3A Public Hearing 2006 1204 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Board of Zoning Adjustments Regular Meeting, July 20, 2006 Excerpt of the Minutes item PLN2005-00063 Page 5 of 8 saw a "little bit of greed" associated with the project and felt that its size was inappropriate. She agreed that a normal sized home would be better. Walter Bielaski, 1768 Vistagrand Drive, stated that he was speaking for a total of ten residents, and he asked if he would be allowed to speak for ten minutes. The Board decided to allow the extra time for him to speak. Mr. Bielaski stated that the project would bring the good, the bad and the ugly. He questioned the total 10,760 square footage of the home and carriage house. He felt the carriage house term was misleading, but the in-law unit term was correct. The good was the city's 18- foot height limit and the taxes paid to the city after construction of the house compared to taxes derived from a vacant lot; the bad was the requested height variance and associated geophysical activities. Studying the steep 60-degree hill on the north side of the property and a geological study needed to be performed before the neighbors at the top of the hill could accept development of the site. Excavation could cause movement of the hill and threaten the properties on that portion of Vistagrand. A swimming pool on one of the properties was located within six feet ofthe border and a spa owned by another neighbor was near the property line. The five owners on the adjoining property line were in constant fear of any miniscule earth movement. He recalled a past landslide nearby where the city had been culpable and liable for damages to the involved properties. Property owners would have to disclose possible earth movement when selling their properties, which, in his opinion, would cause property values to be negatively affected. He thought that this project site was also in an earthquake zone. He agreed with the Condition of Approval that required a geological study. He disagreed that site lines from Vistagrand Drive would not be affected. Tim McPherson, 14603 Midland Road, questioned that the four-foot retaining wall would be high enough. Construction noise would disrupt his family's peace and quiet. Wayland Lew, 1761 Vistagrand Drive, continued Mr. Bielaski's comments. The story poles on the property did not adequately show the length, depth and breadth of the project. The 1989 Negative Declaration issued for 12 lots to be subdivided from this property was not relevant today. He read from the 1989 staff report regarding concern for the northern slope and suggested mitigations. Height approval could provide precedent for other homes of similar heights. The height of this project would totally restrict the view of approximately six of the neighbors on Vistagrand and Marineview Drives. He questioned that the garage would accommodate four vehicles. David Pollard, 14889 Tower Street, stated that he did not live in the area, but felt it was only fair, in light of the negative comments heard, that someone speak in favor of the project. There were no other sites in San Leandro of this size. He asked that this not become "a matter of the haves and have nots." He admired the applicant for wanting to provide a home for his family and elderly loved ones. Staff had performed a thorough report and a geotechnical report was required before anything could be built. There would be no visibility hazards, and the applicant should be allowed to build his home.