pages: CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf, 19
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2021-07-06 | 19 | the most vulnerable community members; opponents have tried to propose tearing down the same buildings in order to build a park; opponents are trying to overturn the HAB's decision to allow the buildings to be torn down; the hypocrisy is appalling and transparent; urged Council end the hypocrisy, help those in need and uphold the HAB's decision: Browyn Harris, Alameda. Stated that he is not opposed to the wellness center; he is opposed to destruction of the buildings due to family members serving in World War Il and the Korean War; expressed support for keeping the historical aspect of the site; discussed family members' military experience in Alameda; the Measure statement noted the buildings would be reused: Dan Tuazon, Alameda. Stated that he is a champion for the homeless, but not for the project; he objects to the certification of demolition; substantial changes have been made to the wellness center scope and size; an EIR should be initiated by the developer at once; urged Council to demand an EIR be obtained prior to demolition of the historic buildings; discussed the staff report addendum; stated there will be a significant impact and effect to 620 Central Avenue; an EIR is required for any project with significant effect on the environment; he is a proponent for wellness centers: Brenden Sullivan, Alameda. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the HAB decision to approve the Certificate of Approval to allow demolition of two main buildings and four accessory buildings at 620 Central Avenue and associated resolution. Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that his concern is that the people of Alameda have spoken in favor of having a wellness center at 620 Central Avenue; a wellness center must happen at the site; the proposition before the residents was for reuse of the buildings; other parts of the ballot referenced using existing facilities; the context of the language was clear the project would be completed within the existing structure; outlined cost implications for construction projects; stated there may have been a realization that the project will cost more money; the evaluation should have been done prior; the perspective of reuse has been set and put before the voters; the ballot language did not reference demolition; the contents of the materials put before voters is most important; if needed, a discussion should occur related to costs within the contest of reusing the buildings on the site; he respects the City Attorney's assessment of the matter; however, the voters voted for something in Measure A which had been framed a certain way; the matter does not necessarily constrain City Hall and Council by remaining within the framework of reuse. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she filed the appeal because she does not think the City Code section has been followed; a question was posed to the HAB about whether to remove the building from the Historical Building Study List (HBSL); there has not been a discussion in regard to the monument list versus the HBSL; it is incumbent upon staff to follow the Code section; expressed support for staff trying to separate Continued June 15, 2021 Regular Meeting | CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf |