Public Hearing to Consider An Appeal Filed by Brian Tremper of the May 28 and July 22, 2019 Planning Board Decisions for a 172-Room Hotel and Restaurant at 2900 Harbor Bay Parkway (PLN 18-0381) and Adoption of Related Resolution. (Planning and Building 481005)
Right. So really, the city's discretion here is simply the design of the building. The planning board had a study session in October of 2018 to just to review the overall design of the building, the size, its compliance with the zoning code to make sure it met all of our zoning requirements. And then two months later, they had another public hearing and approved the project in December of 2018. That decision was then appealed by the neighbors of the project. The City Council held a hearing on February 5th, considered the appeal, considered the Planning Board's decision, and upheld the Planning Board's decision. That decision that the Planning Board made to approve the project had two remaining items that the Planning Board had asked the applicant to do, which one was to come back with final architectural design elements for the building. So the scale, size, height was all approved, but they wanted to get more details and an articulation on the building . So they asked the applicant to come back with that. They also wanted more detail and some fine tuning to the landscape plan. The City Council, at your hearing after upholding the planning board, said, Yeah, we absolutely agree. Planning Board, you should keep working on those two items. And we would also like you to take one last look at the setback of the building from the water and consider pushing it back ten or 15 feet. You didn't tell them to do it. You asked them to just consider whether that was a good idea or not. Two days later, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, a board of Directors Board of Commissioners, held a public hearing to discuss this very same project and determined that it was completely consistent with their guidelines, standards and rules, and that it met their set back requirements and provided an appropriate set back to the water from Bccdc perspective. We then followed that up with two neighborhood meetings. Then on May 28th, the planning board held another public hearing, and at that meeting they considered the staff recommendation, which at that point was to not move the building back any further. We did not feel that we should push the building closer, push it back away from the water, because we felt the distance from the water was appropriate. And equally important, we felt that to push it back towards the neighbors would simply make the building appear even taller. So and there was at the neighborhood meetings on February 16th and May 11th that we had had prior to May 28th, there was no no support and no requests from the neighbors to pull the building back towards them. So we made that recommendation at May 28th. The planning board did not get any public speakers asking that the building get pushed back towards the neighborhood and they approved. The building setback. That decision was then appealed. And that's the one of the decisions you're considering tonight. But they did not approve the final designs and the final landscape at that at that meeting. We then had two more community meetings. And then on July 22nd, the planning board reaffirmed and re-approved the project setback and the final architectural details and lighting. So this is a project that the planning board has worked very hard on. And as I said earlier, we feel they they made the right decision. The appellant makes three arguments. One is there weren't enough community meetings. The planning board is required to have notice public hearings. They held those public hearings there. They completely fulfilled the requirements of the zoning code in terms of public meetings. All of the extra neighborhood meetings I just talked about were extra meetings. So there is no requirement for any more meetings. The other two issues related to the appeal are about the setback of the building. What this slide shows you is a couple of things. The the orange area shown is the footprint of the building in December. And if you look very closely, you'll see there's a there's another footprint sort of superimposed on the orange. You can see that is the final footprint. It was approved by the planning board. So you can see if you look very closely, the building got ever so slightly longer. It got a little narrower in places on the width, but the basic set back never changed. The reason the the configuration changed slightly is we were working with the applicant and the planning board was working on the applicant and the neighbors were working with the opinion to get more articulation into the design. So the design sort of you got some more ins and outs, more reveals the overall design of the building improved over this period. The actual square footage remained basically the same. The actual location of the building remained the same. We didn't move it back, as I said earlier. The another thing that has not changed is this relationship of the set back to to the waterfront. So we didn't move the building back. The thing that I'll just point out here is the requirement is that the project be set 35 feet back from the water, from the park edge. And there's actually a little red line on that drawing. You probably can't see it, but that's 35 feet back. The restaurant, which is shown on the left, is right on that red line, 35 feet. The pool and the pool deck, which you see just to the left of the hotel there, that is the pool that sits in front of the hotel between the hotel and the restaurant that sits right on the line. And you can see the little red line. The hotel is just pushed back, but it varies from 4 to 5 feet back from that red line, just as a little bit of a patio area. You can see in the inset that patio, these are people there's a drawing showing people sitting in chairs in front of the hotel. You can see behind them that building, that's the restaurant. It's just a little bit further and the pool is right behind them. So that line there, sitting on the 35 foot line, the hotel is just a few feet back. So throughout this project, the staff report and the staff described has been describing the project set back from the 35 foot line. That relationship of restaurant and pool and hotel has not changed from this entire period from December through July 22nd. As I said at the beginning, we're recommending that you uphold the planning board's decision. We don't believe that the planning board made any mistakes. This has been a site that has been difficult. Every single project that we have tried to move forward on this site has been appealed. This is the second appeal for the UN on this particular project. I think the we believe the planning board worked very hard. We think they interpreted and implemented your zoning code and development regulations appropriately on this site. I know they tried to make everybody happy at the end of the day. We still have some residents who are unhappy with the final design. I'm sure you'll hear from them tonight. But from staff's perspective, the planning board did their job and they did it well. So with that, I'm available to answer any questions. I know the project applicant would also like a couple of minutes. Okay. Well, I am going to see first if any councilmembers have any clarifying questions of Mr. Thomas on the staff report. Councilmember Ody Yes, I do. Thank you for that presentation. I just have a procedural question. So there were two decisions, but there's one appeal and then it was amended via email even. I mean, there's that this is I mean, that doesn't seem like that's a proper procedure. Well, here we are. These hearings are de novo. So you are able, as the council, to consider and make any changes you want related to the project. You're not limited to just the issues raised by the appellant. So what happened was we they had their they submitted their appeal after the first decision then, but the planning board wasn't even done yet. So then we basically had a conversation with them like, well, do you want to wait till the planning board finishes and then have one appeal hearing, or do we have to have two more, you know? So we decided to sort of consolidate. But under the regulations and the zoning code, they can continue to raise questions and issues. And even tonight, issues can come up in this hearing that you can address or decide. So we didn't hold it at a sort of a strict line like, oh, I can't say anything more. You have to stop here. Well, that wasn't my question. The question was the appeal was made on the first. The first. Decision. And it seems to me there should have been an appeal made on the second decision as well in order for us to consider it, because there's really no appeal of that decision. I mean, there's no official petition. There's no fee filed. They that's that's true. I mean, we could take that approach. I'm just not sure that it would make a difference if we could said, okay, well, this is appeal on May 28th, and if you overturn that decision, then the project does have to go back to the planning board because that was a decision where they set the building footprint. So I'm going to call a time out and ask to hear from our city attorney. Mr. SHINN. Councilmember Odie, it's my understanding that after the initial appeal, staff had a conversation with the appellant, and the appellant and staff reached an amicable resolution, which is to continue the appeal and collectively appeal at once. Given that courts generally review notices of appeals with a lot of latitude, my recommendation is that the council hears this appeal in its entirety. Thank you, Mr. Shinn. Do we have any further clarifying questions of Mr. Thomas before we go to our public speakers and the applicant, Councilmember Desai. And I kind of submitted this earlier. So has the applicant officially gone through the process of combining the three parcels? It's a condition of approval on the project. So no, they haven't merged the property yet, but they need to do it before they can do a pull up building permit. The building permits. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any further clarifying questions? Mr. Knox White Vice Mayor Lanier. Okay. So with that, I'm sure we have the applicant addresses first council or last after the public speakers. Because they usually have a we have a process laid out in our rules, don't we, on this? No, I think you do. The particular council member, I don't believe you have a written process laid out, but my recommendation is to give the appellant the last word. The last word. Okay, we will do that. So then the city clerk, how many speakers clubs do we have? We have six, including the appellant. Okay. So with six. I mean, the applicant. The applicant. Yeah. So the applicant is one and I think there's. A couple of people. I think speaking from the parents side. I'm sorry, did you say applicant or a parent should have the last word? I generally recommend giving the appellant the last word because they are appealing and they should have the final say after they heard. All the comments. I think that's fine. Okay, so shall we bookended and have the day here that the applicant wanted to speak or am I just hearing in a mumble. Okay. Wants to speak and then the appellant. Yes. Okay. Or both. I'm running this meeting. Here's what we're going to do. I. And altogether miss. Why I. That's six. Okay. So you've all got 3 minutes. Don't feel like you have to take them, but you've got him and the clerk will call your names. Be ready to come on up. It'll just keep things moving faster. But let's start with Mr. Leach and then and end with Mr. the gentleman who's the appellant jury. So. Okay, so we have Robert Leach and Singh and Michael McDonough is the first three. All right, come on up. Hi. Robert Leach. I'm the applicant. And despite my eternal optimism with the city of Alameda, I have to say that we haven't convinced everybody in the city yet that this is a great project. But I can say that we've had a strong turnout at all the different hearings and invited people to go. Tonight, I asked my fifth grade teacher she could stay home, my third grade best friend. He could stay home. A lot of the folks, because this is an appeal and not a a vote of action. Long story short is we started the project with the idea of trying to build the nicest hotel ever built in Alameda. We've complied with every rule and regulation that was presented to us in terms of height and setback and air and everything else. Any rule, we asked for no variances to build this project. We basically wanted to stay within the code because I had witnessed over the last couple of years the turmoil that creates when you ask for variances with BCP, DC and the city. So we stayed away from any variances. We designed the project to be 100% compliant with city rules and regulations. We went. There was an appeal filed or issue taken up with BCP DC. We were called to back DC. They voted 90 no in favor of the project that we were 100% compliant. It's a very nice hotel. I like to say it's the nicest hotel ever built in Alameda. I also like to say that it's the first Union Hotel built in Alameda. It's the first union operated hotel with staff. And if you want to know the difference between a union operated hotel, our housekeepers make 2850 an hour. That's not just jumping over the $15 measurement that people are trying to get to these days. It's pole vaulting over the $15 measurement. So we're building a great hotel. It contributes about $1,000,000 a year to the city in terms of total tax. We've listened to everybody in the neighborhood. I've attended every meeting they had. In addition to the meetings that were scheduled by the planning staff. I attended people's homes. I went to their houses, their businesses, wherever they wanted to talk. I went and met with them. We took every good idea that we could from those meetings and incorporated into the project. I met a planning commissioner out at the site and walked the site and looked at plants and where they were and where they were insufficient and tried to do everything we could. So at this point, I think we've we've satisfied everything we can do in terms of regulatory requirements, rebuilding a very, very nice hotel. It has tremendous benefit to the city in terms of employment and revenue. And it's just frankly, it's just the nicest hotel that's ever been built or attempted in Alameda. We