■ Neighbors object to 1 property becoming 4
Neighbors who objected late last year to a decision authorizing the subdivision of 1035 West K St. so a total of four homes can be built on the site will present their case Tuesday to the City Council in hopes of overturning the Benicia Planning Commission’s upholding of that decision.
Ricki and David M. Steele and Richard Runquist filed an appeal Nov. 18 of the Nov. 4 opinion of interim Community Development Director Dan Marks, who said Nov. 4 the property could be divided.
The Planning Commission sided with Marks at its Dec. 11 meeting, when the panel heard the appeal filed by the Steeles and Runquist.
Runquist was a neighbor of the owners of a former house on the parcel. That home has since been torn down, and the late Werner Schulze “never threw anything away,” Runquist said, adding that it wasn’t until after Schulze died in 2008 that he was able to help the widow, Edith, clean out much of the house.
Among the items he discovered in and around the house were household, industrial and agricultural chemicals, electronic equipment, lead paint and asbestos, he said. He said the place also had fungi and molds.
Also speaking at the Dec. 11 hearing was Tim Steele, son of the Steeles, who called for an environmental study before the property is developed “in a responsible manner.”
David Steele’s wife, Ricki, said she and her husband would lose their view if the parcel is quartered and a house is put on each of the new lots. She became upset after giving her testimony, saying, “We have to sell” and that her home would be “worth squat.” She left the meeting early.
Jeff Page, the general contractor who is building one house on the parcel proposed for subdivision, said core samples from 10 to 30 feet deep had determined the property’s soil types and consistency; he told the Planning Commission he and his geological engineer would have reported any sheen or other signs of hazardous contamination of the ground.
Instead, he said, they found broken concrete and asphalt, tools and wine bottles.
Nor had members of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, architect Steve McKee or Benicia Public Works employees found anything suspicious, the Planning Commission was told.
After hearing the appellants and those favoring Marks’s ruling, the commission unanimously denied the appeal.
The Steeles filed an appeal of that vote Jan. 2, disputing the adequacy of the soil analysis and citing potential noise and traffic impacts from construction as well as how construction would affect their scenic enjoyment and view.
Marks is recommending the Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s confirmation of his decision.
In his report to the Council, Marks wrote how in December 2013, multiple complaints were filed about the Schulzes’ house demolition, which was started before all the permits had been obtained. The demolition was halted until the permits were secured, and a building permit for the demolition was issued Jan. 2, 2014.
Later that month, at the request of another neighbor, Nancy Roetzer, the water quality impacts of the demolition also was examined. Old termite trails were found, but no active contamination was uncovered. Marks wrote that Benicia engineers monitored the area to make sure no contaminated water reached the Carquinez Strait.
Though the appellants objected to the possibility of construction noise, Marks wrote that such activities are allowed from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. seven days a week, according to Benicia Municipal Code.
That standard, he wrote, “applies citywide,” and he has no discretion in modifying that time frame as a condition of approval of the request.
He wrote that the zoning ordinance sets height, setback and lot coverage limits for new homes, and the new houses could be built up to 30 feet as measured from the finished grade to the roof peak.
“It is possible that new homes will, to some extent, obstruct or alter existing views,” Marks wrote. But staff had no basis to modify the zoning requirements in this case, he added.
In other matters before the Council:
• The panel will hear a request to increase fire department service fees. That item and several others are on the consent calendar, which means that unless someone requests otherwise, all items will be decided without comment by a single vote.
The Council adopted a resolution Aug. 21, 2012, to provide for the increase of certain fees, with additional increases allowed each January after that, Finance Director Karin Schnaider wrote in a Jan. 9 report.
“This amendment represents the third year of these increases,” she wrote. The fee increases are designed to recover as much as possible the costs associated with 47 operational use permits and 13 construction permits listed in the California Fire Codes.
But all Benicia Fire Department fees, including those for fire inspections, are being reviewed in a citywide fee study, she wrote. Those increases will be considered in March, she explained.
The fees range from permits for aerosol products to other flammables, carnivals, lumber yards, repair garages, tire storage and shopping malls.
• Acting police Chief Joseph Kreins will ask the Council for authorization to buy 11 Panasonic Toughbook computers for patrol vehicles, a purchase of up to $58,325.63.
Kreins wrote City Manager Brad Kilger that existing car computers need replacing, not only to increase efficiency of the officers but also to adapt to a new computer-aided dispatch system that will be purchased using Measure C sales tax money in Fiscal Year 2015-16.
• The Council will be asked to accept a water treatment plant filter slide gate replacement project.
• The Council will receive the annual Open Government Commission report and hear a monthly water report, which notes that Benicians have cut back on water use by 20 percent since January when compared to the same timeframe in 2013, or 23 percent since March.
The Council will meet at 6 p.m. Tuesday in Council Chambers of City Hall, 250 East L St., with the Economic Development Commission in a joint workshop on the draft of a study of the Benicia Industrial Park.
The Council’s regular meeting starts at 7 Tuesday night in the same room.
John says
Interesting article. Based on an internet search it appears that this rather large lot is more than capable at having 4 houses. The street above has more than that in the same span of land. Then that brings up the view. Who actually has the view? It seems to me that the view belongs to those on the water. But the lot in question appears to be on the opposite side of the street from the water. Do the people up the hill then have a right to the view? While they may have become accustomed to the view they currently have, I don’t see how anyone could say the view is theirs. While I can feel for them, it seems to me that this is a lot of grumbling about something perfectly legal.
DDL says
From the piece: (Marks) wrote that the zoning ordinance sets height, setback and lot coverage limits for new homes, and the new houses could be built up to 30 feet (in height).
That piece of land is one that was begging to be purchased and have homes added to it, anyone living in the area had to be aware that this was inevitable. As long as the homes meet the height requirement stated, then those objecting to the “loss of view” do not have a valid claim to prevent this occurrence.
Benicia Dave says
I think the only legal would be a view corridor or view easement in the property deed. No easement, no luck.