Minutes 1991 0617 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Minutes - San Leandro City Council Meeting - June 17, 1991 Page - 15 - PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) Mr. Vitz showed slides of the site and the surrounding area. He said this was a Site Development application referred by the Site Development Subcommittee to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission had a hearing on this matter on May 23, 1991, and the matter was denied and appealed to the City Council . He said a Planned Development had been approved by the City Council in 1990 to replace a building which had been destroyed by fire. He said three sub-units were established at that time. He said an eight foot strip for landscaping had been approved for sub-unit one, and a Planned unit development was to be submitted for sub-unit two within ten years. He said Foster Farms is proposing an interim use of sub-unit two, and that staff did not believe this was a good use for this site. He said the applicant did not submit this use as a planned development for sub-unit two, so staff was considering this as an interim use under the underlying I-2 zoning. The City Council asked questions regarding the possible detrimental impact of this proposal on the adjacent residential neighborhood, including traffic impact and noise. They also discussed the intent of the I-P District. Glenn Forbes, attorney representing the appellant, and Bill Taylor, a an attorney, representing Foster Farms and East Bay Leasing, spoke regarding the proposal . Mr. Forbes described at length the zoning history on this project. He said Foster Farms was proceeding with this application as an interim use. He said this was a site development matter. He said the property was re-zoned from 1-2 to I-P eight or nine years ago, and he further reviewed the zoning activities that have taken place since then. He said the interim use concept was not a new idea, and the matter of leases had been discussed with the Planning staff. He said staff appeared to have concerns regarding the eight-foot setback, but not regarding the types of buildings. etc. Mr. Forbes said he felt the applicant had been given the understanding that staff would support an interim use of the property. He said the submittals of staff to the Planning Commission did not recognize actions previously taken related to this property by the City Council . He also did not concur with the Planning Commission and staff reasons for denial of the application. The City Council asked what kind of consideration had been given regarding the impacts of this project on the neighborhood. Bill Taylor, representing East Bay Leasing, said they undertook a complete analysis of the impact on the neighborhood. He said they were concerned with the neighborhood and considered a number of other uses, but they decided that other uses would not be compatible with the