pages: CityCouncil/2009-05-19.pdf, 13
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2009-05-19 | 13 | The Interim City Manager stated miscellaneous retail is used when there is no other identifiable source and the business does not fit into the industrial code of index. Councilmember Tam stated that staff should have some idea of the type of merchandise sold by classifying revenues; staff would not be able to understand whether revenues are on par with the industry without said information. The Interim City Manager stated indicating miscellaneous retail cross checks against a certain tax rate. Councilmember Tam stated the issue has come up in other jurisdictions where applicants have put down miscellaneous retail; the business license was challenged in court later; the court made a ruling in the 4th Appellant District in the City of Corona; the ruling states "Where a particular use of land is not expressly enumerated in a City's municipal code as constituting a permissible use, it follows that such use is impermissible; inquired whether the use is not permissible if the City does not have an explicit permissible use for medical marijuana dispensaries. The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the Zoning Administrator would need to determine whether the use is close enough to a permissible use in a particular location; otherwise, the use would not be permissible. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval to uphold the decision of the Bureau of Licenses to revoke the business license. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Gilmore stated PSBA and WABA work very hard to attract new businesses; many times PSBA, WABA and the Development Services Department are aware of potential businesses looking for space before a business license is pulled; that she is not getting the sense that any dialogue occurred between the Appellant and business associations; that she is uncomfortable given the incomplete disclosure on the business license and lack of contact with local business associations; the Appellant did not solicit the opinions of the business associations. the process seems to have been done under cover. Councilmember Matarrese stated the business activity is illegal and is in conflict with Proposition 215; the City is caught in the middle; the findings of the two previous hearings merit upholding the decisions of the Interim Finance Director and Bureau of Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 13 May 19, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-05-19.pdf |