25, 2019, the Planning Commission heard public testimony, considered the appeal, and voted 5:0 to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Director's decision. On August 5, 2019, the appellant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission decision (Attachment III).

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
Attachment III Appeal Letter August 5, 2019
Attachmen...

Click here for full text