pages: CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf, 25
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2017-07-18 | 25 | The Assistant Community Development Director responded in the negative. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the conditions of the UP regarding not parking customer vehicles on the streets was explained to the franchisee and acknowledged in all the meetings that the City and Planning Board had with the operator, to which the Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the notice alleged a violation of condition number three. The Assistant Community Development Director responded the language was sloppy; stated photographs accompanied the violation. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether a notice needs to comply with certain standards; stated the notice alleged a violation of one condition, but all the other evidence supports the violation of another condition. The Assistant Community Development Director responded the notice may have been done hastily; stated three public hearings were held to discuss the specific problem and everyone involved understood the violation. Councilmember Oddie stated someone could file a lawsuit arguing proper notice was not given. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether there were communications from City staff after the initial notice was sent out, prior to the hearing, relative to the subject matter of the hearing. The Assistant City Attorney responded said communication is reflected in the Planning Board agenda material. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she did a site visit and witnessed there were no parking spots available; the Park Street north of Lincoln Avenue Form Based Codes state active automotive uses are not to take place on the main gateway streets; she does not understand how a large, successful business could get confused with the terms of the UP; there are better uses for the property without the implications to the environment; there has been adequate notice and documentation; she supports the Planning Board's decision. Councilmember Oddie stated that he has not seen any evidence supporting what the occupant is accused of; he is concerned with the location being vacant when it could be producing jobs and customers for other local merchants; any another type of business could generate even more cars in the area; he is concerned due process has not been followed; he would vote to uphold the appeal; if Council agrees, he would be willing to add more conditions to the property. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 18, 2017 | CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf |