pages: CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-03-16 | 7 | business is not charged for a Revocation Hearing; Kohl's paid a deposit; staff bills time against the deposit. Vice Mayor deHaan stated the City Attorney stated that the Planning Board and Council can take action; inquired whether one supersedes the other. The City Attorney responded Council has the discretion to approve, deny, modify, or uphold the Planning Board decision. Councilmember Tam moved approval of upholding the Planning Board's modification of the Use Permit for extended hours for all reasons stated, including the fact that the retailer should not be penalized for a City oversight; stated that businesses would like to see some certainty to minimize the risk of investment in this economic climate; Kohl's is a good sales tax provider. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor deHaan stated the original Kohl's request says 40 days; the City is business friendly; 40 days would have been more than ample time to cover Kohl's request; that he will not support the motion. The motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Gilmore, Tam Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes: Vice Mayor deHaan - 1. Councilmember Matarrese stated a form should have been used to make the Call for Review; there were staff errors; that he thinks there is still confusion on the process from the original permit to tonight; inquired whether some corrective action can be taken based on mistakes made; stated that he is glad additional truck deliveries were not approved; he has heard numerous complaints about trucks rumbling down streets away from the shopping center along Broadway, Otis Drive, and Grand Street; the Planning Board decision was common sense; that he lives near the Marina Village Shopping Center; Lucky's is open all night, which is noticeable; rules need to be explained when there are processes to follow; Council needs to follow the rules also. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of evaluating the process based upon what happened and come back with improvements that need to be made procedurally so that the same thing does not happen and Council does not have to rely upon memory. Mayor Johnson stated that Council needs to be clear on all procedures involved tonight; a Call for Review should meet the same standards as an appeal; staff is not strict enough on the requirements for people filing appeals; notice has not been given on some appeals; more guidelines should be given to people filing appeals. Councilmember Matarrese stated having a clear determination of the cost burden for either side of the table is important; burdens should be equal. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 March 16, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf |