pages: CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf, 18
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2018-10-16 | 18 | The Assistant City Attorney responded adding said condition is possible; stated some stock conditions would be reviewed on an annual basis; adding conditions is something the Council may do, including nuisance control. Mayor Spencer expressed concern with allowing Planning Board to not deny applications based off certain findings or lack of findings; inquired whether or not a dispensary near a mosque would could be a legal finding used to deny an application. The Assistant City Attorney responded conditions are meant to meet concerns, be informed by public comment, and deliberated by the Planning Board. Mayor Spencer stated the City does not currently allow smoking of cigarettes on streets; a concern expressed was on site consumption near a mosque; the condition of not allowing smoking outside relates to the concerns. The Assistant City Attorney stated coming up with conditions on the spot is difficult; when a condition is considered, proof of breaking the condition is also considered as well as the revocation processes. Councilmember Oddie stated the process needs to get back to a high level of consideration; the items being discussed are related to the Planning Board decision. Vice Mayor Vella stated the Planning Board process is both location and use specific; she has heard the public comments and would urge participation in the Planning Board process; the regulations in place address some of the concerns mentioned; the Council's comments and concerns relative to conditions are better addressed during the Planning Board process. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft cautioned the Council against jumping into the role of the Planning Board; stated certain points of view should be taken into consideration; requested clarification of the Planning Board's vote on dispersion distances. The Economic Development Manager responded delivery-only businesses should have no dispersion requirement based on the Council direction. The Base Reuse and Economic Development Director stated the Planning Board wanted to remove the dispersion requirement from the land use ordinance and asked that the Council consider whether or not the dispersion requirement should go into the regulatory ordinance; the Planning Board did not feel that the dispersion requirement is a land-use issue and recommended Council decide whether or not to have a dispersion requirement, which should be included in the regulatory ordinance; staff included the dispersion requirement in the draft ordinance for discussion purposes; the Planning Board agreed with staff's recommendation since the ordinances were drafted to not include a dispersion requirement for delivery-only dispensaries and suggested that the dispersion requirement be removed from the land-use ordinance with Council decided whether or not it should be included in the regulatory ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 16, 2018 15 | CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf |