pages: CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-03-16 | 5 | direction as an amendment; Council agreed to the amendment, but it did not get memorialized. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Vice Mayor deHaan is saying that it was part of the motion and was not noted, to which Vice Mayor deHaan responded in the affirmative. The Planning Services Manager stated the Planning Department's determination was that the Christmas holiday season starts on Thanksgiving; staff was directed by Council to make the determination as to when the days would start and end; staff made the determination that the Christmas holiday season starts on Thanksgiving and ends on January 1st which happens to be approximately 35 days, which was more of a coincidence. Mayor Johnson inquired whether a procedural discussion is even necessary because the appeal process is de novo, which means that everything is new and what happened procedurally before does not matter; the merits of the appeal should be addressed; inquired whether Vice Mayor deHaan is appealing based on the number of days. Vice Mayor deHaan responded that he believes an amendment was on the table that gave direction; stated Councilmember Matarrese can be asked. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he remembers making a motion to allow Kohl's to be open [for extended hours] during the Christmas season, but that he does not remember 35 days; that he believes Vice Mayor deHaan stated 35 days; the motion in the minutes reflected Christmas season. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Planning Board approved 60 days. The Planning Services Manager responded the motion was not understood to mean that no one could apply for anything different in the future. Councilmember Matarrese stated the Call for Review is for a new Use Permit that requests more [days]; that he wants to uphold the Planning Board's decision because there has not been a problem; that he has not heard any complaints from anyone regarding Kohl's; that he welcomes the tax dollars and would like to uphold the Planning Board's decision on the new permit application. Councilmember Gilmore stated Kohl's wants to expand hours; Kohl's followed procedures by applying for a new Use Permit which was a different hearing in front of the Planning Board and had nothing to do with what Council had done the previous October. The Planning Services Manager stated the separate Use Permit was for additional hours originally granted by Council; staff's approach is that businesses can apply for a Use Permit for something different. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 5 March 16, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf |