My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes 1998 0420
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1998
>
Minutes 1998 0420
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/14/2009 12:59:21 PM
Creation date
5/14/2009 12:59:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Minutes
Document Date (6)
4/20/1998
Retention
PERM
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Minutes - City of San Leandro City Council and Page - 6 - <br />San Leandro Redevelopment Agency Meeting - April 20, 1998 <br />Nat Kleinstein, Bonaire Civic League, Representing Bonaire Homeowners' <br />Association, addressed the Council with concerns regarding the entrance <br />to Bonaire. He would like to see such proposed establishments more than <br />1,000 feet from their entrance and/or eliminate the site next to Bonaire <br />altogether. He feels all the prospective sites should be out in the <br />Adams area. <br />Alvin Altomare, 15566 Nicks Boulevard, addressed the Council, suggesting <br />this issue be put on the ballot to allow the people to vote on whether <br />they want these types of establishments in the City. It was noted that <br />even if the people of San Leandro voted to not support these types of <br />establishments, the same legal issues exist. <br />Larry Norry, 2532 Williams Street, addressed the Council, commenting <br />that there are four sites being considered - he would rather see the <br />Council take this issue under further consideration before acting. <br />Lou Filipovich, 15376 Laverne Drive, addressed the Council, stating he <br />feels there is a problem with the proposed Ordinance because the <br />restrictions in the Ordinance, which are justifiable and reasonable, <br />would not apply to everyone. He referenced the Planning Commission's <br />Hearing and noted he was the only one who spoke. He noted that the <br />Council should have perused their Minutes, because the answers to all <br />their questions were there. He requested that, if the Council decides <br />to postpone action on this item, they not close the Public Hearing. He <br />doesn't want to see committees formed that don't represent anybody else, <br />coming back with a decision. If the community doesn't like the <br />decision, then further public input is excluded. Referencing page 19 in <br />the Council packet, which is page 11 of the Planning Commission Minutes, <br />he noted that his comments should have been stated verbatim so that you <br />could have a better understanding of what he actually said. He also <br />expressed concern that the tape of the Planning Commission Meeting is <br />accessible and available to the public for review. He was assured that <br />it was available. <br />Council Member Galvan clarified - if the City owned one of the proposed <br />sites, the City would have the same rights as property owners. <br />Council Member Lothrop commented that more information is needed before <br />Council can make a decision. She feels more public input is necessary. <br />Council Member Young added that she would like to review the option of <br />clustering such establishments. She agrees that more community input is <br />needed, but it needs to be quick - perhaps within 30 to 60 days. She is <br />not opposed to waiting until someone approaches the City with an <br />application before enacting an Ordinance. <br />Council Member Polvorosa commented that he agrees with Council Member <br />Young. He did acknowledge that, if this matter is put off, it could be <br />subject to challenge should an application be received. He would like <br />to see restrictions for signage addressed as well. There is a need to <br />get the people to understand that this is proposing the strictest <br />Ordinance allowable. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.