Minutes 1993 0628 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Minutes - Joint San Leandro City Council/ Page - 16 - San Leandro Redevelopment Agency/ Alameda County Board of Supervisors Meeting - June 28, 1993 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING (continued) T. Ralph Smith, 1864 Seal Way, Discovery Bay, said he owns property along East 14th at 159th in the eminent domain corridor, and is concerned that he has been in business 38 years; redevelopment moved him out of Plaza I and II some 25 years ago. He decided at that time to would move out of town and build some buildings, and it is happening to him again. He spent several $100,000 in developing the property, a ten unit professional building which he has difficulty leasing. He has improved the other properties and has 13 rentals all along there. The problem before was that they did everything they could to help a large developer. Even with the widening of Davis Street, they said they were going to widen. He was the State Farm agent on Davis Street and couldn't buy property on Davis because it was condemned. He was told he would have to have 12 parking spaces as well as other conditions. They sold it to the government for the Post Office and they were not required to have parking spaces. He asked if the same thing was going to happen here? Why should he spend more money? What's the time schedule? He said he is for improvement; he is against being hoodwinked into thinking one thing and then having to do another. Adolph Martinelli responded that the emphasis in the redevelopment portion of the project for the unincorporated area is commercial renovation, facade improvement, assistance with the viable small businesses. He said he doesn't see an opportunity for large business replacing what is there. The project list is tentative. To trigger eminent domain it would require a project to be put forward. It would have to be beneficial to all parties. It is not known yet, but because the geographic area and with the depth of lots between 159 and 162, there would be a remote possibility for that to happen. Mr. Smith asked, if eminent domain is removed, can it be easily put back in? Mr. Martinelli said the redevelopment district has not been established. Technically they can be reinstated; practically it is probably not going to happen. U. Barbara Fields, 168th Avenue, said she owns other property in the area being considered and, while on the whole does not have any objections, she does have concerns regarding eminent domain. She said she is glad to see it disappearing. It is not the fact that you come in and take a property; it is the fact that it must be disclosed. This goes along with the title of the property. She said her other concern is a zoning concern; in her area lots of properties are not meeting the setback requirements. They are non-conforming, which means repairs cannot go over a certain percentage of assessed valuation without getting a variance. A variance is a six to eight week process. She asked that the process be changed for the unincorporated area. Mr. Martinelli said the redevelopment district cannot change zoning requirements or General Plan requirements. The County, in its consideration, can look at it. It is a zoning issue, not a redevelopment issue.