also decided to go with modular, which allows us to minimize any type of dust and dirt, and we can build it quicker and faster and easier. So with less impact on the neighbors. But on I appreciate your consideration on this for the many times I appear before you and thank you very much. Take care. Thank you. Our next speaker. And did we just get another speaker added to this item? Okay. So you're still 3 minutes, folks. Okay. Ed Singh, Michael McDonough and Pat Lambourne. All right. Thank you very much. My name is Ed Singh speaking on behalf of the Freeport Away and as the appellant, we'd like to request 10 minutes to make our case. Is that a whatever? Is it? Is it? So our rules. Are rules and so give it. No, I. We did pass rules of procedure that when we have these type of appeals that we give 10 minutes to, I believe it's each side. Well that that is well and good if that's what the rule. And I know I was on that subcommittee with you. The only part that is throwing me for a loop is I thought that we had saved the appellant for last. But you're saying that you were the you're speaking on behalf of the. Yes. Okay. So Mr.. I'm sorry, I'm. Saying. No, no, no. You're Ms.. You're Mr. Singh. But Mr.. Trumper. Temper. Yes. He's not here. He is here he was. Make comments. The, the appeal was filed on behalf of by Brian. But they have. I mean. Actually, you're right ma'am. I would say the ten mineral that applies to one appellant not for each exactly. But we understand. You said okay. Yeah. Okay. I don't want to go to the end. And and you don't want to wait until you've heard the other speakers because you're welcome to speak now or. Sure I can. Yeah. Because if you if you heard what the city attorney said earlier, Eugene, we generally give the appellant the last word, which is why we had the other listed. Appellant I'm sorry, I keep going blank on this, but. Right. Okay, great. Yeah. Thank you. All right. We'll see you in a bit and we'll reset your time. So, Michael McDonough, your next and then I'm after Mr. McDonough is Pat Lamborn. Pat Lambert. Okay. Hello. Good evening. Mayor Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Knox, Wyatt and the rest of the council and staff. I'm Michael McDonough, president of the board of the Chamber of Commerce here in Alameda. So I'm here just to reiterate what we've said in the past about our support for this project. This is an important project for a number of reasons, not to mention the jobs that they will be creating with a much higher than minimum wage. And also for the city coffers, which the the developer just mentioned would be close to $1,000,000 a year, which I think is a very important number for our budget, for the city's budget moving forward. But also from the business community standpoint, that area out there has one hotel and a lot of people fly into Alameda for business meetings in Alameda in that area and have to stay in Oakland. This is important for a lot of the visitors and family of the business people out there and they've been clamoring for this hotel. I think we're going to have another one pretty soon out there, it seems. But there's not enough hotel space in Alameda and certainly not in the Harbor Bay area. And so we as the the as representative of the Chamber of Commerce here in Alameda, we support this and believe it's a very important project for Alameda and would urge you to uphold the Planning Board's decision. Thank you, Mr. McDonald. Ms.. Lambourne, you're up. Andrew is going to speak for you. Come on up. Okay. Good evening. My name is Pat Lambourn. I've been at almost every single meeting we talked about, so I'm not going to steal the appellants thunder. I would say that if you look at the May 28 minutes, it definitely says that they approved the 35 foot setback. And I think part of what the community wants to know is do you stand by what we say in public meetings and the votes taken? So the issue I wanted to address and I'm really thrilled to hear you can address it tonight, is the parking at at this at this development. Thank you for sharing the photo. This is a this is actually a picture of the completely empty parking lot at VFR outdoors. They've moved and gone to Denver. There's hundreds of empty parking spaces now at 2701 and 2801 Harvard Parkway. So I'm asking that you reduce the parking spaces and you have the power to do that. You just heard that. So originally this was 172 room hotel restaurant that adds up. That added up to 275 parking spaces, five story hotel, 275 parking spaces. In all the community meetings, we said it's over. Parked in the exhibit for the December 10th Planning Board meeting, the consultant said to the study said it was over parked there were going to be at least 100 vacant parking spaces, which they said would be made available to three parkers. No one's ever proof that that's actually going to come to fruition. So I'm asking you to reduce it by 50 go from 275 parking spaces -50. You could do that. The plans and staff reports have all been decided throughout this process about parking. No one's presented to you. Do you know how? Any parking spaces is the final account here? I don't. And I read through all this stuff. I watched the video at one point in the May 28th minutes and I can enter them into public record, if you like. Planning board member Ellen Teague pointed out a dissonance between the staff report and the actual plans they were looking at indicate that night this didn't sail through our planning board folks. At May 28, three planning board members voted no. Why? Because the plans were so dissonant with what the developer said and the information before them. So you have the power tonight. We could be looking at hundreds of vacant parking spaces at VFR door. Maybe you're going to tell us you've got it that someone's moving in and filling them. I don't know that. I looked it up. I couldn't find it. So how many parking spaces should there be on this lot? If you reduce them, you can do something for the neighbors that appealed this. You can add landscaping between the parking lot, the hotel and their houses. You can do something for the rest of us that use the Bay Trail and that which is the Shoreline Park. You could replace the parking spaces with vegetation. Right. If you go with a 35 foot setback, it's not very much. Right. How can you mitigate that? You have the power. Thank you very much. That's what I'm. Asking. Thank you. Nice speaker is Donna Fletcher. Then it's Ed and Brian. Ed singing. All right, so right now, we're going to have Mr. Trimper go after Ms.. Fletcher. Yeah. Is this on this particular item? Okay. Yes. Just thinking ahead. Good. Good evening. Good evening. Mayor Ashcraft, members of the council and city staff. I'm here tonight to speak in support of Mr. Trampers appeal that the Council uphold the 35 foot hotel setback we believe was approved on May 28. The effort by the neighbors to improve the design of the Marriott Residence Hotel has been a long and winding road. To quote the Beatles, in retrospect, the community and the developer probably had different expectations of what they could accomplish. I know that for the community, we really wanted a hotel that fit into the established residential neighborhood and took its cues and design from