Minutes 1998 0112 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Minutes - City of San Leandro City Council Meeting Page - 8 - January 12, 1998 are not substantive changes. She urged the Council to rely on their Planning Commission's expertise and staff's recommendations, as well as the City's legal staff, which recommend that the Council uphold the Administrative Decisions that have been made. Council discussion ensued regarding the MOU and the meaning of "substantive." Questions were asked and answered regarding parking requirements and details regarding the parcels specific. Proposed sound-wall locations were reviewed and an explanation of a proposed future road on the adjacent property explained. The City Attorney, again, outlined the issues actually before the Council this evening. Council Member Glaze stated the discussion has been about interpretation, and what they believe was the intent of the MOU. He feels it comes down to individual opinions. He explained his participation in the drafting of the MOU some time ago. He noted they had no idea that there was a Wal-Mart coming back then. He added that he was elected to weigh the issues that are before him and to take the advice of the City Attorney. He added that staff needs to listen to what the Council is saying. He feels there has been creative thinking on behalf of staff to make a "square peg fit into a round hole." He feels this is a land-use issue not a Wal-Mart issue. He added that, according to the City's legal counsel, the changes proposed are not substantial. Although he does not want to support the project, he sees the issues that are before him. He concluded his comments by stating the loopholes in the MOU need to be closed up so there are no questions in the future regarding this site. Vice Mayor Loeffler indicated he understands the need to trust staff's interpretation and recommendations, but there is a judgment call to be made. He stated Westgate was an industrial site that needed creativity, and Council has no role in choosing companies - only to decide if it is an appropriate use for the site. He commented that sales tax is important; and, although he represents the Downtown Business Association, he believes they are creative and uniquely different from Wal-Mart. He feels money should be set aside to help small businesses, and he does not like the awkwardness of the situation before the Council this evening. He further stated that the union vs. non-union issue is irrelevant. The issue is: Has staff made an appropriate decision regarding the land use, or could they have done a better job. He thinks they could have. Council Member Galvan stated this has been a frustrating issue to deal with. He feels his hands are tied by previous decisions by previous Councils. He feels the Appellants have not proven their case. He does not feel the requests made are in violation of the MOU or the Planned Development. After looking at the facts, he has concluded that staff's decisions do not violate the Planned Development or the MOU.