Colleagues in community policing: we need your help once again to deal with the issue of alcohol outlets in Oakland’s neighborhoods.  The Nic Nak has asked for a 30 day delay for the final vote on the Appeal: reason, a new attorney representing them and the need to prepare.
 
Tomorrow night 5/18/10 may be an appeal for this delay and it being granted, and no more. Or it could be the CC decision to go ahead and hear public comment and vote. No one knows at this point, and the decision will be made by the CC tomorrow night.
 
The Nic Nak convenience store at the corner of Shattuck and Alcatraz Avenues (6400 Shattuck) has come back to City Council because the vote on the appeal to prohibit alcohol sales got only four yes votes, short one vote of the five needed to pass at the May 4 meeting. Ignacio De La Fuente had a family emergency and was not able to attend that meeting and cast the fifth vote, which we believe he would have had he been able to be there.

We ask that people in the area sign up to speak (so that their opinion on the matter is known), and attend the meeting to provide physical proof that the neighborhood and the city are passionate about this matter.

We will ask supporters of the Appeal to stand to show their support. If you do not wish to speak, you can simply not step forward when your name is called, and that will be the end of it.

Or you can donate your time to another speaker so that the 1-2 minute sound-bite allowances are expanded for speakers in favor of the Appeal.

We also ask that supporters from other parts of the city speak to the issue and identify their NCPC and Beat and interest in this matter.
 
The Nic Nak Appeal outcome will affect the immediate neighborhood as all convenience store alcohol outlets do. People in other neighborhoods of Oakland will be affected, too, because the justifications made for the alcohol variance will apply to all legal non-conforming (i.e. grandfathered in) land uses in Oakland.

Any and all of them, whether related to alcohol or not, could use this decision of the Planning Commission to justify their applications for alcohol or any other types of business activities.

The Nic Nak decision was pernicious, and the City Attorney’s Office affirmed at City Council on May 4 that if this decision were to be challenged in Court, the city would probably lose the case. Civil Court is not the place to settle this issue; City Council is.
 
The Planning Commission erred (polite), screwed up big time (less polite), with this decision. If it stands, Oakland citizens can expect to see alcohol sales variance applications granted in contradiction to Oakland planning and zoning regulations that have been in force since the 1970s, and likely end up in court to defend the lawsuits that will follow.
 
The issue boils down to the question of whether Oakland citizens want to see more convenience store alcohol outlets, bars, or other no-longer-legal business operations in their city; or the gradual attrition of these “deemed approved”, grandfathered in land uses that the city set out to limit and gradually eliminate 40 years ago
 
Do we want a new better future for our neighborhoods, or to restore businesses identified as not desirable for the city’s future decades ago?
 
These issues are on the line on Tues. May 18 at City Council. Your neighborhoods will be affected by the outcome, wherever you are in Oakland. An e-mail for a Speaker’s Card, and an hour of your time is not a lot to ask for an issue of this consequence. 
 
The Nic Nak Appeal is the first and only item on the Non-Consent Calendar for the evening, scheduled to start at 6:31 pm
 
For Speaker’s Cards e-mail:  http://www.oaklandnet.com/councilinfo/default.htm  Requests for Speaker’s Cards will be accepted from noon Friday 5/14 to 6 p.m. Tuesday 5/18. The Item no. is 9.1-1133-1. You are in Favor (of the Appeal) and Do or Do Not wish to speak.
 
We need your help. The future of the neighborhood will be affected by the outcome (an alcohol sales variance stays with the property potentially forever). The future of the city will also be affected because of the broad justification—“historical relevance”, or longevity—that the Planning Commission used to justify its decision.
 
We are almost there.