Speaker 1: Another $5,000 plus for this inane.
Speaker 0: Attempt to stall.
Speaker 4: The project yet again.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker.
Speaker 2: Harman Reid.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Reed.
Speaker 1: Good evening, manager and City Council members again. It is evident that the planning board meeting agenda listed a nonfunctioning telephone ID number which precluded full participation from the public and that is protected under our state laws.
Speaker 0: Furthermore, the agenda.
Speaker 1: Was altered the following day to reflect.
Speaker 0: The corrected ID.
Speaker 1: But without any indication of when that revision was made. It seems it doesn't seem to make sense to change it afterwards. Since the meeting was already over. And also, I would like to remind you and the public that the California Brown Act states that a member of the public shall not be required as a condition to attendance at a meeting of a legislative body of a local agency to register his or her name, to provide other information, to complete a questionnaire or otherwise to fulfill any conditions and to his or her attendance. So I respectfully ask that because this meeting was not you properly noticed and to please regionalize the meeting. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Your next speaker.
Speaker 2: Harvey Rosenthal.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Rosenthal.
Speaker 1: So. Good evening.
Speaker 3: Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Yes. Yes, you're just fine.
Speaker 3: After nearly four years of telling the public that he would be re-using the buildings, Mr. Big suddenly announced that he now plans to demolish them all due to the cost of seismic upgrades. He presented no seismic report of cost estimates or stated why he failed to consider this in earlier years. There was, however, a significant financial incentive for demolition. The over $3 million development fee that Mr. Big's and APC were to receive for the Reuse Reuse project will now greatly increase because this fee is tied to construction costs and new construction costs much more than were used. As a result, historic structures will be bulldozed. Tens of millions of tax dollars will go to the construction of this county facility. After 20 years, APC can sell the buildings and walk away with tens of millions of dollars. The future owner has no obligation to provide homeless services. What is now public land ends up in private hands after providing only temporary homeless services. It is unacceptable that former ABC board member Mr. Knox White sees no conflict of interest in voting to approve this project, which will funnel millions of taxpayer dollars to APC leaders. Own homeless and veterans have absolutely no priority for the beds at this facility. The vast majority of admissions will be for the high turnover age 18 plus restaurant unit, not seniors. A significant portion of the site is in the salami Rick's store. The costly and time consuming job of asbestos removal and destruction of historic structures will delay construction. It would be much faster and cheaper to build this facility elsewhere by adapting a more centrally located existing building for serving the county's homeless population.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Your time is up next.
Speaker 2: Speaker Jennifer Taggart.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Taggart.
Speaker 1: Hello? Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: We can.
Speaker 1: Good evening. The people of Alameda voted to approve.
Speaker 2: The wellness center a long time ago for unhoused.
Speaker 1: Medically frail, elderly people. And these delays are shameful and need to stop. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker.
Speaker 2: Paul Schrader.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker. I need to see it on the screen. Trudel. Where's our speaker? Here you are. Oh. All right. Good evening.
Speaker 3: Just.
Speaker 1: Hello. Yeah, we're we're talking about the the flaw in the noticing. And it's obvious this is a controversial and complicated issue, but we're we're asking.
Speaker 0: For a remedy for this.
Speaker 1: Flaw. We're asking for the. For the meeting to be rescheduled. I mean, we could go into other aspects of where there were misrepresentation or conflicts of interest. But I but I just want to say that I, I stand with those who are requesting that the that the meeting be reheard so that people that weren't given a chance to speak can do so. And then the other I just had a question regarding the schedule, the consent calendar for this evening. What happened to the items that were skipped or removed? Can someone answer that for me?
Speaker 0: Not now. We can't. This is public comment.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: All right. Well, that's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank your next speaker.
Speaker 2: Ash Geiger.
Speaker 0: Good evening. Speaker Guyer.
Speaker 1: Hey, you're.
Speaker 3: Good evening. Mayor Ashcroft and other city council members. I'd just like to echo what Marilyn Ralston and other speakers have already pointed out about this being an obvious delay tactic by people who just don't want to see this facility being used to house.
Speaker 5: Homeless and fair.
Speaker 3: Medically frail.
Speaker 5: People.
Speaker 3: It's just seems just unaccountably cruel. And we all know that the members of the public have already had many opportunities to weigh.
