Summary: Review of 100-Room Hotel Development at the Harbor Bay Business Park. Public Hearing to Consider (1) an Appeal by UNITEHERE! Local 280 Challenging the Planning Board’s Approval of Final Development Plan and Design Review for Construction of a 100-Room Hotel at 2350 Harbor Bay Parkway, (2) Mayor Spencer’s Call for Review of the Planning Board Action, and (3) Adoption of Resolution Documenting the Council Action. (Community Development 481001)
Review of 100 room hotel development at the Harvard Business Park. This is a public hearing considered appeal by Unite here of the Planning Boards Final Development Planning Design Review for construction of 100 room hotel at 2350 Harbor Bay Parkway and Mayor Spencer's call for review of the Planning Board Action and adoption of a resolution documenting the Council Action. Vice Mayor. Madame Mayor and Council. I will have to recuse myself due to a conflict of interest or potential conflict of interests. Yes. Which means for those of you that don't know, it means that here you will not. He can't sit here during the discussion at all and also cannot vote. You explain why he. He he said that he was recusing himself. He has a conflict of interest. Because he owns a business. For that. Well, that's the first thing. I don't. Sure. They don't. I think it's the public's right to know. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. You may continue. Reading, Madam Mayor. Members of the council. My name is Andrew Thomas. I'm the city planner for the city of Alameda. And I am here tonight to run through. I'm going to just go through five slides quickly to give you an overview of the situation before you tonight and our recommendation, I'm then available to answer questions. The applicant on this project is also here with her representatives. They don't have a presentation, but they're available to answer any questions that you might have as well. The Appellant Unite here is also available here tonight. I'm sure we'll be speaking. So what we have the issue before you tonight is the planning board's approval and final decision to approve a the Marriot Fairfield in here in alameda. It's located on harbor bay parkway. And the two issues that are really being brought to you tonight are the appellant is arguing that the parking there was approved by the planning board is not consistent with the zoning and they are arguing that the city did not use the right a process under the California Environmental Quality Act or as we like to call it, um, Mayor Spencer and I won't speak for the mayor called it for review. And I believe based on my conversations that her concern also overlapped with, you know, I here and it was really about not the square piece but the parking. So I'm just going to focus on parking and CEQA in this presentation where. You proceed, could you just explain a little procedurally that the planning board approved the project? Yes. And and then there were two appeals filed, one by myself and one by Unite. Is that. There? Unite here. You're not here. And in which case, the Planning Board's decision to approve the project the way it was at the Planning Board level would stand unless there were three votes. My understanding to support an appeal, to support one of the appeals. Men in council. That is correct. The charter requires that the Council act by three votes. So three of you will have to take an action. If you fail to take any kind of an action for whatever reason, then the planning board decisions would remain. The people that are for the project. You may want to clarify your for the way it was when it was at the planning board level. I can tell by looking at these slips that some of you may be confused on what's in favor of versus as opposed. And let me just say just right off the bat here, so you have a planning board approval. I'm going to just quickly describe what they did. The the council has a few options. You can just a what are the staff recommendation is to just uphold the decision. We think they made the right decision. You can also amend that decision tonight right here on the floor. So if you want to change something about what they did, you can basically re approve the project with a slight change. Your third option, if three of you agree, is to remand it back to the planning board for some specific change if you want them to consider a change. So let me just quickly make sure that everybody in the room understands what the actual project is. It's, as I said, a new a brand new hotel Harbor Bay Business Park on Harbor Bay Parkway. It's a 100 rooms. The reason that the staff supported this project and recommended approval to the planning board and the reason the planning board approved it, I think there's a number of reasons. But just very quickly, this is an important piece we believe, to support the continued evolution of the business Park Harbor Bay. Business Park. It will be one of our top five commercial tax generators once it's built and occupied. It is finishing the Shoreline Park and Bay Trail, which is between it and the water. It is designed to be basically a building in a park because it is surrounded on its waterfront side by an urban park. It is surrounded on two sides by urban park. And then, of course, there's the office buildings that are across the street from it. We designed this project to really minimize parking lots because it's close to the Bay Trail and because it's close to the Shoreline Park. We wanted to reduce the amount of exposed asphalt. So there was a big emphasis on trying to minimize car large spaces paved over for cars on this particular site. So we started this conversation with the planning board and the applicant about how to really minimize the need for cars. This project is going to be served by the Harbor Bay shuttle, which runs right past its front door, which provides access between the ferry terminal and BART. It was a business park. It also will be providing its own free customer shuttle. That means anybody who stays at this hotel can just ask for it to be taken or picked up from the Oakland Airport. It can be be taken to anywhere in the business park. It can be the the customer can be taken to the ferry terminal. And this free customer shuttle will be shuttling people who would like to go to Park Street for dinner, for the movies, the hotel shuttle be providing that. So the whole idea was to minimize the need for cars for the business traveler. They are also providing a customer bikeshare program. So if you stay at this hotel, you can use one of their bikes for recreation or if you're there. And many of our hotels here in the business park I mean, excuse me, the customers in our existing hotels are actually coming to the business park and staying in these hotels because they're doing business in the business park. So they really are supporting the business park. So we're hoping they'll use the bikes to move around. Of course, they've also doing valet parking and as part of their plan, they have a and a planning board approved plan, a shot, a shared parking agreement, so that in the event that they have a big event at the hotel or an abnormal amount of cars, they'll have overflow parking essentially across the street. And the concept of the shared parking, it works very well when you have a use like a hotel which is immediately adjacent to an office park in during the weekends and at nights. The office park parking is is generally empty. Weekends and nights is when a hotel has its largest demand for parking. So it's a very nice shared arrangement. Couple just baseline zoning issues. What governs the Planning Board's decision on this is the Harbor Bay Business, Park Zoning and a development agreement between the city and the developers of the business park. So that provides the property owners in the business park with certain rights. Just so everybody in the room knows, hotels are permitted by that zoning and by that contract. So there was no debate about whether this should be this site should be a hotel or not. It is essentially pre-approved for a hotel. The height limit, this is a tall building. It's 63 feet. But the height limit on this site is 100 feet. So it's well within the height limit. What but so what is the city's discretion? What was the planning board's discretion? Their discretion was over the design of the project, the site plan for the project, which includes the parking and of course, the the determination under the California Environmental Quality Act. So I said two issues. Let's just I'm going to deal with one on each side parking. When we tackled this project right off the bat, we did a parking study, the parking analysis, and which was done by a third party outside of the city and analyzing the project said with the shuttles that already exist, with the shuttles that are being provided, this hotel needs 60 parking spaces. The zoning code requires 125. So what we did is what the planning board is. They said we will want to because of the park location, build 82 on the site, which will be more than enough to accommodate your 60 that we reject, that you will need, and then have the shared parking off site for another 43. So you add those two numbers together, you get the full zoning requirement of 125 between the shared and the onsite. Under our zoning code, the planning board even has the ability to reduce the total amount of parking. But in this case, what they did is they said, no, give us the full amount, but give it between the existing site and a shared facility. So the planning board action is absolutely consistent with the zoning. They used their discretion to decide what percentage should be on site and what percentage should be shared. That discretion and that decision was based on experience in the business park. So this is not the first hotel. It's not the first hotel that has been required to have some of their parking on site and some shared. The ratio was specifically set to match the ratio for the other hotel that has a shared parking arrangement in the Harbor Bays Business Park. So this this ratio of on site versus off site was not just a hypothetical that was sort of dreamed up by staff. It was based on experience with with the existing hotels in this business park. Your options on the parking, of course, are to uphold the planning board approval. You also have another option that's been discussed since the call for review, which is and the basic question became, well, what if she what if the property owner and operator loses their lease for the shared parking? The city's requirement and the planning board's resolution. It's a requirement of the project. So she might lose the lease, but she's going to have to get another lease from somebody else in the business park. And because it's valet parking, you know, it's there's lots of parking in the business park. We were very confident that they will be able to get a lease for shared parking. But the question became, well, what maybe would be better to have the property owner purchase a piece of property? So the applicant is here tonight. She has gone out since the Planning Board's decision and acquired an option to purchase a piece of property which would allow her to build the 43 spaces on a piece of property she owns. If this council wants her to do that, that is not part of the planning board approval. Member Odie. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So is your presentation show where that piece of property is? No, but I can tell you it's 1500 feet away. It's on North Loop Road. 1500 feet from this site. Once again, this is it wouldn't be a situation where the customer comes into the hotel and says, hey, don't rent a room. And they say, oh, we go park your car. 15 feet. What they would say is, okay, yes, that's great. Your room is number 302. Leave your keys with us. We are going to park your car in our parking area. So they would then valet park at that space. So my understanding is that the lot she has the option on, it's next to the Gardiner preschool. Yes. At the end of the Cantu Mar Association. Exactly. Three houses or four houses? Exactly. One of them used to be mine. But no longer. Yes. So I can vote. I'm not accused. So it's that that that small piece of property between the Gardiner and where the. That's right. Where the there's some new construction. V.F. South Campus is under construction right now, next to it. Close to Mr. Hager's house. And can you explain the 43 that would be leased? How many feet away is that? Well, she doesn't have that lease yet. The way the planning board condition of approval is written is you cannot occupy this hotel till we see your executed lease. Her hope is to have it as close as possible because it will be as as convenient as possible. Is there a radius within which the leased spaces need to be? They should be within. We like to have them within a thousand feet. Toby. You so the owner can't occupy if she doesn't have that leash. So, I mean, worst case scenario, the attorneys are supposed to think worst case. We have this brand new building that can't be occupied sitting on the waterfront. The owner cannot get this lease from anywhere. And then we're stuck with an empty building. I mean, is that that theoretically possible? Theoretically. It's a good question. And what you could I think an easy fix to that problem would it would be for the council to say, you could do this tonight, change that condition so the trigger is not occupancy, but building permit. So before we even give you approval to start construction, show us a lease. So that way at least we know we have it. We see a lease. It's for ten years. It's like, okay, go ahead, start building your building. You know, you're good for the first ten years. I mean, the owner is not going to expend all that money, you know, without having a lease. But. But practically speaking. But, you know, theoretically. Okay, thanks. Okay. I'll just let me just last word on if you decide as a council to require the offsite parking spaces, what what we would what I would advise that you do is you make it a condition of approval that she acquire it and get the design review approval for the improvements. I mean, it's a vacant lot so as to be paved, needs to be landscaped, trim lighting. And the reason the design review is important, not just so we make sure it looks nice, but also that's the opportunity to to notify the neighbors adjacent to it. So if she fails to be able to get approval of design review because all of a sudden we have a huge problem with the neighbors don't want it, then it would cause the project to be reassessed. And what is the zoning of that property? It's the same as this. It's a commercial zoning, it's a sqm, commercial manufacturing, zoning. So I have a question. Mr. Thomson, maybe you're getting to this. You seem to be talking a lot about the owner having an option to purchase, a lot to use solely as surface parking. But my reading of the staff report and the staff reports for the planning board that were attached as exhibits all talk about the disadvantages of having a dedicated asphalt lot in a in a business park that friends the water. So I hope you're going to talk about that because if you don't, I will. Well, let me let me explain just a little bit. Background this, you know, the issue of parking obviously came up that the planning book or since we're talking a lot about the planning board tonight they took six months on this. So you know this plant your planning board works very, very hard and they make sure that we have the best project. So during this series, I think we had 3 to 4 public hearings on this. The issue of shared parking and permanent parking came up and the applicant early in the process said, Look, if you want me to go by a lot, I'll go by a lot. City staff, me and the rest of the staff. Our recommendation to the planning board and to the applicant was like, No, don't go and buy a piece of the business park to pave over for a parking lot for two reasons. One, we think you have plenty of parking on your site, just even on your site. Forget about the shared on your site to accommodate your need if you need overflow. We think it's going to be occasionally. And we've got tons of asphalt all around your site for the for the office buildings and they're not using their asphalt . So let's have you share their asphalt rather than paving over more. And that site that she has the option on, it's small, but it's the opposite. It has it's a lost opportunity. I mean, we want businesses and jobs in the business park, not parking lots. So it's we were our reaction, our recommendation was, no, let's not require this. We are comfortable. We have experience in this city with other hotels in the business park and on Park Street with shared parking. It it works. So it was not our recommendation. But at the end of the day, you know, if it's something the council wants to do, we think this the benefits to the community of the entire project are big. For all the reasons I stated. Was it our recommendation to do it now? It wasn't, but we only make recommendations. We need you to make the tough decisions. And. Brody Thank you, Madam Mayor. So just to be clear, though, the neighbors that would have a parking lot outside their master bedroom, windows with lights and nonsense that goes on at night and no security or yes, security. I mean, they don't know any this is the first time they've heard that they may have a parking lot outside their window. Unless they're listening on TV right now, they don't know yet. And they might have the same. And they'll come to us with light pollution concerns like like Mr. Hager has come to us with. So that's why. So I mean, what if the community and the council decide they want to go, not with the shared parking, they want to go with the permanent parking. I mean, what's the path forward? I mean, what what are our options? This is what I would recommend. I would recommend that you direct staff to and basically use the way you would. What you would do is you would say, all right, we want to move forward this hotel. We want to change the planning board's parking plan. So you would condition you say we would like to change this condition. We would like that permanent parking lot as a condition on this project. So the condition would read the following before getting a building permit. The current condition before occupying the building, you need a lease. And we want might want to change that to we want to get you released before building permit. Take the exact same approach. Before you can get a building permit, you need to do two things. You need to get the the property purchased. You need to design your parking lot and your lighting. You need to get design review approval from the city of Alameda. What that means is city staff, planning staff sends a notice to the neighbors and says, hey, we have a proposal to put a parking lot here and here's where the lights are going to be. Here's where the landscaping is going to be. We would obviously design it to buffer, but there's going to be concerns, you know, all sorts of concerns about parking lots from those neighbors, as they should. They should be involved. We should notify them and talk about that. If she gets her design review approval, everybody's like, okay, we're comfortable. She gets it. Then she can walk in the next day and we can issue her a building permit. If she cannot, now the project is stuck. She has to then come back to this council. We have to have another hearing here and go, okay, project is stopped in its tracks. What do we want to do? That parking lot that we thought was a good idea on September 1st. Turns out it's not such a good idea. So we could send it back to the planning board or I mean, is there some other in a way to keep this project moving and still have some change in the parking or. Yes. I mean, that's that's what I just described, is you just change the parking plan to. You know, the other approach you could say is remand it back to the planning board to have them reexamine the entire parking program with a. Looking more seriously at the permanent space we can pursue through that. Then they could approve the entire project again, and then we could wait to see if there was another appeal. Okay. So there's that approach. Member Ashcraft. Thank you. So, Mr. Thomas, I'm just looking now at Exhibit one to your staff report. This is the at the April 13th, 2015 Planning Board Staff Report. And specifically on page four, there is a section that says staff does not think that purchasing a development opportunity site in the business park for a satellite parking lot for this hotel is necessary or in the best interests of the city or the business park for the following reasons. One development of the North Loop site for business purposes instead of for a parking lot would increase job opportunities in Alameda and increase property taxes generated by the property. Number two, the business park already has large areas paved for parking which are not fully utilized, and that could be better utilized through shared parking agreements. Number three, the planning board requested a shared parking agreement. The planning board did not request development of a satellite parking lot. And then there's also the environmental consideration that paving a lot in the business park gives you yet another impervious surface, that when you know, if we get that El Nino winter that's being predicted just helps that runoff go all the more quickly into the bay. And as you noted and in my years in the planning board, we did a number of shared parking arrangements because what a city really doesn't need is more asphalt parking lots. And as you also noted, the businesses for the most part tend to have their parking lots busy during the day, vacant during the evening, and yet this is the reverse usage of a hotel. So I just I can't tell whether there's an advocacy going on here. I mean. It flies in the face of everything I know about good planning. The staff is not changing its recommendation. We don't think building another parking lot is in the best interests from our perspective, for the reasons you said, if this board is if the city council is concerned that the shared parking will not work in this case, then I'm just here to tell you, you have this option. You don't have to follow staff's recommendation. As I know you guys know, our recommendation tonight is to uphold the planning board's decision. That is the last sentence in the staff report. Uphold the Planning Board's decision. My board's decision has these shared parking. It does not have this. But I want you to know what your options are. And the applicant who wants to build a hotel with 100 rooms is basically through me saying to you, she will do what you on this issue. She will do what you ask her to do. What the three of you, you know, at least three of you ask her to do. I mean, if there's consensus, I don't not I don't know if there is, but I just want you to know what your options are. But remember, Audie. English to bring in our colleague for that vote. Right. I guess my question is. You know, my colleague just pointed out, you know, the parking is more heavy at night in a hotel. But, you know, there's two one there's two meeting rooms. Right. You know, we need more meeting rooms in Alameda. And I can imagine meeting rooms, conference facilities right there on the water can be very attractive, you know, and if we approve this project, you know, I hope they're wildly successful. And if they're wildly successful, you know, they'll be used by folks in Alameda, you know, driving there. So, I mean, I guess. I mean, that's what my kind of my concern is that, you know, even though we're going to have people come during the day. You know, we want people to come there during the day. And most people in Alameda, like when I go to Grandview for Rotary or whatever it is, you know, I drive out there and there's not a lot of parking there, you know, and when there's no event there, it's great, it's empty and you can carpool and do all that good stuff. But now I'm hoping that this is wildly successful if we approve it. And, you know, I just worry that there's not enough parking with really good meeting conference facilities. And I want to clarify that the lease spaces are available in the evening only they're not for the day. When you're talking about shared parking for the audience and for all those that don't understand, we're talking about. Isn't that correct? You have she doesn't have the lease yet. So that's another option available to you, is to amend that condition of approval so that it specifies that the shared parking lease needs to be 24 hours so that she has the ability to she has a an event. All of a sudden we have extra 20 cars that she has the ability to spread them around. Member Ashcroft. So, Mr. Thomas, going back to your April 13, 2015, planning board staff report on page five, it says the meeting rooms on the first floor are provided as an amenity for guests of the hotel. A condition of approval has been added to restrict the use of these spaces to guests to avoid the Planning Board's concerns that the use of rooms by non guests could create an overflow parking problem. Is that conditions still. I the April I would have to check if that condition is still in the final approval that went to the council. And while you're doing that, you need to have a motion. Well, it's almost 1030. Okay. Why don't you take. That and then let me look quickly. Thank you. And then we're going to have member vice mayor return to the dais at 1030. We need to have a motion to consider additional items and that requires four votes on item six. We have seven speakers and then we also have items nine A through 90 the right. Now, we weren't. Going to we're doing we're. Interrupting this because 1030 the motion to consider additional items and the additional items are 60 and the nine A through nine D. Do we do we add. So. Now this is a case of 60 is the. Clement development. And then on here it says nine A through 990. Are additional items that are on the agenda. Moves that we consider additional items. After 1030, it would be unfair to all these good people who are in the audience waiting to hear the 2100 comment. So I. Be I'll second. That. So 60 is the amount development and then nine is the council referrals. The whole rest of the agenda. 9839 Dear Counsel Referrals. We have a second. Okay. All right. Any discussion? All those in favor. I oppose a motion passed as 4 to 1. Thank you. See you, Frank. To answer your question. This whole during the. It's not in the planning board's resolution anymore. And it's not in the resolution upholding the Planning Board's decision. During the course of the many hearings we had. The. The issue of the need. Your point. The need for more meeting rooms. Many of the planning board members also knew about that and people talked about that. So I think I had forgotten about that. It. Staff remove that from the final planning board thing because everybody said, yeah, we actually need these rooms or others to use. They're not huge. So this is not a conference center. It's two meeting rooms that can probably hold maybe 50 each. Maybe so. But five. Zero. Then the five. I mean, they show 50 chairs all lined up. If you acted in auditorium style, if you were actually having more of a you know, then presumably you might be able to get that many people crammed in there. Okay, that's. Did you have any other questions? Not at this moment, but I. Mean, why don't I just I have one more real slide so we move to secure, and then I can then then you can call speakers or ask more questions. But you covered the meat of the business here on parking. Okay. Last the second issue, California Environmental Quality Act. The staff recommended and the planning board approved the use of what's called the urban infill exemption. Remember, everybody should know state law, California Environmental Quality Act to look at the effect of projects on the environment. A The state legislature passed a number of amendments and guidelines over the years to try to encourage urban infill because obviously the best thing to do for the environment is focus development in the inner urban areas and not let it sprawl out into the natural areas of the state of California. So in this case, why did we recommend the urban infill exemption? Well, first of all, we are right smack in the middle of a major metropolitan area. We are a city. This is in city boundaries. The land that we are building this project on is manmade land. I mean, this has never been natural habitat. This was not you know, Indians did not live on this land 30 generations ago. This was made by us for a business park, and it is surrounded by a business park. There is no work in the water or the bay. It is separated from the bay by an urban park. There is no we had biological we have biology experts, third party experts who deal with biological impacts out on this site twice to make sure there were no burrowing owls, no no habitat on this site. I mean, this site is surrounded, as you can see, by a major road and a major chunk of Bay Trail. So it's not super and it's pretty small. So it's not surprising that endangered species haven't found it to be a great home. And this project is completely consistent of the zoning and general plan. So we absolutely believe that this is an appropriate exemption to be used as it is used throughout the city of Alameda for these kinds of projects that are consistent with the zoning on small sites in our urban area. This is the definition of urban infill. The appellant is arguing, Well, you're next, you're right next to the San Francisco Bay. So it can't be surrounded. So it's not surrounded by urban uses. There is a court case, it's which deals with this very issue in San Diego where the project is surrounded by an urban park. And the appellant said it's not surround, you know, that's not a urban use. And the court said, yes, it is. It's an urban park. We are surrounded by an urban park and a business park. So we are very comfortable and confident that this is the right use of Sequoia. And frankly, you know, this is the problem with Sequoia in California and why there's so many calls for reform of sequence, because it's being abused for reasons that have nothing to do with the environment. So we do not think this is an issue to do with the environment. We think this is an issue about this is a design issue, a parking issue, but this is not a sequel issue. And we fully support the Planning Board's decision on the sequel exemption. Member authority critique. Oh, I'm. Sorry. And that's a recommendation. Uphold planning board action. I'm available to answer any questions and. Brody Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just. It was in the staff report, but maybe for the benefit of those that didn't read it, if the city attorney can kind of describe that that case and. You know how she thinks it's analogous to the situation we have here. And typically I want to ask in regards to when I look at this hotel, it looks to me like it's on the water. And I appreciate it's being referred to by staff, an urban park right there. But my guess is it's I don't know how many feet away from the water and the case that you have, I'd like to know, is it on the water or how far is it away from the water? Well, the case. That that Andrew referred to is very much applicable. Because. The person, the entity challenging the decision. The second decision was saying that this is not a proper use. It's not an urban and the surrounding area is not an urban use. So the court ultimately held that even though the the park, which was about a over a thousand acres of open space and some water and also museums and theaters. And it's Balboa Park. It's Balboa Park in San Diego, if you guys are familiar with it. So it's not directly on the water like this? No, it's not directly on the water, although I would I would also suggest this is not directly on the water. There is a a pathway that separates it from water. Which is part of the urban park that Andrew's describing. And, you know, the distance of that park from the water to the hotel. I believe it's about 20 feet. And the main park is more precisely. But so to me, I think that could very well be. Mean. If I may. I think just from a sequel perspective, The Seagull exemption says you're surrounded by urban uses. The so the question is, is it surrounded by urban uses, not how far is it from water? The question is, is it surrounded? The Balboa case is important because the appellants said, well, it's surrounded on by a park that's not an urban use. And the court said, no, an urban park is an urban use. And in this case, we are surrounded by urban uses on one side of business offices and on the other side an urban park. Now, the fact that there is a bay on the other side of the urban park is interesting, but not relevant to the question of what the Sequoia exemption says. So we're bounded by urban uses. And we're being asked to make a specific finding. That secret does not apply because this advice. Correct? Right. We're being asked to make a specific finding. Exemption under Sequoia. And just for clarification, with this same CEQA exemption have applied to the other hotel in Harbor Bay, the Hampton Inn. I believe that. Is what we used. Yes. Yes. And can you tell me how many floors is the Hampton Inn? For. For. I actually don't know. So I. Andrew. We could find out how many? Four and a half. And how many. Floors do I hear. For? How many floors is this? This has. Oui, oui, oui, oui. Now, let me just. This is a five story. 63 feet. And no one knows the height of the Hampton. One thing when I look at these illustrations, I think it's nice to end this. I'm glad you have this one here, because I think you can tell by looking at this appears to dwarf everything else in the area. Is there anything else in the area that is of this height? There is no other building in this neighborhood that is 63 feet. The the Palladium is 60 feet. It's not anywhere near in the neighborhood. But just to give you a sense, I mean, the the top of the historic theater thingy, you know, the big sign, I mean, I don't know what that is on top of my head , but it's it's up there in that neighborhood. And can you explain why this falls under the code of our city to have a building of this height along the water? The height limit is 100 feet on this site. That height limit is in the zoning for the Harbor Bay Business Park. It was adopted in the early eighties. The original vision for the Harbor Bay Business Park was, you know, multi-story office buildings. And it has ultimately built out with more one and two story buildings that you see out there today more trucking, more warehousing and less office building. But that was the original vision upon which the zoning was created. That zoning was then consummated through what I mentioned earlier, which is called the development agreement. So that's where the property owners get those rights guaranteed over the long term. So for a 20 to 30 years in this case until 2019. And the reason they do that and the reason the city enters into a development agreement in this case is it was 25 years ago where the developers of Harbor Bay built us an entire waterfront Shoreline Park and all of the roads and all of the infrastructure for Harbor Bay, because we guarantee that we not any of us, but the council and in this eighties said, yeah, we want all of that stuff upfront. You built all of it for us and we promise not to change the rules on you later. You will be able to build your business park even if it takes you 20 years to do it. So that's why the height limit of 100 feet and the why I keep mentioning the developer agreement at the planning board and the council is, you know, they have certain rights and they they they paid money and invested in this property for us and all of our enjoyment 20 years ago on the assurance that we wouldn't change those rights. Their vision at that time, the council's vision at that time was this entire business park would be filled with up to ten storey office buildings. As it turns out, that's not what they did. But that's why 63 foot building is 40 feet less than what's actually permitted by the zoning on this site. So is there a way for council to revisit that height issue, if not on this piece of property on any other pieces of property out there in 2019? Yes. Not until the Belmont Agreement is expired. I believe it's 2019. And that's for all. Recollections of 2019. It's been 20 years since. Well, it's 20 years ago. We signed that agreement. Bill. Thank you. Any other questions? Counsel. Any other questions? Member. Thank you. I just have one request of the speakers and I'm really interested in hearing the opinions on the shared parking versus the permanent lot. I don't know. Could you say that a little louder so they can hear? If the audience has the public comments, have opinions on the shared parking versus the permanent lot, I'd be really interested in hearing those thoughts. And then I would clarify the shared parking at night versus shared parking 24 hours. All right. And I'm going to call the names of the speakers now, Gary Thompson and then Kerry Thompson and then Robert Sanger. Hello. My name is Gary Thompson. Thank you for hearing me tonight. I live at 88 Red Oak Road and in the Kent Moore Association. And I'm on the board of directors also, although I'm here tonight as an individual, the homeowner, the homeowners behind, behind V.F. have been in an ongoing run with them over this light cast onto the back of our houses by headlights from cars day and night and their development. And I'm happy to see that most of it's been mitigated. They've done various things that have helped out, but the traffic and that is a big issue, especially these parking lots you're talking about. And I happen to believe that what you have here is this. This is just a poor spot for a hotel. That lot is not big enough. I think that they're kidding themselves if they think that the traffic, all these people are going to take shuttles and the shuttles are going to run people around, I don't think it's going to happen. They're going to have a bar and a restaurant. They're going to have weddings, they're going to have meetings. If it becomes a very popular place, people are going to drive over there. And I just think that we're not against the development of the properties over there. We just think this was a poor choice, that five storey height, there's nothing like it. From the back of our homes, we will be receiving direct broadcast light onto the back of our homes. And I don't see any way to mitigate that from the hotel. The businesses at the park right now, they come to work in the morning about six and they go home at six. That hotel is going to be over there running 724 with a bar, a restaurant, meetings, shuttles, running back and forth. And I just think it is just a unless a parking situation and traffic situation is addressed. And also, I'm very concerned about the direct lighting. At at five storeys, it will direct light over the office buildings that are they are now directly broadcast right into the back of our homes. When we first moved in there, the light was so bright in my back yard I could read a newspaper at midnight. And I just think that the the light mitigation, the the cars, the parking, all of the extra activity, it just doesn't fit out there. Those are beautiful places. The Stacey Whitbeck property, a beautiful place, V.F.. The work they have done there are two storeys high. They're very tastefully done. And this is just not a place for that hotel. And I just don't see how you're going to make it work. Thank you very much. Carey Thompson. Thank you very much. Good evening. I'm Kerry Thompson. I am the past president of the Chamber of Commerce and the current Chairperson of the Government Relations and Economic Development Committee of the Chamber of Commerce. I am also a resident on Bay Farm Island. I live at 3016, Linda Vista, and I urge you to reject this appeal. Number one, I just think that it's we're taking steps back. We've really made progress in showing businesses that we are ready to move forward in Alameda, that we're making progress, you know, by approving site A, by approving the Del Monte Project. We've been making great strides and this is a step backwards later on in the agenda. Councilmember de Sade has a referral on the agenda to increase the transit occupancy tax, which 100% goes to the city. This hotel would generate quite a bit of tax. So would the future hotel on site. So these are also things to consider. I think as a resident, my family sometimes comes to visit. If we don't have room. When there's a lot of us coming together, we try to find another place to be. The Hampton is usually full. We do need another place. And that is not an unattractive building. You know, this is planning board. The planning board has put a lot of work into making sure that designs fit well into Alameda and in actually it looks iconic. I don't think that it is unattractive. I think I can actually imagine coming on the ferry home from a long day's work or if you were visiting in the city, what a nice thing actually to look at is it's not bland, boring office buildings. It is something different and it's kind of nice. I think it enhances it. Are the hotel that is being proposed there, the people that are wanting to put it there have been working. And I think you guys are wasting their time. And I don't think that that's very fair if the planning board is doing their job, which they did. And I think to now revisit a height thing, after all, you know, that's not the reason that you put it on the appeal. So I think that's gone and done. So I just you know, they are providing shuttles. This is not a pie in the sky thing. They are providing them. Whether or not people utilize them, that's up to them. But they are providing them to the airport, to the various business districts, to South Shore, to wherever it is they're wanting to go. They're providing it. They're doing everything they can. So I don't think that it's right that you reject this project. Thank you. I have a question that was raised by the last speaker. When when I file an appeal is my understanding. I do not have to specify any grounds so that I would not be precluded from can. Is that correct? I'll address that. So in terms of best practices. What you just said is exactly right, because you don't really want to take a position on something that's going to come before you. It goes to the whole bias. You are not taking a position until you hear the evidence. There's a little bit of a cleanup job that we have to do in our current municipal code. The section that deals with appeals seems to suggest that you have to say, have a. Reason. For. That's something that staff will. Bring back and clean up. But what we've been telling you guys is, no, you don't have to specify your reasons, because it could be construed. As you having. Taken a position on why you're against or for the project. So we've been advising council members and the mayor, too, to keep a more general. So when I read here in this staff report for this meeting on page two that on July 23, 2015, Mayor Spencer formally called the Planning Board decision for review, citing concerns about whether the project met the city's parking requirements. What what does that tell me? I believe in private conversations with Andrew. She expressed some concerns about the parking, but when she filed her call for review, she didn't say she didn't take a position about parking or anything else about the project. She just called it for review, saying, I want it to come back or come before before the council to to revisit the issues and say. And it was just an oral request. There was nothing. No, it was an email. No, it was it went through the right channels of one to its original request. But during the appeal. I didn't see it. Was it? It wasn't. I believe it was an email. So it was in writing and it went to either the planning staff or the or possibly Laura as well. So maybe this is a housekeeping issue, but how then would one prepare to address an appeal if one doesn't know what the grounds are for the appeal? Well, in terms of an appeal, it's a little it's a little different from calling something. Out for review. So when Unite Here filed their appeal, they had a very kind of detailed letter that laid out various grounds, three grounds for their appeal. But in terms of. Calling something for for review which council members and planning board members do from time to time its in terms of best practices. And I've consulted with other cities and and in fact the city of Berkeley has something very specific in their code that says do not say why. If you're going to call something. Up for review, just. Call it up for review. If I can jump in here as well, it is a de novo review on a call for on a call for review. So it is open at to have anything addressed. Thank you. The unfortunate part about it is if we don't if staff doesn't have an idea of what it is, then the . Staff report, as you can see, was. Addressing the parking issue and of course, the appeal that was done, which was sequence and parking. So that was all put in the staff report. But the. Mayor, by. Calling it. Does have a de novo. You can. You can you put that in English so that the ordinance that. Is talking about it means that you start again. I mean, you had the whole thing in. Front of you for this this. Board to be able to look at all of the facts. Thank you, Mayor Brody. I think that was my question. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I mean, can we address other things that weren't brought up in the appeal besides sequent parking, like, for example, the light in the reflection and, you know, the issues? The only thing. I would say is let's take care. There are two things that are happening here. There's an appeal by United Local, which is on specific made here. And then there is the call for review from the mayor, which is kind of. Open. Ended, opens the door. Okay. Looking at the project and. Okay. Should we at some point here are the speakers. I guess the rest of the speakers were then they're. There any other. Oh, we'll. Call you Robert Sanger. Chris and then Chris Clark and then Joy Bose. Good evening. My name is Robert Sanger. I'm regional vice president of Lodging Development for Marriott International. I'd like to take this opportunity just to really convey how we are very supportive and very excited about this waterfront development project. As you see before you, it'll be a five story iconic building, as the previous speaker mentioned. This will be a beacon on the bay coming from San Francisco on the ferry. We're very excited about this project. To address your concern regarding parking, we we feel that 82 spaces are more than sufficient to service this hotel operation of this size, particularly given the location being proximate to Auckland Airport. I'm a frequent business traveler. I travel on a weekly basis. I try to stay at hotels near the airport and if I don't have to rent a car, I'll take the shuttle to the hotel. And I see a lot of business travelers staying at the airport hotels, near airport hotels, so they don't have to pay the high taxes that go along with the rental. Not to mention the time they take to fill up the gas tank and check in and check out. It's it's not an efficient time use of my time when traveling for business. The other thing, too, is that at at the young age of 82, Mr. Marriott visits over 200 hotels worldwide. And I'm confident that this will be on his world tour when this hotel opens up. It's a project that I think the city and the community will be very proud to have. Beyond the bricks and mortar, I think we need to look at the developer as well. I mean, a Patel is a proven developer and operator with Marriott. She's a valued partner. She's built beautiful hotels in Texas. This is her first project in California. And we hope to build more with Mena Marriott. It's very involved in the communities that we serve, where we operate hotels, we have our spirit to serve program. And our other mantra is take care of our employees. Our employees will take care of our guests and our guests will continue to come back. If you look at me as a hotel operator, she embraces and practices that philosophy. At the end of the day, it's all about making money and keeping the tax dollars here in Alameda as opposed to going to Auckland airport. I think the guests will find that this is an attractive destination. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Chris Clark. I think we all need coffee in this place. Thank you for having me. My name's Chris Clark. I'm from Amarillo, Texas. Mayor Thank you for having me. Council members The reason I'm here and the reason I left my wife and kids at home. This morning. Is because this family not only. Has built several. Properties in the Texas area that were amazing. But they're an amazing employer. I worked for him. For many. Years. And I'd still be working for him if they would still have the hotel that I worked at. But they ended up selling that hotel and I am doing something different. So when Mina called. Me and gave me the opportunity to come speak on her behalf, of. Course I did in a heartbeat. Not only were. Oh four out of my five kids born when I was working for her. But every time my wife needed me during those pregnancies, I was home. Every time I. Was short of money, she took care of me. I didn't have to ask anytime I needed anything. These people were here for me. They're amazing people to work for. But not only that, they're amazing people to have in your city. Anything you ask her to do, she'll probably do for you. She's an amazing person. So is her husband. So is her family. That's the most I could say now listening to the parking thing in the meeting space. I was a. Sales guy at a hotel for 18 years. I've seen a lot of these projects. I've never actually seen the parking lot full, even when the meeting space is mainly. Because those conference rooms in these types of hotels, they're built for smaller conferences, smaller board meetings, things like that. And a. Lot of times you're using it for corporate entities that are probably. Offices across the street, but they want to have a small. Meeting in their hotel. So I don't see that being an issue, and I haven't seen that in an issue in the past. Even with the other Fairfield that she did build. It's pretty much identical to this one. That's it. Thank you so much for having me. Thank you. Get coffee. Joy. Both those Daniel Brady and then Sophie Dromi. Yes. Hi. Good evening. About Amir and members of the City Council. I work at Penumbra Inc. I'm head of marketing operations there. And I'm here just to speak about my personal experience and my team's personal experience. We moved into the business park in 2007 and we've been a regular client of the Hamptons. We love working with them. And as you some of you may know, our business has expanded. We have about 1000 employees now, but our sales force has expanded, our customer base expanded. Everything was okay till about when VF moved in, which is about three or four years ago, if I'm not mistaken. And now repeatedly, about 10 to 15 times a year, I don't have any rooms to hold any meetings. Now, most 99% of our meetings are guests, so it's our sales reps who come for a meeting. At our corporate headquarters or it's. Physicians. We're a medical device company. It's physicians who come to attend a meeting. We use busses. We right now, when they stay in San Francisco, I hire borrow a limo to shuttle a bus full of people over to Alameda. No one wants to rent cars. We as a company actually tell our employees to use the shuttles because it's not ideal for them to go rent cars. Also, when we have the ability to hold groups staying at the business park, it adds to a community feeling because in the evening we can hold events in the in the city of alameda, trabuco ever since they opened and the South Shore Mall, we have had about ten events there because it's easy for us to do that when we have our people staying offsite in either Oakland or San Francisco. It's hard to do that because then after dinner, you have to then. Take them back to the hotel off site in January. I have a 100 room block and I had to go to GW because there's absolutely no way I can do an event like that in Alameda. So I just wanted to share my experience. Thank you. Thank you. We need a motion that requires three votes to continue the meeting past 11. So moved. Do you have a second? We need. Frank. Oh. Yes. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, we need. Right. Now. We need a. Motion to continue past 11. And how did you move? I moved in to Tony. I mean, Councilmember de. So did you. Second? No. Okay. So, yeah. Member de SAC seconded. All those in favor, I suppose. Motion passes 4 to 1. Thank you. All right, Frank. Thank you. Lina would be proud. Had a mayor, members of the council, Dan Reedy here for the Harbor Bay Business Park Association. I did distribute to the members of the council a a copy of a resolution and also a letter. So their part of the record, I don't think we have to restate it, but I would like to summarize a couple of points in the resolution and then make some other comments from from my longer letter that the business park asked me to write. We did have a meeting of the Members General membership of the Bay Business Park Association, and just ten days ago or so on the 19th of September and there was a briefing about the new hotel. A year ago it was talked about as a dream. Then everyone said, you know where it is now, and also about the appeal. And so the members who were there were the property owners and the major companies are the members of the at large. They were very interested and showed appreciation about the hotel, similar to what you heard here about that would support some of their business activities. And also that they heard about the, you know, the income because looking