|
YUEN:Right, right. And I can go through, you know, I can go through it one by
<br />one.
<br />ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham.
<br />YUEN:And this is existing. You know, I think youre having this vision of the
<br />subdivider didnt build the road and, you know, -.
<br />GRAHAM:Im not, Im not hitting that.
<br />YUEN:Okay, and thats why I have a comfort level with saying that, like I can go
<br />through this 23-69 information required on the final plat, (1) Date, northpoint and scale of
<br />drawing. All right? I mean if they did not have that on there the court decision indicates that
<br />thesubdivisioncanbeinvalidated.Youknow,(2)Legaldescriptionofthetrackboundaries,
<br />(3) Names and addresses of owners, subdivider, and engineer, or surveyor who prepared the
<br />plat, those are all -. I mean, we can just go through these.
<br />ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham, do you need the Director to continue?
<br />GRAHAM:I dont think so.
<br />ALAMEDA:Okay, thank you, Mr. Director. Commissioner Iwashita.
<br />IWASHITA:For the record, I want to say I really appreciate the Directors initiative,
<br />you know, in working on resolving this so that the operations of the Department, you know, can
<br />efficiently move forward; and, you know, I wholely support that. Although, you know, the point
<br />now raised specifically by Commissioner Graham about the language on page 12 at the bottom
<br />of the proposed amendment to 23-73, I, you know, I guess my sense is that, or my understanding
<br />is that the problem in the Leslie case was the deficiencies on preliminary plat submission and the
<br />approval of the inadequate preliminary plat. Im not, and I guess that obviously would transfer
<br />that, continue transfer onto final approval, right? But, you know, again, assuming, without
<br />definitely knowing that the Supreme Courts decision relied on the inadequacies of the
<br />preliminary plat and having that, you know, that information, it doesnt transfer over to me to say
<br />that we should change the, or add this language in a final approval plat, because I would want to
<br />have all of this information in the final approval plat. And I dont see how requiring it would,
<br />you know, I mean thats, like you say, this is a dozen to 20 professionals that know this thing
<br />inside out, supposed to, you know, for substantial developments. And so I dont see why going
<br />down the check list and making, you know, spending an hour for them to do that, and an hour for
<br />the Department to make sure that each of these things are done, are in there before the final
<br />approval is granted, you know, is that much of a burden. And for things like -. My concern is
<br />this - for things like easements stuff, this is a lawyer thing, right, specific designation where the
<br />easements are and so forth, that needs to be there. And to say that if its not there, you know,
<br />that the subdivision cannot be challenged because it was inadvertently left out or whatever, thats
<br />not acceptable as I see it because thats substantial legal rights that youre messing with; and it
<br />should be done correctly.
<br />ALAMEDA:Let me ask -?
<br />19EXHIBIT D
<br />
<br />
|