Speaker 5: In, including when.
Speaker 3: They voted to pass the measure a several years ago to use the facility for this exact purpose. There's it's eventually going to be built. It's just a question of are we going to waste more time and waste more money before finally doing this?
Speaker 5: And maybe some some.
Speaker 3: Ill elderly people will die in the meantime because we'd pointlessly delay it. I sure hope not. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker that begins. Good evening, Speaker Biggs.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Madame Mayor and City Council. My name is Doug Biggs and the executive director of the Alameda Point Collaborative, the lead applicant for the wellness center here for my 18th appearance before a city board or commission to talk about the wellness center. Tonight is an easy decision. You cannot claim a meeting was not properly noticed, but that that only impacted one item period. I think the numbers letters from the public that you received and the comments tonight regarding your actions speak volumes about how egregious your attempt to deny services for unhoused neighbors is and how irresponsible it is that Mr. de SOG would force the cost onto the taxpayers instead of the applicants by cosigning this. I'm glad, however, to be here tonight to be able to for the opportunity to make an important announcement. Carvin or Councilmember Spencer Curran Reed and Harvey Rosenthal have been working hard to, quote unquote, delay the project past September at any cost . Those are direct quotes from one of their missives they're fighting to delay in hopes that our current lease of three years will expire and our unhoused neighbors will be denied access to critically needed support and services. I'm delighted to report that this morning I signed a lease extension with HHS to take us through financing and conveyance for member Spencer misread. And Mr. Rosenthal, your strategy isn't is misguided at best. It's costing taxpayers needlessly and delaying the day when our doors open and we're able to serve those in great need. Please stop. We have unprecedented support for this project all the way up to the federal level. It's time to stop abusing government processes in the hopes that the center homeless will be their will be served. Go away. I'm asking you once again to join us at our table and work with us to create a center of excellence. Speaking of which, if indeed you do wish to discuss aspects of the design for which the Planning Board meeting was held, our lead architect from anchor and Voice and Chris Everett is available tonight to answer any questions you may have. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker Biggs.
Speaker 2: Our next speaker is Denise Anderson.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Anderson.
Speaker 1: Hi. Sorry. A little trouble and meeting you're. I disagree. This is not a complicated issue. We do not need to be relitigating all of the. Every single delay tactic and obstruction to this project. It's been voted on. It's been debated over and over and over again. And we know exactly what this is. We know. So I beg of you caution, Tony, to do your jobs and just let this happen. It's going to happen. It doesn't matter how long you take to delay it and all you're doing is more harm to our community. Just do your jobs.
Speaker 0: Are you okay? I think she's completed. She's. She's muted. So our next speaker.
Speaker 2: Zach BOLLING, is our last speaker.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Good evening. Speaker bowling.
Speaker 5: Hi there. Thank you. Can you hear me?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: Okay. Awesome. Yeah, I won't.
Speaker 5: I submitted public comment of my personal feelings on this, so I'm going to keep this brief and not reiterate everything I said there. I didn't want to call out a letter that you all received from.
Speaker 3: Yimby Law about.
Speaker 5: SB 330 and potentially any violations, but having this item in the first place may raise.
Speaker 3: So I just wanted to call that to your.
Speaker 5: Attention before you take a vote on this, that you might be violating the five cap limit on having.
Speaker 3: Public meetings concerning items.
Speaker 5: Like this. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker Bowling. And you said, Madam Clerk, that was our last public speaker, correct? Correct. Okay. So with that, I'm going to close public comment on item six B and we'll get to discussion. But I'm wondering if we have a motion to support the the Planning Board's final decisions at their July 26, 2021 meeting. Vice mayor of L.A..
Speaker 1: So moved. I'd like a vote to uphold it.
Speaker 0: All right. Do we have a Second.
Speaker 3: Vatican.
Speaker 0: Council member in Knox? Right seconds. All right. Who would like to lead with discussion? Councilmember, that's why.
Speaker 3: So I'll ask a couple of questions. One of staff. This is a de novo hearing so that we are actually rehearing and this item has been re noticed as part of this meeting. Correct. So this would be the opportunity that anybody who was unable to attend the planning board meeting would come here and raise the concerns that they were they felt that they were unable to raise. Okay. Thank you. Sorry. I see Alan's as Mr. Ty's head shaking up and down. So I'm. I'm interpreting. Thank you. I guess my question is, I would like to hear specifically from Councilmember De suggested through the chair how it is that we're calling saying that a meeting is unnoticed correctly, but that we're only calling specific items and allowing other items to move forward.
Speaker 0: Right through the chair, I will convey your question to Councilmember Garza, Councilmember Desai.
Speaker 5: Well, thank you. Let me give my presentation, you know, for the residents who are very supportive of the of the facility that is being proposed. I understand the necessity of such a facility. And I also understand that the residents in a recent vote supported it. I think there's a clear indication of supporting these kind of facilities, not just there, but in other parts of Alameda. But for these kind of facilities to come to fruition requires a process, a democracy in which at its minimum, the residents are married, aware of and can participate in, in actions that are related to these kinds of facilities.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Desai Let me just stop you and make sure you understood. Councilmember Enoxaparin question.
Speaker 3: Is I.
Speaker 5: Will, I will. I'm speaking and I'm going to it. I think there is I mean, I don't I don't think the.
Speaker 1: Questions.
Speaker 5: Are subject to like interrogation by other.
Speaker 1: Council members.
Speaker 0: This isn't an interrogation. It was a question through the chair as to why if noticing was a problem. But it only applies to one. Okay.
Speaker 5: Well then.
Speaker 0: Agenda item.
Speaker 5: That the councilmember addressed the issue as he sees fit. Okay. So at its core, is is the necessity of making available information of an upcoming meeting for a facility such as this. And at its core, those kind of notices have to have the proper information that allows people to participate. Unfortunately, in this case, as important as this facility was, there was a mistake in the noticing that precluded the participation of some members of the audience. So that's why I joined Councilmember Herrera Spencer and making sure that we re agenda is this item so that we can have full participation with the correct information. Now, on the night of the of the decision with regard to this facility, there were other items that were discussed. Now it was decided between the time that we initially put together the the council referral, it was decided that certain of those items were of such a time sensitive importance that we had to let them go. And I think that had to do, for example, with the artistic events on Webster Street as well as with some of the projects over at Harbor Bay. So I think the time sensitivity of those projects, even though they certainly were not properly noticed, made us come to a reasonable decision that certain things could not be delayed. This, though, was one of the items that could be delayed without altogether a change of the substance of it. Now, there are some people who are adamantly opposed to this project from the very beginning and and perhaps that perhaps is seeing in this attempt to delay that they wanted to stop the project. That was not my case. I believe that the matter has been settled by the people in the recent vote. I think the people are supporting this project. While I certainly are concerned about the recent debate that we had about this project having to do with whether the property proper thing to do is to reuse of the the facility or to demolish the facility. And you know how I voted? I voted against demolition because I felt that the vote was for reuse. Nonetheless, I still felt that. Nonetheless, I still felt that the matter is settled. But the more important thing, though, is to make sure that as this facility is eventually built, that we just go through one more step of re agenda, re agenda, using this item for public input, which, by the way. Is the point of tonight. Tonight is an opportunity was an opportunity for the public to weigh in for those issues that they thought that they might have raised. Several meetings ago and tonight was their attempt at their opportunity to do so.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember de SAG Councilmember Herr Spencer.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mayor. I'd also like to add that the two items that were removed and it was just the two items. There are other items other than the wellness center on the agenda. They were both. They were the only confirmed items. One of them was, in fact, as members pointed out, for shared was the expansion of the penumbra building. And the setback on that one is being moved from 50 feet to 49 feet, and there is never any comment at all on that item. And the sale was closing like the next day and we've been dark council hasn't had any meetings in the last month. So I was asked we were asked to remove that one item where there had never been any at all public comments and it wasn't back on consent. Then the second one was 60. That was also on consent that we were asked to remove. And that one there had been multiple hearings on this exact issue in regards to noise. And on that specific issue, contrary to the the people that have raised the property, that was the design review and it was the first and only hearing discussion of design that was all that could be discussed during that. And I listened to the meeting as it was occurring live and we did have a caller call in and point out that there was someone, you know, that they were having problems because of this phone number error. And there was a discussion by the city attorney's office at that point, the attorneys sitting on the diet or on Zoom who shared that. They thought that because that it wasn't also sufficient or because there even though the Zoom meeting ID number was incorrect on the agenda for those calling in. So it was actually raised live during the meeting that that that is where the issue arose during the meeting. And the president of the Planning Board was very precise that all comments had to be to design only. And that was where we saw the pictures of the design. It was the only time those pictures have been shared that detail and discussed by the public. So the fact that and we all know, as we've heard again tonight, this is a very important issue to our community. And the fact that it had this mistake in regards to the Zoom meeting had to be able to participate via phone call. I think we have allowed phone participation and we have and staff has in fact created agendas during COVID where they have the correct meeting ID, the meeting ID for the court phone callers and I agree with member de Target in regards to open government and democracy, and that puts out an agenda that is critical, that it includes the correct meeting ID so that we can hear from the participants and so that that was wrong. But so I think that I would hope that we would all agree that staff should in fact have the correct Zoom meeting ID on an agenda so that we can hear from the members of the public on on the agendas. So that's a critical error. And to me and it was brought up that night. And so we know that there were callers that were not that were having problems trying to call in.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Spencer, if I might ask if open government and democracy requires correct phone numbers so we can hear from members of the public, why doesn't it occur? Why doesn't that apply across the board? Open government in democracy.
Speaker 4: All right. So I did try to speak to that mayor. I'm happy to try again there. If you look, there were the two items that were removed. And obviously we need to, as we discussed today when the item came to us, May, versus now that there is some discretion to allow the movement and the progress of items . So it would, if required to hold up the sale or transfer of property for which there had been zero feedback from the community in advance or during the meeting.
Speaker 0: How do you know that somebody didn't try to comment on those two items that you pulled from your call for review because they called in on the wrong number? How would you know that?
Speaker 4: Okay. So to date, there have been no there was to date, but I know there has been zero communication from anyone saying that they had tried to call in on either of those items and were denied as opposed to what happened during the meeting itself, where it was brought to our attention.
Speaker 0: My understanding from the correspondence attached to this item is that you pulled those two items when you got requests to do so from the proponents of each. You agreed to Mr. Ernst's review and you agreed to Ms.. Astbury requests. I should say that you delete those items for the call for review. Councilmember Knox. Right.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you, sir. I appreciate the answers. I think, quite honestly, I don't buy it. I really just don't. You can't suggest that there's a problem with one item and there's not a problem with other items. It is very clear that this was a targeted call for review. And I think it's really unfortunate is shameful. I'm going to say and I'll walk my line very carefully here, but we have heard a lot of conversation about people who are very concerned about the fact that people don't abuse the rules with open government complaints. And we need to really loosen it up so people can just file lots of open government complaints because two people have concerns that they've already been turned down once. And yet here we are having a conversation where the very logic of we have heard no complaints about people who tried to call into the meeting on those other two items. We haven't heard from one person who was called in. They didn't even call in tonight to say they couldn't get in. The only complaint we heard was somebody who called in on the other line and said they had a problem with the first line. That person who is an open government commission then called in a second time in and broke the protocols for engagement in our public meetings. To continue commenting when they were when their time was up. So I think this is a really problematic precedent that we're setting here, that we're going to just call for review every single thing . And so personally, I'd like to see as a party, after we vote on this, I'd like to provide some direction to our staff that we have some conversations about when call for review as appropriate. Because you didn't even call for review the decision. You want to call this an open government complaint file? An open government complaint. This was not a call for a review. All right. Since it was and we had the opportunity to hear from the community who didn't have the opportunity to give comment to the planning board. And yet not one of those people showed up. The only people who spoke were people who were actually there and on last time. I just I think that our meetings are never getting done because we are just constantly larding up a kind of political show and tell on here. And I'm really I'm really frustrated because, quite honestly, I've been worked really hard to try to help move even things I don't agree with forward on the agenda. And then we have to sit here and go through an hour long conversation on on an item because somebody wants just another bite at the apple. So those are my comments. I'm expressing my frustration. I appreciate the time that our staff has put in here. I'm very sorry that you have had to go through, you know, just so much waste of time. And we could be working on other things. But instead, we're having to prepare for ridiculous hearings like this. And I hope this is the last one. We've had 18 hearings on this project. And I understand that the design was not specifically a part of every single one of those 18 projects, but not one special new content came out. The only comment about the project we heard from Mr. Rosenstiel talked about the Rosenthal talked about the last call for review you guys had. You didn't even address the design. We haven't heard one design comment tonight. It's time to elect projects that are meant to help people that have had the support in concept of the voters to move forward and stop trying to play these games to just stop it. I look forward to working with both of you on other projects, but this one is really frustrating for me and I was really, really surprised and disappointed to see that it was managed to get too close to call for reviews. And quite honestly, I think it's an abuse of our process. And I don't want to rewrite our processes to have to address kind of the just the general abuse of trying to play politics with our processes. So that's my that's my rant. I appreciate. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Knox White. And I'm actually going to Segway. I'll get to Councilmember Gay. Like I'm going to segway on to something you said, Councilmember Knox. Right. That I had determined the first time I read that this item was coming to us. And I also greatly appreciate the planning staff and city attorney's.
Speaker 1: Work.
Speaker 0: On these items. But I would also like the council to direct the city attorney's office to work with the planning staff to consider limiting appeals on projects that address homelessness. Because we are never going to accomplish what we need to accomplish as a city to address homelessness. If we keep stretching out the approval of these worthy projects, making them cost more money. And I have to agree with the. The first public speaker is Rothman, who said she called this calculated targeting of the wellness center morally wrong and costly just for the project. Again, it has to be targeting. There is no other reason that the other two items were pulled, except that this was the one mark to colleagues wanted to attack. And the other thing I would like city staff, city attorney's office planning staff to look into is the issue of whether design review decision decisions are even appealable, should even be appealable to the city council. This is not universal among cities that a design review and decision by the planning board is appealable to the city council. And I think we've seen tonight just exactly the abuse that can come out of it. And I want to just add further that I mean, you know, that I for this year, I've been chairing a statewide policy committee on Housing, Community and Economic Development for the League of California Cities. And a couple of Fridays ago, a couple of league staff folks came down from Sacramento. I wanted to show them around Alameda Point and some of the developments and what we're doing with our 24, 25% affordable requirement. And we got to tour Corsair Flats and that is, you know, it happened it sort of I mean, it happened at exactly the right time. But because of COVID, we haven't been able to do a ribbon cutting, but we got to go in for a little tour and have those 60 units and they're all affordable. Senior housing. 28 of those units were set aside for formerly homeless veterans, and the on site residential manager told us that some of those veterans who are now housed in a lovely facility had been on the street for ten years, ten years. And, you know, some people are going to live and die on the street in that period of time. We have the the opportunity to move projects forward so that we avoid that sort of outcome. It is morally wrong to to throw these specious roadblocks in the way just to appease a few disgruntled community members who just can't get over the fact that this project has been approved time and time again. So I do think it takes more than hope that this won't happen again. I do think it takes some looking into and maybe some redesigning of our process. Back to you. Councilmember Jason.
Speaker 5: Well, thank you very much. And I just want to reiterate, what is the core of the issue? What is the reason why Councilmember Herrera, Spencer and myself brought this up not to target the facility, but because at its core, there wasn't a mistake in the agenda raising of this item. And in putting in the wrong telephone number, who knows how many people might have called and decided not to follow through because they they weren't getting the right number? I don't know. And that's what that's the problem here. That's the problem we're trying to address, you know, for projects that are as high stakes as this. It's imperative that city hall at least get the low hanging fruit item. Correct. And in this case, they didn't. And so I do believe that we were right to point this out and to call for a referral and to have the type of meeting that we're having tonight. It's glad it's good to see that this facility will be moving forward. I do believe that the residents support this. They have done so in the votes. They have done so when repeated coming out of meetings and emails. And I appreciate that. But ultimately, for a democracy to work or for projects to get their full discussion in the in the light of day, we have to meet the minimum standards of getting the information out correctly. And in this case, we didn't. And so I appreciate the the energy and the enthusiasm, not just council members, but the public have for this project. And I look forward to seeing it built. But in this case, it was imperative that we do bring it out. And again, as for the other items that were on the agenda, like we said earlier, there was such a time sensitivity with regard to those other items that we had to make the reasonable decision that the one item that did not have the same time sensitivity was going to have to go through the the vetting that we're putting it through tonight. Unfortunately, unfortunately, that was this project. But hopefully tonight, the council and the community will understand that this matter, this matter is settled in. The project will move forward.
Speaker 0: Vice mayor of L.A.
Speaker 1: So with all due respect, shame on us. Shame on us for having this many hearings on the same project. Shame on us for not streamlining this process. This project is in my backyard. I want it in my backyard. I'm proud of it being in my backyard. I think we all should be proud of this project. It's withstood, I don't know, 18 public hearings at this point. I do. Second, what the mayor has said about looking at our process to see if calls for a review should be allowed or permitted for design, for design review purposes . I think we need to get back to business. This issue has been decided. It has overcome a lot of hurdles. It's not a high stakes project. We have made it a project that has had to withstand a number of different attacks. And shame on us for for that, because we have made this this project much more difficult than it needs to be. Additionally, I would disagree with my colleagues that that time isn't of the essence for this project. Time is of the essence. We do not have these services for our vulnerable community members. We do not have adequate housing and end of life care services, all of the services that are going to be provided by the wellness center, we don't have those in in a way that we need to provide them. And so I just we need to not be the ones causing any more issues relative to this project moving forward. I would also just say that I just don't I think the arguments that have been made for why we have exempted other things and only are hearing about this one project tonight to me, just don't stand muster . And I think we have other items of particular concern that we need to get to. And I hope that this is the last of political stunts to try to stop or impede forward movement on the wellness center.
Speaker 0: All right. Councilmember Herrera Spencer.
Speaker 4: Oh, I do want to respond to the comments against member of the ACLU and myself by my colleagues. I, I disagree. I think it was appropriate to bring it. I think it's unfortunate that the personal attacks levied by my fellow council members against Member De SA and myself for bringing this item. We do have the. If you want to change the rules moving forward, then that can come to council. But currently we do as council members have the ability to call items such as this for review. And it is critical, as has been said, that the phone numbers and the ability, the way to participate in meetings be properly noticed. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Yes. I do think that we've seen where we need to make some changes in our rules. And so we've given direction to staff to please come back to us with those looking into those topics. Okay. I think we've heard from everyone. Madam Clerk, may we have a roll call vote?
Speaker 2: Please remember details.
Speaker 1: Oh, you're meeting Miss Chen.
Speaker 5: Epstein.
Speaker 0: Oh, wait. Miss Chen is. Has your hand up?
Speaker 1: Oh, I just wanted to ask if we wanted to do two separate motions, one to approve the minutes and one to approve the resolution.
Speaker 0: Okay, that is a good suggestion. Thank you. We can do that. Okay, madam, can you bifurcate that one interest, please?
Speaker 2: Sure. I think Councilmember Vela's late.
Speaker 1: She.
Speaker 0: What is it? I can.
Speaker 1: Appreciate it and make.
Speaker 0: A motion to make the motions. Okay.
Speaker 1: And then to make a separate motion to approve the resolution.
Speaker 0: The delay review. Okay. And the second order of the motions. Okay. With that, too, right? All right. All right. Thank you, Madam Quirk. So let's go first with the minutes.
Speaker 2: That's where. That's her Spencer Knox fight.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 1: Villa.
Speaker 2: I mayor as the Ashcraft.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: That carries 4 to 1.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And so then will you please do the second part of that, which is the approval of the design review application?
Speaker 2: Councilmember de SAC.
Speaker 3: State.
Speaker 2: Treasurer Spencer Knox wi.
Speaker 3: Fi.
Speaker 2: Vela.
Speaker 1: High.
Speaker 2: Mayor as Ashcraft.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: That carries three as one. No one abstain.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. With that, we move on. Thank you, Ms.. Chen. With that, we move on to item 660.
Speaker 2: To provide further direction to staff regarding the allocation of 28.68 million of funding from the federal government through the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 to assist with recovery from the impacts of the COVID 19 pandemic.
Public Hearing to Consider a Call for Review of the Planning Board’s Final Decisions at the July 26, 2021 Meeting to Approve (1) Design Review Application No. PLN21-0077 for an Approximately 29,810-square-foot Medical Respite Facility at 1245 McKay Avenue and (2) Draft Meeting Minutes from the June 14, 2021 Planning Board Meeting; and 
Adoption of Resolution Approving Design Review Application No. PLN21-0077 to Allow the Construction of an Approximately 29,810-Square-Foot Medical Respite Facility at 1245 McKay Avenue. (Planning, Building and Transportation 20962710)