Resolution 13188CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 1318 8
UPHOLDING DENIAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF
ALAMEDA OF A REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF ORDINANCE NO. 2814,
MORATORIUM ON CHECK CASHING STORES, REQUESTED BY
CALIFORNIA CHECK CASHING STORES INCORPORATED AT 1363 -1365
PARK STREET
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted urgency Ordinance No. 2804 on September 9, 1999,
in order to allow review of the role of check cashing stores in the City during the Economic
Development Strategic Plan and the Downtown Visioning Process which had been commenced; and
WHEREAS, on October 19, 1999 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2814 which
extends a 45 -day moratorium on filing applications for check cashing stores for the balance of a
one -year period to September 2000, with a provision that the Planning Board may consider granting
a waiver from the moratorium for a particular application on the basis that the moratorium, if not
waived, will deprive the applicant of substantially all reasonable use of the property; and
WHEREAS, a request for waiver was filed on October 4, 1999 by Jonathan B. Eager for
California Check Cashing Stores, asking that the moratorium not apply to this site based on a claim
of economic hardship, that the landlord at 1363 -1365 Park Street would not allow the store to void
its lease during the moratorium; and
WHEREAS, on October 28, 1999 Planning staff requested detailed information needed by =
staff to verify hardship; and rn
WHEREAS, on December 10, 1999 the attorney for California Check Cashing Stores
provided a response to Planning staff, advising that the requested information could not be provided
because the property owner declined to provide a written response, and requesting that the matter
be scheduled for public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on January 24, 2000 to consider the
request for waiver of the moratorium, and reviewed testimony and documents presented; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board determined that evidence submitted by the applicant failed
to conclusively demonstrate the economic hardship, that the landlord at 1363 -1365 Park Street would
not release California Check, Cashing Stores from the lease or approve a sublease for another
business at this address to which the moratorium would not be applicable, due to the nature of the
lease terms; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board determined that the applicant has not demonstrated it has
made significant attempts to sublease the property to other potential tenants, even though the
Planning Board was advised by Planning staff that at least one other business has expressed interest
in subleasing the property; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the City of Alameda denied the waiver under Paragraph
11 of Ordinance No. 2418 and found that the operation of a check cashing business by California
Check Cashing Stores at 1363 -1365 Park Street should not be waived from the moratorium under
Ordinance No. 2814 at this time; and
WHEREAS, on January 27, 2000 R.M. Bonnifield filed an appeal of the Planning Board
denial of waiver of Ordinance No. 2814, on behalf of California Check Cashing Stores Incorporated
and set forth reasons why he believed the Planning Board had erred in denying the waiver request;
and
WHEREAS, on March 7, 2000 the City Council held a noticed public hearing on the appeal,
and reviewed pertinent testimony, maps, drawings and documents.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council has considered the bases of
appeal set out in letter from R.M. Bonnifield on behalf of California Check Cashing Stores
Incorporated, dated January 27, 2000 and finds that there is no merit in the bases for appeal as
substantiated by staff's written response (Attachment #1 to the staff report to the City .Council
regarding this appeal) which is incorporated herein by reference; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council upholds the Planning Board decision
to deny the waiver of Ordinance No. 2814, based on the following findings:
1. The request is not in compliance with the hardship requirement of Section 11 of
Ordinance No. 2814. The applicant would not be deprived of substantially all
reasonable use of the property. The applicant has not demonstrated conclusively that
it would be impossible to sublease the premises to a conforming land use during the
moratorium of Ordinance No. 2814. The City has received testimony that at least
one private business has expressed interest in a sublease at the area, and City staff has
advised the City Council that other interest in subleasing the building may be
forthcoming in the future, with reasonable marketing by the owner and appellant.
2. The appellant has not demonstrated that the Planning Board erred in denying the
waiver of moratorium, and failed to provide new evidence that a waiver of Ordinance
No. 2814 is appropriate.
NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this
decision or final action on any appeals plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1094.6.
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on
the 7th day of March , 2000, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson, Kerr and
Mayor Appezzato - 5.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTENTIONS: None.
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City
this 8th day of March , 2000.
Diane Felsch, City Clerk
City of Alameda