pages: CityCouncil/2020-07-21.pdf, 12
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2020-07-21 | 12 | In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the Planning, Building and Transportation Director will provide a brief summary of the letter submitted as part of the record, which may be considered by Council. The Assistant City Attorney stated Council has full discretion to continue; consideration of the late letter is appropriate and can be weighed in the decision. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director and Assistant City Attorney continued the presentation. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director concluded the presentation; stated the appellant and applicant traditionally receive a five minute speaking time. Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of allowing the appellant and applicant a speaking time of five minutes. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. Stated that he disagrees with staff; noted staff must present documents to be enforced prior to City Council approval; stated Council has given power to staff and Boards to approve ordinances and enforcement; should someone not meet the Design Review standards, plans will not be approved; appointed Boards cannot make laws; noted that he is not against the project; stated that he would like to see the project go through as voted: a convalescent hospital, a hospice, and a medical clinic; permanent supportive housing is not zoned for the area; urged Council to postpone the hearing until the vote on Measure A; noted that he has not discussed the project site as a Historical Monument; stated the penalty phase for not meeting designations is a time period of five years; Alameda Point Collaborative (APC) may not receive funds from agencies; urged Council proceed through the proper process; expressed concern about application details; questioned funding. John Healy, Project Appellant. Noted Planning Department staff met the criteria laid out by Section 30-37 of the Alameda Municipal Code; stated there will be multiple Design Review opportunities; the appellant's application provides no justification or grounds for the appeal; urged Council to reject the appeal; stated APC is working hard to alleviate the immense suffering of sick, and dying people on the streets of Alameda County; noted five homeless individuals have died since the appeal process; stated APC has a location and project plan ready; the current health crisis has highlighted the need to shelter and care for medically vulnerable individuals; community members, staff, and the Planning Board have spoken; urged Council to deny the attempts at stopping needed services for members of the community: Doug Biggs, Applicant. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 July 21, 2020 | CityCouncil/2020-07-21.pdf |