HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupplemental Information Received after Posting of AgendaFrom: Robert Goldberg <rgoldberg @live.com>
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2016 6:12 PM
To: Robin Roberts
Cc: Patty Campbell; Deb Machen; Esther Cummings; Seth Eaker; Ellery A. Deaton
Subject: Correspondence Re Entertainment Permits: Waiving annual public hearing on renewals
Dear Commissioners:
At the public hearing on 8/15/16, I spoke on several issues. One was the failure of the proposed ordinance
[Section 6.b.iii] to reflect the prior consensus of the Commission that an annual public hearing should not be
required if residents do not complain after formal notification by the City.
This issue had been fully discussed by the Planning Commission on 12/7/15 (from 2:14 to 2:24 in the on -line
recording). At that time, Director Basham presented a slide that posed the question "Should the City allow one-
year renewal without a hearing unless a nearby property owner /occupant files an objection ?" After it was
explained to the Commission that all nearby residents would still receive a formal notice of renewal from the
City, the clear consensus was that no public hearing or agenda item would be needed if there are no
complaints. To create a public record of staffs administrative renewals, Director Basham stated twice that he
could just report these during his Director's Comments.
At the public hearing on 8/15/16, Commissioner Thomas asked (at 1:39:50 in the recording) whether "we want
all of these to come back to us? City Attorney Greyson replied that the preference of the Council was that all
renewals be done as a public hearing. She advised the Commission that if they disagree, they could make an
alternate recommendation to the Council. Director Basham made an additional statement giving what he stated
was the City Council's rationale for requiring a public hearing. The Commission was persuaded to retain the
requirement for an annual public hearing.
I believe the City Attorney overstated the Council's position on this issue. At the Council meeting on 11/9/15,
then Mayor Deaton (at 2:16 in the recording) stated that she liked the idea of Director -based approvals if there
are no complaints or resident response after formal notice of the pending renewal. She stated that she wanted
Planning Commission comments on this issue.
I agreed with Mayor Deaton in November and with the Commission in December. Conducting a public hearing
when there are no complaints after active solicitation is a waste of time and money by both City staff and local
businesses. No doubt, the cost for renewal will be much greater if a public hearing is required.
I will not be able to personally attend Tuesday's meeting, but would strongly recommend that the Commission
discuss this issue once again, unbiased by any alleged Council preferences, in order to best serve the public
interest and to be fully responsive to Councilwoman Deaton.
Sincerely,
Robert Goldberg