Minutes 1993 0517 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Minutes - San Leandro City. Council Meeting .- .May 17, 1993 Page .- 22 - PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) In response to questions he said there is no evidence of any instability in the soil conditions and no unstable conditions being created. He said Item II .3.e. referred to subsurface waters only, and he said the developer would not be fencing the property in a way that would prohibit the movement of wildlife. Steve Meyers pointed out that the Conditions of Approval did not include restrictions regarding fencing. Mr. Vogeney said they could be added. Mr. Meyers said the City Council has the authority to add Conditions to make the project consistent with the General Plan and to offset any concerns. Council Member Perry asked if they could also look into a barrier, vegetation, and screening for the area above Ms. Roberts' property. Mr. Meyers said they could. Council Member Corbett asked why the question regarding obstructions of the vista were answered "maybe" instead of "yes. " Mr. Vogeney said the project would not obstruct views, but some might find the sight of the retaining walls offensive from Montrose Drive; however, he said this would be a temporary impact because they would eventually be covered with vegetation. • Council Member Kerr said there should be fence limitations and also a Condition regarding a barrier on the driveway above the pool . Council Member Perry noted the requirements for the crib walls did not require landscaping. Mr. Vogeney said the wall was designed in such a way that, when the slope was reseeded for erosion control , vegetation would grow on the crib walls. In response to a question from Council Member Faria, Mr. Vogeney said that, if approved by the City Council tonight, there would be no further design review; but the project would go forward for approval through the Planning, Building, and Engineering Divisions. Council Member Polvorosa asked what would happen if the City Council did not vote for the lot split. Steve Meyers said the property owner could still build one residence, and there would be no review by the City Council , Planning Commission, or Planning staff. Council Member Myers pointed out that, with the lot split, the City Council has more control over the property. He said, with no lot split, the owner can just develop the property. Council Member Polvorosa said he could not see any development up there at all .