The ordinance drew discussion, with public speakers expressing both gratitude and apprehension. Rivera stressed the importance of public understanding and encouraged questions to ensure clarity. He appreciated the Council President’s confirmation of the planning board’s approval, noting that the ordinance aligned with plans from 2017.

Following Rivera, Matthew Ross, representing Insera Supermarkets, Northwest Redevelopment Supermarkets, and the Palisades Cliff Protection Alliance, raised concerns about the ordinance’s reflection of current conditions. Ross advocated for updated analyses on parking, traffic, and density relative to 2025 conditions, citing the need for a more comprehensive review than could be achieved in the Zoom meeting format. He requested an adjournment to allow for further examination by community planners. Ross also questioned potential conflicts of interest among council members related to developer dealings and sought clarity on the procedural legitimacy of the ordinance.

Additional concerns about procedural compliance were voiced by another public speaker, who highlighted the necessity of a concept plan before voting. This individual questioned the transparency of the city’s obligations under settlement agreements and whether developers had requested or received payments. The speaker reserved the right to make further comments.

Technical difficulties did not deter Lisa Lamelo, who sought clarification on the ordinance’s purpose and questioned the relevance of dated supporting documents from 2010 and 2015. Lamelo inquired whether the redevelopment plan had been updated and raised concerns about soil conditions in the area. The Council responded by explaining the meeting’s format was not intended for dialogue but for public comments. A council member clarified that the ordinance was a reaffirmation of an amendment from the previous year, driven by ongoing litigation. They acknowledged the potential for additional environmental information but did not recall specific details.

Legal representatives from Union City, echoing Ross’s concerns, argued that the ordinance process felt rushed and lacked adequate public review. They advocated for an adjournment to allow more public participation and address allegations of conflicts of interest. Conversely, Pat Waiters disagreed with calls for further delays. Recalling her involvement since 2007, Waiters criticized the prolonged process and urged decisive council action. She emphasized the impact on taxpayers and developers, expressing frustration over the delays and the looming election cycle.