Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> Minutes - San Leandro City Council Meeting - January 16, 1996 Page - 12 - <br /> PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) <br /> Mayor Corbett asked what could be done regarding the .75 -acre <br /> passive use in the buffer. The City Attorney said the General <br /> Development Plan could be amended to require not less than 3.25 <br /> acres of park land on the site, with the remainder covered by, <br /> park in -lieu fees, thus removing the park site in the buffer <br /> area. <br /> Council Member Perry said one of the amenities of the passive <br /> park was natural vegetation along with the interpretive center. <br /> She said she would prefer having the interpretive center and <br /> knowledge of native plants vs losing it and getting in -lieu fees. <br /> Mayor Corbett asked if the interpretive center function could be <br /> accomplished with a series of signs along the trail and around <br /> the larger buffer area without the park in it. <br /> Council Member Myers said he is concerned about the park but <br /> agrees that if in -lieu fees are accepted, there is nowhere in the <br /> area to build another park. <br /> Vice Mayor Kerr asked if the park in'the buffer zone is in <br /> compliance with Measure D. Assistant City Attorney Mattas said <br /> staff believes it is. He said, if the General Development Plan <br /> park requirements is reduced from 4 to 3.25 acres, that would <br /> remove the issue of whether there's a park of any sort in the <br /> buffer area. He noted the interpretive center has been included <br /> in plans and reviewed by agencies all along, so it is not an <br /> issue of having an interpretive center removed from the area. If <br /> the total park area were reduced and replaced with in -lieu fees, <br /> a trail and interpretive center would remain on the site. <br /> Council Member Loeffler expressed concern about the adequacy of <br /> parking within the development and said parking in the entire <br /> City is inadequate. He said park space is needed. <br /> The following Resolutions were then introduced: <br /> Resolution No. 96 -6, Resolution Making Findings Pursuant to the <br /> California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Certifying as <br /> Adequate the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report <br /> (FSEIR) for Roberts Landing Residential Development, Phases 2A, <br /> 2B, and 3, and Approving the Mitigation Monitoring Plan <br /> (certifies the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, <br /> which covers the Precise Development Plan application for Phases <br /> 2A, 28, and 3, the Vesting Tentative Maps for Phases 2A, 28, and <br /> 3, and the General Development Plan amendment for Phase 3). <br /> (2690/1977) <br /> Introduced by Council Member Myers, who moved its adoption, <br /> seconded by Council Member Polvorosa, and carried by a majority <br /> vote (7). <br />