pages: CityCouncil/2009-05-19.pdf, 12
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2009-05-19 | 12 | responded in the affirmative. The City Attorney stated the Appellant is permitted to continue to operate until the City reaches a final decision. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether ongoing efforts have been made to consider an ordinance. The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated a moratorium is currently in place on the particular land use in order to permit a study of where appropriate use would be within the City and what type of conditions would be necessary; the moratorium is in place until June of next year; a report will come back to Council. Councilmember Matarrese stated the first assertion states that the Appellant only received eleven days notice on a hearing to show cause; inquired whether the eleven days is in contradiction with State or federal law. The City Attorney responded in the negative. Councilmember Matarrese stated the second assertion states that the Interim Finance Director had a conflict of interest based upon the fact of being a paid employee in the capacity of the hearing officer. The City Attorney stated that she interprets the Haas case very differently than Mr. Higginbotham; the Haas case involved a paid hearing officer; the court discussed the inappropriateness because the hearing officer had interest in the ruling, which is not the case of an employee of the City. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Interim Finance Director's status as the hearing officer is any different than Council's status as the ultimate Appeals Board as employees of the City, to which the City Attorney responded in the negative. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she did not see anything in the record that indicated that the Appellant received any zoning approval from the Planning and Building Department or that the Planning and Building Department had any opportunity to weigh in on the appropriateness for the City. Councilmember Tam stated the transcript notes that the hearing officer explicitly requested what was in the Appellant's mind when stating miscellaneous retail in order to classify the type of revenue and that there was a disclosure issue during the process; that she wants to understand the classification of revenues. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 12 May 19, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-05-19.pdf |