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