Minutes 1999 0920 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Minutes -City of San Leandro City Council and Page 8 San Leandro Redevelopment Agency Joint Meeting -September 20, 1999 Robert Spinardi, 21500 Eden Canyon Road, Castro Valley, Regarding 601 Aladdin Court, addressed the City CounciURedevelopment Agency in opposition to the proposal being brought forward in the suggested nodes. He added that there has been no analysis done on what the actual costs to the City will be to pursue eminent domain. Douglas Federighi, 1051 MacArthur Boulevard, Member of the Redevelopment Advisory Committee (RAC), addressed the City CounciURedevelopment Agency in support of eminent domain. He expressed the benefits of being included in such an area. Daniel Gray, 2565 Merced Street, addressed the City CounciVRedevelopment Agency in support of eminent domain and also expressed the benefits of being included in such an area. James Begier, 1250 Marina Boulevard, addressed the City CounciU Redevelopment Agency in opposition to the eminent-domain process. He indicated eminent domain does negatively affect the property values. Ed Ettleman, Bal Cleaners, 1414 to 1430 - 148` Avenue, addressed the City Council/Redeveloprnent Agency in opposition to their property being included in the eminent-domain proposal. He stated that, although he does not own the properties, he has been doing business there for a long time. He indicated this places him in an awkward position as it relates to purchasing new equipment and/or upgrading flooring. Kris Klaas, 870 Estabrook, addressed the City CounciVRedeveloprnent Agency in opposition to their property being included in the eminent-domain proposal. She stated this puts them in a state of limbo in that they don't want to upgrade and they can't move. She indicated her husband has asked her to request that their property be removed from the redevelopment area altogether. There being no further comments from the public, the Public Hearing was closed. M/S/C Loeffler and Lothrop. Ayes: 7; Noes: 0 Council Member Nardine commended staff for their work but stated she feels the process is flawed. She noted concerns with a lack of an actual plan for the area and that the information disseminated to the affected property owners should have been more thorough. She suggested the City CounciURedevelopment Agency request a continuance of this matter in order to address the six nodes individually and not collectively.