that. And we figured that if it was a marriott residence in that it would look residential. And if it was an inn, maybe it would appear to be like a seaside resort in Alameda. But once the planning board approved the building footprint, the footprint, the number of rooms and the five stories, really all of the significant design decisions were made. And what we really had to work with was the facade, colors and materials and design details. We did the best we could with that, and we found the developer to be cooperative and patient and collaborative as well as the city staff. So we appreciated that opportunity. Perhaps this is a cautionary tale for other projects that get approved without having the final design approved because it really does limit the process coming to a harmonious conclusion. We now find ourselves at the end of the process and the neighbors are making just one last request, and that is to please to please uphold the 35 foot setback. Thank you. Thank you. And so now, Mr. Trimper. Followed by Mr. Singh. It. Hi, my name is Brian Trump or council members. Mayor And I'm going to be living, I guess my card, my yard's going to be behind this building. Well, wait, I don't know that. I don't know exactly where this building is going to be, because if you look at that, that was the original spot where the building was . They had little markers to chair. Sorry to interrupt you, but everyone wants to hear you. Oh, I'm sorry. I don't know if I'm going to be behind the building there. As you look, as you see if you can see the plants on the right hand side there of my right, that's where my fences and that's where the building was supposed to end to the right of that fence. My house would be view if you could go to the next slide, please. But I can do it now. It's here. That's where the sticks are that indicate the end of the property. However, since then, since that time, they've said, Oh no, we needed to add a little more of the footprint because we now have changed the configuration and there's some new bars which go to the next one to there. So I was the first one to sign the appeal for this project I signed as the president of Freeport Homeowners Association. And it looks like to me that the solution to this problem was to extend this building in front of my backyard. Now, these things are obviously not exact. I don't I'm not that good at PowerPoint and things like that. But they're about that's a little I can't think of the word in English, but it's a little quick, you know, it's a little sideways of a picture. But if you go to the next slide, if you look at their own planning board, it still shows it as to the right of my house. Because if you look at where it says it's kind of like a painted in, it's the trees that are above it, sort of on the right hand side, you have four circles and then you have like a cloud. You see it says Harbor Bay Park, way up there. There's a cloud just above the three fort. So the far right, there's four trees and then there's a cloud that's the existing trees. And in the larger map that that we have, it shows where the actual trunks are. And I can count, I can look at those trunks and I can see and I can look at this map. And it this shows the building to the right of my house. So it doesn't show it just a little over from my house. It doesn't show it quite a bit over from my house. The problem is, I don't know if it's in front of my house. I don't think the city knows if it's in front of my house. I don't know if the the planning board knows where it is exactly on this map. I think that take me out of the equation. I think the city needs to know exactly where this building's footprint is. I don't think the city, the planning board staff or the developer know where the footprint of this building is. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Trump or Mr. Singh. So even being in council, the city attorney and I have kind of convinced him the rules of order would require to be suspended to give 10 minutes of time, because there wasn't an appeal process outlined in that. Perhaps the council was remembering when you did a prior appeal and talked about it because it wasn't adopted as part of the. Okay. I am. I think we should follow whatever the rules are that exist, but I am open to suggestion from my colleagues. And bear with us for just a minute, Mr. Singh, while we figure this out. Um. Uh, Vice Mayor, colleagues, what do you think? But let's not take up. I think my opinion is. Councilmember Desai My opinion is that 10 minutes ago, the expectation or more than 10 minutes ago, the expectation was that the individual was going to give a ten minute presentation. And I don't see why we should relax from that, that expectation. Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Vella. But I'd be willing to suspend the rules. This one's for. But just for 10 minutes. Not for an excess of that. Councilmember O.D. Vice Mayor. Vice Mayor, are you okay with that? Yeah, I'm okay with that. I think everybody might be remembering what's in the Sunshine Ordinance about appeals, but I haven't had a chance to look. That could be that could be. Next time we do this, we'll have those rules in front of us. So we're not playing a guessing game. So with that, Mr. Singh, you have a maximum of 10 minutes. Okay. Thank you very much. Oh, sorry, sorry. We have to vote. Okay, so a motion to suspend the rules to allow 10 minutes for this. Appellant So moved moved by the council approval a second by Councilmember Odie. We're going to take a voice vote. Councilmember Mirza Yes, not quite. Yeah. Oti Yes, yes, yes. Step five race. Proceed, please. It's right there. Uh, this one right here. Uh, that's the pointer. Okay, you got it. Thank you very much. Appreciate your granting the time for this appeal. On next slide. You can advance that there with the error. Oh. Yeah. Okay. Here you go. Okay. Tonight, we're going to focus on the setback of the hotel. The purpose of this appeal is not to stop the hotel. It's not to delay the hotel. It's a matter of a process that we've been following all along and what's been purported to be the hotel setback, what was approved by the planning board, and then what suddenly appeared two months later after the approval is different from what was approved at the planning board. So, number one, uphold the hotel setback of 35 feet. And number two, I want to ensure that information used in the Planning for Planning Board design refused for this project and for future projects is complete , accurate, consistent and transparent. Next slide, please. Is it easier for you to have staff advance? Could we. Could someone do that for him then, please? You can do that. Okay. Okay. So we'll focus we'll focus on the left side of this slide. As stated previously, the hotel setback was approved at a may 28 planning board meeting. The hotel setback is 35 feet from the base property line. As stated in that meeting and 75 feet from a high water line as set by Bccdc. So measuring against my metrics is a complete, accurate, consistent, transparent, that data that was used. Yes. And I will explain why in a few minutes. However, two months later, the hotel setback was, I don't want to say revised but maybe restated at the July 22nd planning board meeting as being 40 feet from the bay side property line , whereas the pool setback is 35 feet. So I would argue, you know, is this revision info complete, accurate, consistent, transparent? I would say no to all these for the reasons that I will explain to you in a second. Next slide, please. Let's go. Oh. Okay. I'll do. It. Oh, no, no. We got it. Thanks. Okay. Well, we'll go to in February a state of previously by Andrew. The hotel setback was one of several topics in February bccdc meeting. Next slide, please. Okay. And this was a slide that was used I don't know if it was by B, C, D, C or the applicant, but this is the proposed project site. This is the adjacent McGuire Hester building. This is Stacy went back and at that meeting they talked about the project setback at 75 feet from the high water line or 35 feet from the property line, which is right here at the edge of the Bay Trail right there. And this is consistent with the information used for the design of McGuire. Hester and Stacy went back and actually they the regulatory director said in this image, you can see how the buildings are in alignment and how the setback requirements of the third settlement agreement create a uniform consistency where each development within this area is handled in the same manner. So Bccdc agreed to the 35 foot setback. There are numerous discussions with the community by the developer and the city focusing on the hotel setback. There was no discussion of pool and a separate hotel set. Public comments were received on a 35 foot hotel setback, not a pool setback, but a hotel set by the 35 foot hotel. Setback was consistent with Bccdc. Coordination and the alignment with the adjacent buildings. There was absolutely no discussion of pool setback. Next slide, please. Sorry. Okay. The pre-meeting notes for the May 28th Planning Board where the setback was approved contains no mention of the pool versus hotel setback. It does say the planning board approved the excuse me, the planning board approved the hotel with a 35 foot setback in December of 2018, which provides a setback of approximately 75 feet to the water's edge. Hotel setback, not pool. Moving the building further back would not significantly improve the quality of the Bay Trail experience. The Bccdc staff and the Board of Commissioners reviewed the hotel proposal and determined that the setback of 35 feet was appropriate. This is in the pre-meeting information provided by staff for May 28. Next slide, please. Okay. So you can see that this is a slide that was used by city staff at the May 28th meeting to show, demonstrate, hotel setback. This is the line. It goes from the waterline to the hotel, not to the pool. Next slide, please. And the minute there was a very brief mention by the city of a pool versus hotel setback, this was after the public comment period. So no public comments could be made on that difference that that was noted at that time. And number two, I don't think anybody heard it. I did not hear and I was sitting in the second row right here. So next slide, please. The motion to approve the set back was approved. As stated board member Teague Booth approval of the 35 foot setback. Board member Rothenberg seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0. The meeting minutes say 35 foot hotel setback was approved. No mention of pool setback. But then two months after the setback approval, the city restated the hotel setback as 40 feet. I think they probably realized that they misspoke at the May 28th meeting. Next slide, please. So there is no written documentation of the pool versus hotel building setback provided to the planning board or the public until the July 22nd planning board meeting. I have to say that this is not quite right. There is a mention of it in fine print at the bottom of the project plans. Now I'm going to tell you that the project plans that are provided to the planning board are the full size plans are a scale one and two cost 30 feet. The half size plans, I believe they're half size that he's holding. Right there would be about one inch equals 60 feet. So reading looking at the difference between the pool setback in the building setback would be very different. A difficult reading. A table at the bottom of the plans would be extremely difficult. And as I say, it's impossible to discern. So the pool versus hotel setback has never been explained in full and public forum. It's documented in writing that it's 35 feet. And the pool setback versus the hotel setback has never been open for comment in public forum. Next slide, please. So we based on the fact that the 35 foot hotel setback was discussed and coordinated with the public public comments received and it was approved by the planning board. We ask that you uphold the 35 foot hotel setback. And I just want to say that I don't want to impugn anyone developer, city staff, the planning board. But this is just a number of issues. And I think Patricia raised some of them, too, of inconsistencies in information that a developer brings before the planning board. Sometimes you can handle it through planning board resolutions. I understand that these are complex projects that take, you know, months to work through. But if the quality of the data that goes to the city and goes to the planning board meets the criteria that I mentioned earlier in my presentation. It would. It would not necessitate having to go back to the planning board again and again and again. And I know that there are many projects coming up on the horizon at the planning board that will be just as complex. And I urge you to work with the planning board in ensuring that the quality of the data is improved. So again, we request that you uphold the 35 hotel. Might seem trivial, but it's not. Thank you, Mr. Singh. I'm going to ask the planning director, Andrew Thomas, to help the council understand some of what we just heard. I just want to clarify just two or three quick points and then I'm available to answer any questions. I'm looking at the plans from December 10th. These are the half size set that Mr. Singh mentioned. Then there was the plans that were approved on May 28th and then there were the plans that were approved on July 22nd . Every single set of those plans had what we call a site plan with a table that says has a bunch of information and says setbacks. And every one of those plans has this description of the setbacks. And it says the exact same thing on all three sets of plans, setbacks front in parentheses against from Shoreline Park. And then it says the hotel, 35 feet excuse me, restaurant 35 feet, hotel 40 feet. That has not changed. It has not changed in a single set of plans. It's been consistent the entire way. The site plan has been consistent the entire throughout the entire process. So how it was described in staff reports, how it was described by somebody like me standing at a podium, I think there was a situation where we were thinking about the project. Does it respect the 35 foot setback requirement? Remember the 30 when they say uphold the 35 of the project, upholds the 35 because it doesn't encroach. No part of this project can encroach and be closer than 35. Things can be pushed further back, but they can't come closer. So the restaurant is right on the line. The pool is right on the line, and the hotel has always been five feet further back. So it is not a requirement that everything be right on the line. It's a requirement that everything be no closer than the 35 foot line. And I think essentially, if I understand what the appellants are asking, they're asking you to take the hotel and move it five feet closer to the park. This, from staff's perspective, is would not be a good move. The neighbors who are 200 to 300 feet away are not going to notice a five foot difference from 300 feet . The people on the Bay Trail who are only 35 feet to 40 feet away, they will definitely notice it. For us at staff, it's a little bit strange because at the last appeal, the neighbors and the appellants were telling you to push it back towards the neighborhood. Now they're telling you, bring it closer to the Bay Trail. So we think the planning board did the right thing. We think the information they had was accurate and they made the right decision. One last thing. In terms of Mr. Trampers concern about that, we didn't know where it was. There have been steaks posted. We had steaks posted the actual footprint of the building. Myself and two other staff members went out there personally with the plans after the last couple of meetings and with hundred foot tape measures and measured it ourselves to make sure that we were confident that those steaks were in the right place. So we're pretty sure that the planning board and the staff are know where the building is on the site. I'm available to answering. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Thomas, Vice Mayor? Not quite any questions. When you're not on mute. During the mute button. No. You. Okay. Um. Okay. So then we're going to go into council discussion of this item. Who wants to lead? Councilmember de Saag. Well, thank you very much. The matter that's before us can be deliberated by council member on what's called a de novo basis, which means that we are not limited to the information in our packets when making our decision. So I'm going to definitely take advantage of that. And my decision is still going to be the same that I held back in winter when council members deliberated over this matter. And the long and the short of it is I do believe that the city council and the planning board missed an opportunity to exercise the leverage that it had to get the developer to work more substantively with the nearby residents, not just the residents of the Freeport Homeowners Association, but Harvey, generally. And the leverage that I'm speaking of comes down to this is that at the December 2018 planning board meeting, one of the planning board members correctly indicated that that this project, in order to satisfy development standards, i.e. the amount of supportable square footage that it had contemplated both in December, in the December meeting and subsequently in the and the City Council meeting in February, in order to satisfy the amount of square footage contemplated at those meetings, it had to come back in, not it had to be built on not just the parcel on which it is proposed. The main parcel being 74, dash 1362, dash 49, dash eight. But it had to be combined with two other parcels because when combining the three parcels together, then, you know, you do the math. The bigger the, the amount of parcels and acreage and square footage, therefore the amount, the the increased amount of of allowable building. Square footage. So my argument then was simply this that at the December 2018 meeting and subsequently at the city council meeting at that time, the developer had not combined those parcels. So the City Council and the planning board ought to have and granted, 2020 is always you know, hindsight is always 2020. And this is what I argue back then at the time, the city council ought to have exercised their leverage and said, okay, I see you want to build this much square footage. And in order to, to, to to achieve that amount of square footage, you have to combine basically three different parcels. Now, council and planning board should have said, well, when you look at the three different parcels, one of those parcels definitely you could never build on because as I've posted on at some websites, including blogging, Bayport, one of those parcels that is just a sliver it has, it's mainly underwater and the green part is basically green area. It's, you know, just grass and and the other part is sidewalk. So that sliver of parcel should never have been included in the other two parcels. The other two parcels. Okay. The person could make a case that that those should be allowed. My point is simply this, is that those parcels were not combined. So it was at that point that the planning board and the council could have exercised its leverage and said, you know what, the residents are concerned about the massing, the building height. And so this is a way for us to to substantively discuss this with the project proponent. Now, the other reason why I also think that that the issue of the three parcels was critical was because the governing authority regarding this parcel development, this parcel is the Harbor Bay Business Park Development Agreement that was in place at that time. And when you look back at the ordinance that was in place at that time, so in March 1988, the city council had adopted an ordinance that said that, you know, if you're going to and this gets to my land boards issue, why my landlord's issue won't fly. If you're going to develop on a parcel, then the parking impacts have to be limited to that parcel except under certain conditions. And. This is what was adopted in March 1988. Well, when you look at the parking plan, a lot of the parking is not on the parcel. It is actually to the the parcel closest to the Maguire Hester. That's another parcel. And it doesn't satisfy another condition under under the March 1988 ordinance that says, well, you know, parking on other parcels than, than, than the parcel on which the development can occur under certain conditions. It didn't satisfy that condition. So I felt that at the time that the city council and the planning board could have exercised its its leverage by getting the developer, working with the developer to perhaps reduce the massing, reduce the building height. Because at the end of the day, I don't think you have to be just a Harper Bay residents or or a Freeport Homeowner's Association resident. I think at the end of the day, when you walk down the path near the hotel, it doesn't matter if the Bill Hotel is five feet this way or five feet that way . It's still going to be this large project that amounts to a monstrosity. And we had the opportunity to, I believe, exercise the leverage that we had to kind of work with the developer to take to substantively take into consideration the residents concerns. And it had all to do with the fact that at the time that the project was submitted, that the parcels were not combined. And the fact of the matter is, is to this day, the three. Parcels are still. Not combined. So I say to the council members, exercise your leverage now. And because the the governing authority that was in place in March 1988 says that that if you're going to build that, that you have to have the parking on this on the on the parcel on which the impact is occurring. And if you're going to have parking on outside of that parcel on another parcel, then it has to satisfy certain conditions. It does not satisfy the March 1988 conditions. So I would really encourage us to revisit this. So I would remain from the same point that I raised back in February of this year. Thank you. Councilmember de so Councilman Brody. Thank you. Andrew, can I just check in with you on a few things? So can you remind me how many parking places we have here? It was two originally to 75, now to two. It was in December. It was 275. And it's now 260. The planning board reduced it by 15 spaces to get more landscaping in the council. Didn't we reduce. No, no, no. What? You. What? When it came to you to 75 with the conditions for the ferry parking and what you asked them to look at, possibly moving the building back 15 feet, which would have eliminated a row of parking. Because what I thought we did discuss, I remember the vice mayor bringing up something about parking and the ferry. So how many how many spots do we have for the ferry? We have approx. I mean, our guests at 275 based on the traffic studies and all, was that we would have on most days have an extra 100 that could be leased out on a daily basis to ferry riders. Now, you know, as as we acknowledged then, like if it's a monday after a big event at the hotel that morning, there may be fewer spaces on midweek. There might be more than 100 spaces for ferry riders. So we set up that requirement that they have that sort of the the computer app and the ability for the ferry riders to sort of check in early to see how many spaces were available. So how many I mean, how many spaces does a hotel really need? Well, under the. Zoning code, the 275 is actually meets the zoning code. Right. But is how many does it really need? I mean. We think that it really needs a probably about 175. It's a 172 rooms. So, you know, it's it's probably closer to 107. I mean. 100 and. 770. So we could I mean, if it's full, you're going to have at least 117. That's what our thought. But, you know, look, this is an inexact science. We've been studying this with all these hotels. What we're seeing is demand for parking at hotels, going down with Uber and Lyft. And this is also very close to the hotel, to the. Airport. I mean, that was kind of my point with the shuttle and with Ubers. And, you know, I just wonder if that role I think it's either 30 or 32. And one of the maps that 30 to 1 said 30, you know, that whole row of parking along the street, you know, I wonder if if the place could could survive without that road parking. I mean, we passed a climate action plan, one of our goals. To get cars off the road. And one of our goals was or our guiding policies was to not let parking dictate. Our, our, our. Our plans and our planning. So. So it was at 275 originally that met the code. The planning board reduced it by ten to get in more landscaping or 15 to get into more landscaping. It's within your power to reduce it further. Okay, maybe you can check and see if the applicant is open to that if more than one council member is interested. So, I mean, that would be the the only issue that, you know, I would have based on the reasons I explained to Mr. Thomas right now that, you know, we are trying to reduce our our carbon footprint. We are trying to reduce the number of cars. We are trying to implement our climate action plan. And, you know, walk the walk and talk the talk. So I'd be open to that. I didn't hear anything in any of the presentations that convinced me that the setback was wrong or that anything was done untoward. Regarding the setback, I didn't think I didn't see anything about the colors. I don't think I didn't hear anything about landscaping material. So I'm inclined to deny the appeal. But I'd be open to a discussion on parking if if the rest of my colleagues were and you know that $1 million in total. Am I the colleague to the left? To me, I mean, that's one of his big priorities is to try to improve our total revenue. So I think this is a good step in that direction. Councilmember Vela. Sure. So the vice mayor, I'm going to go to you next, please. I'll be quick. And Andrew, I thank you for for your presentation from my perspective. We gave the planning board direction, and that direction didn't include any discussion and consideration of removing more parking to move the building to the building to move back from the water. And it's my understanding that the planning board meetings and whatnot that the neighbors really asked for. Not to me. In fact, they put currently up to about 35 or 40 feet as to whether or not, you know, going to get there. I do want to acknowledge that that it appears some people have been confused about this a lot like they've done. Like everybody is very clear tonight. And in the discussion of the confusion around my life, I haven't heard anybody actually make the case for why 40 versus 35 is compelling, but I think that we should send it back to the planning board. I guess just can't remember which question about parking. I wouldn't want to hold this up, but I would want to see if we can maybe include some sort of condition that those spaces that are not being used for the hotel at this point in time, I think if we're getting rid of it again, if we were to get rid of the spaces, we would want to provide some benefit so that we don't have to consider screening. I think that that's something that we can also address through making sure that future part of it might be able to use it as well. So instead of eliminating the spaces, I'm not sure what the tradeoff is, just not having them which which is a terrible thing at this point. It's about through that conversation and the state community planning board and federal direction to keep the spaces for the ferry. And I wouldn't want to I wouldn't want to push this project out for. The general public. Thank you both, Mayor. You ready to go now? Okay. Councilman Vella. I think, you know, part of how the evolution came relative to the parking aspect was to try to also accommodate some of the the neighbors in the area who had also had concerns about ferry parking spilling over into the neighborhood. And I think, you know, certainly hopefully that the we'll see that it's over parked. But I think that if that happens, we can the plan can be dynamic maybe you know, to account to the vice mayor's point. Maybe it's that there's certain spaces that get dealt with later on or it gets dealt with in phases and so it can become landscaping. But I don't think that it's necessarily something that we need to hold up approval for. I think it can. I think sending it back to the planning board over that issue at this point doesn't really make sense. And I think that that can be something that we can perhaps work out. You know, with the with the developer looking at the different usage of the site, I also think that we have seen a significant uptick in the usage of the ferry terminal. And I know that that you know, it's one thing we just had our groundbreaking actually for Seaplane Lagoon. And I think one of the things that we can be very proud of here is that there are a number of comedians who are using public transport to get to and from work, and especially as they leave the city . And so obviously we're still working on the the in Alameda connectors with the ferry terminal. And I think that that's coming along. But until then, I think we do have a need for those spots. And I think in terms of of the issue of the setback, I haven't heard an argument as to why we would bring this back to the planning board. At this point, I think at this point, I'm not inclined to follow my colleagues, the vice mayor and Councilmember Odie. Thank you, Councilmember Vella. Okay. So I spent six years on the planning board obviously before this project came up, and this particular project has had a lot of coverage. It's been back and back to the planning board several times. It has had a lot of interaction with neighbors. And I, I do believe all your neighbors that you you've made the Harbor Bay residents. You've made it a better project. Your input has certainly helped. I don't think everyone speaks with one voice. I know we heard it said that the neighbors just wanted a hotel that fit into the neighborhood to thoughts came to mind. Some residents didn't want a hotel there at all. And then I would just remind people that that neighborhood where this hotel is slated to go is a business park. And this is a business park that has not had enough hotel space. So what I do know from six years on the planning board and going into seven years on the city council is that you're never going to please all the people. So at the end of the day, we look at, is this good for the city, are we being fair to the neighbors? And as was brought up, our neighbors in this area have been very vocal and concerned about traffic to the ferry terminal at Harbor Bay. And I am also proud that Alameda Ferry Riders, we are the highest per capita riders of the ferry in all the wider system, which is a reason that we're one of the reasons we're getting our third ferry terminal in our city. We're an island and water transit makes perfect sense. I also know that in 2020 from the Harbor Bay Ferry terminal, instead of ferries every hour during the commute time, they will be coming every 30 minutes and there will be larger boats that take up to 300 riders. And yes, you can bring your bicycle and get there on your bicycle. But I also know, because I've worked with a lot of young families, Alameda attracts young families wanting to raise their kids here. It is a race to get children dropped off at the preschool. Children dropped off at school and our elementary schools. There's a time you cannot drop your children off earlier than a certain time. And yet the ferry, when it leaves, you've got a very narrow window there. So this is my segway to saying I do believe we have the the ability as a council tonight to designate and that of those part. I'm not here to suggest that we take away parking spaces, but I would very much like a certain number of those spaces that are beyond the number of rooms that the hotel actually dedicated to ferry riders. Is there a way to do that? Mr. Thomas I think we basically have what you're looking for in the original conditions of approval. Essentially, every morning ferry riders will be able to go on their phone and see how many spaces are available to them. Okay, well, it's. In the applicant's best interest to make them. Available. Is there a way that we make sure that there's never a time when there is no parking space available? I mean, the idea here is if the hotel is filled and they and all the hotel patrons hosting call, now, we don't see that as a scenario. I will say, talking to the applicant, because you had Councilmember Ody had asked me about this and I checked with the applicant. His concern about reducing the parking tonight is he's really concerned about the restaurant and he sees an opportunity to actually fill every space right in the evening with the restaurant, the hotels and the ferry riders. I'm concerned about changing it without the ferry riders here. We made a lot of promises to ferry riders over this area. Okay. So fair enough. But you're working on. I love the idea of the app. Okay. And as far as a missed opportunity to work with the neighbors, I think a lot of work has been done with the neighbors going out and actually meeting in their neighborhoods, in their homes. And at some point, this is a disincentive to developers to do projects in Alameda, which might be part of the motivation of some I don't know. But what I do know is that our city and our growing business community and we have a very vibrant biomedical health sciences, green tech industry, pretty exciting things coming our way in the near future. When these businesses have more visitors and overnight guests than our hotels can accommodate, they send their guests over to San Francisco or to Oakland. And with those guests go the money them they might spend in our city and the top tier, the transient occupancy tax on every hotel room. And yes, we're going to get around to increasing that one of these days. Mr. Desai But it's so so I don't want that to happen. And I want to be able to serve our business community. We need our businesses, we need our residents. We need to achieve a jobs housing balance. So for that reason, I am ready to say it's time to move forward on this and to entertain a motion to deny the appeal that we are considering tonight. Is there a motion or any further discussion? So I have a motion by Vice Mayor Knox White. Have a second. Second seconded by Councilmember Vela. Any further discussion? Let's vote, roll call. Vote. Councilmember Desai I. Am against the motion. Is that right? You help me out. To deny the appeal. As the motion is to deny the appeal. So it's no right. No, no, no. I think again some of. The negative. Councilmember not quite. High. Odie. Yes, fella. Yes mayor has the Ashcraft. Yes the the motion to deny the appeal carries 4 to 1. All right. Thank you, everyone. And with that, I'm going to call a break and that's I'll be back here in 10 minutes. Well rounded at 915. We're going to start. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Audience and speakers. One minute morning. Yeah, it's 914. I'm swallowing my Luna bar there, so I didn't talk with my mouth. But okay, now it's 915. True to our word, we are back for the council meeting and we move on to item six. Be Madam Clerk. Recommendation to approve the Transportation Commission's recommendation design concept for a two way bikeway for the Clement Avenue Safety Improvement Project and crossover me to trail between Grand Street and Broadway. And oh look it's one of. Those bad pennies. Just keeps coming back. Nowhere else to go I. Got nothing else better. To do. No, this is an exciting project. We call this the Clement Avenue Safety Improvement Project. I think you have I've been told 17 speakers, so I heard 18. I'm going to run through these slides very quickly and then be make myself available to answer any questions. Gale Payne, who is the project manager, is here today. She's really done all the heavy lifting on this on this project. And we have also an excellent consultant team from CDB Smith who have been instrumental helping us and of course are very capable. Public Works Department has been another very important partner in this project and.