Minutes 1993 1115 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Minutes - San Leandro City Council Meeting - November 15, 1993 Page - 7 - PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) Lou Filipovich said the Roberts' Landing initiative is more political than anything else. He said he admired Mr. Alvarez for answering the question about why he removed the lots. He asked for an explanation of a Vesting Tentative Map. Steve Meyers, City Attorney, said the State Legislature provided that a person who requests a Vesting Tentative Map is entitled to proceed under the rules, ordinances, and regulations of the City in effect at the time the Vesting Tentative Map is approved. He said this legislation was adopted in response to a problem which arose when ordinances, rules, etc. , changed between the time housing projects came in for Vesting Tentative Maps and the time when they came in for Final Maps. He said this guarantees to the developer the right to proceed with the project in accordance with all rules, conditions, environmental requirements, etc. , in effect at the time of the Vesting Tentative Map approval . Mr. Filipovich said a Vesting Tentative Map pre-empts the ability to appeal Planning Commission decisions. He said, at some time in the future, departments should be combined to make the appeal process easier. Barbara Shockley, 1890 Bockman Road, San Lorenzo, said she understood that a Vesting Tentative Map could last for 20 years. Steve Meyers explained the time limits associated with such maps and said they could last upwards of 10 years before a Final Map would have to be filed and approved. In response to questions from Mrs. Shockley, Mr. Meyers explained the General Development Plan approval and its relationship to this portion of the project. Mrs. Shockley said she did not understand what the Applicant could do with regard to development of any of the other land on the site. Council Member Corbett said there was a fill and a no-fill plan in the initial approval for the General Development Plan. She asked what would happen if the wetlands in this phase were not filled and whether there would still be a provision for mitigation. She asked what sort of barrier or protection would be provided if this area were not filled. Steve Emslie said the issue of fill and no-fill was explained in the SEIR. He said the backyards and fences would provide adequate protection from human entry into the habitat area on the north side of Phases lA and 1B and a 50' buffer would not be necessary. at that location. He also noted that the letter he read only addressed the Phase 1B area, not the area north of Phase IA and B. There being no further comments from the public, on motion of Council Member Nahm, seconded by Council Member Myers, and carried unanimously, the Public Hearing was closed.