pages: CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf, 13
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2017-07-18 | 13 | The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Oddie inquired what condition the City is saying the Appellant violated. The Assistant City Attorney responded the Appellant was supposed to find an additional location to park vehicles; stated said condition that was never satisfied; the permit holder is parking cars in residential neighborhoods; neighbors have complained. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether there is an actual notice that states which requirement the Appellant is charged with violating; stated at the last Planning Board meeting, there was confusion about whether the violation is referring to company or customer vehicles. The Assistant City Attorney responded there is plenty of evidence in the record concerning the notice to the Appellant about what conditions are not being satisfied and the consequences of the conditions not being satisfied; stated it would be disingenuous for the operator to say they were not on notice about the problems. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether court cases allow for the totality of circumstances to be adequate in revoking a UP, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the City Attorney could find a similar California case. The Assistant City Attorney responded he would find a case in the next few minutes. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether a UP can be conditioned based on the end user. The Assistant City Attorney responded Council should not base the decision on the fact that the current tenant is leaving; stated the real issue is the use will continue to have the same problems. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the proposed site is not compatible; stated in 2015, the Planning Board found the use was compatible; he does not understand why the use is all of a sudden not compatible. The Assistant City Attorney responded based on the information that came to the Planning Board in 2015 versus 2017, conditions have not improved; the finding is that the use is not compatible; the use is nonconforming; the Planning Board decided it is time to move to a use that is conforming. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether staff can speculate on what a future owner may Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 18, 2017 | CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf |