Speaker 2: So is that an option or do I have to vote? Yes. Okay, face.
Speaker 0: It, it's still a democracy. You get to pick your conscience, at least in the city. The city attorney is nodding, so I think. Yes.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 0: So no further comments. Go ahead, Mr. De Soto.
Speaker 2: Oh, no. I think she was going to ask me how I vote, so I'll say no.
Speaker 0: Well, in a roll call vote, we usually wait to hear a name. So just hang on for one minute. And Madam Clerk, please roll call.
Speaker 1: The council member disabled? No knocks. Right.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 1: Odie. I Vella. Mayor as the Ashcroft I. That carries for two one.
Speaker 0: And you and everyone and thank you staff for all your hard work on this. Much appreciated. All right. We are moving right along then. Okay, then. Very happy to hear this item.
Speaker 1: This meeting gets recessed and you will go back to the regular meeting. So you'll be calling another recess and something back.
Speaker 0: What she said. But don't anyone go anywhere because it's really just a matter of turning your page. Okay. So with that, let's see if I can.
Speaker 1: And we're on six D.
Speaker 3: After.
Speaker 0: The bouncing ball. We are on. Yes. Six D. Okay. Will you introduce that for us please?
Speaker 1: Public Hearing To consider an appeal of the Planning Board's decision to approve design review number PLN 20 Dash 0047 to allow the rehabilitation of an approximately 50,517 square foot existing building for the adaptive reuse as a senior living convalescent home at 412 1245 McKay Avenue. An adoption related resolution.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I was going to say, I would imagine Andrew Thomas will be back for this. And Ms.. Chen and Mr. Dong gang's all here. Hi. All right.
Speaker 4: Please. Good evening. Larry Ashcraft, the members of the City Council. Can you hear me? Okay? All right. Okay. I'm just going to be presenting the city staff's recommendation to you tonight. I'm, as you said, the city attorney, Selina Chen, is on with us tonight, as well as the project planner, Henry Dong. This is an.
Speaker 3: Appeal.
Speaker 4: Of a planning board's decision to uphold a planning department decision to approve a design review application for the remodel of an existing building at the Mackay Wellness Center on Mackay Avenue. We the arguments for in support of the original decision were documented in the staff report for the City Council and the Planning Board, and the response to the appellants concerns about the process and the validity of the decision were all well documented in that planning staff report. The planning? The Appellant. The hearing went to the City Planning Board. They upheld the planning board, the planning staff's decision unanimously. They considered all of the evidence and unanimously decided that the decision was correct. On the design review application. We, the appellant, then appealed that decision to the City Council. That is what tonight's hearing is about. I think we've everything has been very well documented. I won't go through all of the arguments for and against. It's all in the packet and on the record. 4 minutes before this hearing, the city received a additional letter from the appellant. The letter is has been transmitted to you. Of course you didn't receive it probably until after or a minute or two before the hearing. And essentially the letter requests and this is it was submitted before the public hearing to request that you delay action tonight until you've considered the issues raised in this letter.
Speaker 3: It's 820 now.
Speaker 4: Our staff, of course, now has had almost an hour and a half to review the letter. So what I would like to do is just to quickly go through the letter for the counsel so that you understand the new issues brought forward by the appellant and the staff response.
Speaker 3: If you feel you need more. Yes. Well.
Speaker 0: If I could just interrupt for a minute. So and I this is probably a question for the attorneys, but and I have not seen the letter yet. But does this constitute a part of the appeal? When is there not a cut off time but Ms.. Chan or Mr. Chan, anybody want to? I mean, I'm sure we're happy to hear, but how does that work when the letter comes in minutes before we're about to hear this? Mr..
Speaker 4: So our mayor and council. So you've received this letter as part of the appeal. The planning director, I believe, will give you a very, very brief summary of it. It will be part of the record. You may consider it for any amount that you may weigh it against all of the evidence before you, because courts have made clear that any evidence submitted at the public.
Speaker 6: Hearing.
Speaker 4: Including verbal made, can be considered by the decision makers. You you away as against all of the other evidence before you and make her.
Speaker 6: Decision as you see appropriate. I also defer to Ms.. Chen to see if she has any additional comments.
Speaker 0: This is.
Speaker 1: For. This is Celina ten.
Speaker 3: Good evening. I agree with Mr. Schoen. I think the council has complete discretion on whether to continue. But it is it is.
Speaker 1: Appropriate for the council to consider this.
Speaker 3: Late letter, as it does other comments. And in.
Speaker 1: Making its decision, you can weigh all.
Speaker 3: The evidence and come to.
Speaker 1: A decision tonight if you so choose.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And I even wrote in the margin on my agenda public comment. So I don't forget to ask for public comment because there probably are some. Okay. So, Mr. Thomas, back to you. To summarize what I.
Speaker 4: Want to what I would like to do just very quickly is review the letter with you just so that you and the public understand what is being brought forward in terms of of the of the information. Of course, you probably also have some public speakers tonight, so you'll be getting other new information. It's all part of the record, but this is from the appellant. So I wanted to give it, make sure everybody understood it was on the record and what it said the and I'm just summarize he does a nice job of sort of summarizing it in the letter. But the first argument is that based on the Planning Department's notice of March 5th, I am stating that the city has no authority to invoke the objective design review standards adopted by the Planning Board. On February 10th. The Planning Board did adopt objective design review standards on February 10th, which was prior to our decision around March 15th to approve this project. But our decision as a city was based on the requirements of the city's municipal code, which says the project has to be consistent with the the general plan, the zoning and the design review manual. That is what our decision was based on. We also believe it was it's consistent with the objective design review standards adopted recently for the planning board, for multi-family housing and other types of uses. But from from the perspective of this appeal, not really relevant. It was this was approved and the planning board also approved this project based on its consistency with the design review manuals, whether it's whether or not the objective design review standards adopted most recently on February 10th are applicable are relevant is really besides the point from from answering.
Adoption of Resolution Calling for the Holding of a Consolidated Municipal Election in the City of Alameda on Tuesday, November 3, 2020, for the Submission of a Proposed Charter and General Plan Amendment to Repeal the Prohibition Against Building Multi-Family Housing in Alameda and the Citywide Density Limitation of One Housing Unit per 2,000 Square Feet of Land, and Authorizing City Councilmembers to File Written Arguments For or Against the Measure.  (City Attorney/City Clerk)