Minutes 1995 0117 - Laserfiche WebLink

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

Minutes - San Leandro City Council Meeting - January 17, 1995 Page - 10 - PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) The City Attorney said it is his opinion that the City Council has the legal authority to adopt the Ordinance, but the status of the trucking operation is a matter of dispute between the tenant, the property owner, and the City. He said this was not the proper forum to discuss the status of the trucking operation because it may go to litigation. He recommended adoption of the Ordinance, with a slight modification. He said the Ordinance extends the urgency measure which currently prevents staff from issuing zoning approvals for truck operations adjacent to residential properties within Expansion Area D. Whether or not the Agency and City Council ultimately make land-use changes is something to be determined at a future Public Hearing. The Hearing was then opened to the public. Mark Harrison, Diepenbrock Law Firm, 400 Capitol Mall , Sacramento, presented a booklet and requested that it be entered into the record. He said there is a legal dispute which is put forth in the booklet. He asked what the modifications to the Ordinance were. The City Attorney said the modification adds the following wording to Section 1 : "Except as to rights which have vested by law, no zoning approvals or other entitlements may be issued for truck terminals adjacent to residential uses. " Glenn Forbes, 114 Parrott Street, said he wanted to incorporate his comments made on behalf of Mr. Schragge at the December 19, 1994, City Council meeting into this Public Hearing. He said, with the addition made by Mr. Meyers, he had no additional comments. Council Member Kerr asked if the City is violating its own Ordinance by • stopping Vecta Trucking from having a truck terminal because it is legal non-conforming. The City Attorney said it is up to the court to decide if rights have vested or not. There being no further comments from the public, on motion of Council Member Myers, seconded by Council Member Perry, and carried by a majority vote (6) , the Public Hearing was closed. On motion by Council Member Myers, seconded by Council Member Polvorosa, with Council Member Kerr voting no, and Council Member Galvan absent, the City Council voted on the Interim Ordinance. Following Council Comments, the City Attorney advised the City Council that this matter required a 4/5 vote in order to be approved. The Council moved to reconsider the matter, revoted, and approved the Ordinance. (See City Council Comments, Item 9.H. , below. )