they're hoping that some of that income that the city would have would come back for infrastructure improvements of the roads in the business park, which are on hold because of lack of funding. So there was interest and this would help jumpstart the business park. But then when they heard about the appeal. Like a lightning rod. This sequel issue really came up. And so let me just paraphrase part of what's in the resolution. When they hurt, they became concerned as if the planning board had not followed sequence properly and that there would have to be more sequel analysis, more environmental analysis going forward. And they were concerned that if the if the here if the appeal were approved, that would become like a precedent for subsequent activity, because there are still a number of larger parcels left in the business park. Many of the bigger firms bought more property than they needed. So there are other parcels around that, as well as the land going out toward the ferry terminal in the Esplanade development. And so people were concerned that they'd say, Well, do we have to have more sequel? When in 1989, when they did the business park, we did in a big addendum to the air. And so the rest of the of the build out of Harbor Bay is now a cluster of little projects, each of which gets a sequel analysis. There was a sequel analysis looking at as a whole because you could look at it the traffic, the storm drainage, the infrastructure, the nature of the land. It were all the same. So it wasn't like different parts of things so that each of them have to get a new sequel. You already had a big sequel. And so in the development agreement it says there will be no more sequel analysis required to finish the build out of Harbor Bay, which would have been the homes that weren't built yet, and the still at that point, empty parcels in the business park. So a number of the members became concerned. They said, let's get a resolution, get speakers here to talk to you, because some of them were concerned that that would perhaps stymie or delay or confuse their their hoped development as they would finish out their projects in the business park. So in our resolution at the at the end, there's a strong the association unanimously the members, you know, voted they would recommend that the city council uphold the planning board's resolution approving the final development plan and design review. And and they deny the appeal. Also our Business Park Association has an architecture review committee. And so we worked with the planning staff and the planning board through the different iterations because they kept improving the plan and that the Architecture Review Committee of the Business Park has approved it and recommends that it go forward. So if you have any questions, but I definitely want to give you the sense that our our membership is on board. We knew about the parking either the if at lot of 29 is in contract so it can be purchased if it's subject to whether you want it approved or that our manager was would facilitate connecting the ownership with the property owner. So we gave information to our manager, to the developers, how to connect with the people at the venture condos across the street or Zephyr or others nearby about their parking. So we will work with the city to try to make this happen. Thank you. Thank you. I have a question for staff. If you've raised the issue of the secret being approved, believe was it how many years ago. We used a there's been as Dan was saying, there's there was a huge cordon for the entire business park development of Harbor Bay. That was done and it was updated, as he said, in 89. What we used for this so that that's right. And that document is important. I don't want to discount it. It's very important because it was the it was designed to be the final secure for everything on this site. It was also important because it helped us size it back in the eighties, the side streets, the sewer. That's what we did. We did not rely on that document for this decision. We used the secure exemption that I described to you earlier. So this is a new exemption on top of that air. And we backed it up with environmental studies done this year. Okay. So does this secret normally address traffic? Is that part of a secure. Yes. The impact on the community? Yes. Cars. Okay. When was the last time that there was a secret that addressed traffic? We looked at traffic for this project this year. And staff determined that there's not traffic getting on at the Harbor Bay? No, we determined that the traffic that would be generated by this by this hotel would be much less than what was originally assumed to be on this site and in this business park. Under the original development, we also determined that we will need a stoplight at the intersection of Harbor Bay Parkway and North Loop Road. And we determined that the original development agreement that was approved by the city 20 years ago actually created a funding source, too. And they envisioned they knew this was going to happen, that we were going to need these additional lights. So there's money to put those lights. I appreciate that. A concern I have is and this is this is why I want to know. Yeah. Are we making a fine do it. Does this have anything to do then with traffic? Because when you try to get on and off of Harbor Bay, there's there's traffic. There is absolutely traffic. This what we found is this project. It will not impact that already bad situation. It will not. All right. So the finding is that building a hotel with 100 rooms employs two conference rooms. 50 that can accommodate 50 each will not impact the traffic on Harper Bay. So we're making that specific finding. Were you saying over there. Is over the bridge yet? Let's be clear. You have a significant impact in the mornings, during the school year, leaving from people, dropping your kids off and trying to get on and off. At that point. That's not the trips that are made for a hotel, an airport hotel. You are making a finding that there is no significant impacts being generated by this hotel that were not already identified in the original air. And when was the original air? In 1989. And that's when you designed the entire roadway system for into all of Harbor Bay in the seventies and then the 89 addendum. All right. Thank you. Okay, now I'm going to call the next speaker. Sofie. Jamie. Thank you, Ty Hudson. And then Robert Sanger. And then Pat Lambourne. Hi. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. My name is Ty Hudson. I'm with Unite Here Local 2850, the appellant. You're going to hear from a couple of members. Of ours about why, you know, this this this hotel has very little to recommend it in terms of the sorts of jobs that it will provide. In case it's you know, in case folks are wondering why the union is against it. And you'll hear a little bit from our members about why that matters so much. But I just before I get into that, the real grounds for our appeal, I want to. I just want to say that I met with the the developer a number of weeks ago and we were talking about these sorts of issues. And she told me. And when we were talking about job. Quality that you wouldn't want to pay house employees like housekeepers too much because then they might not want to move. Up. In the world. You wouldn't want to pay employees like housekeepers too much. So since that issue has been brought up, the quality of the you know, that their character as an employer, I wanted to address that. Is that the kind of employer that that the that we want in Alameda? But let me get to the grounds for our appeal, because those aren't the the the quality of the jobs and so forth are not the issues before you tonight. And I. Have a letter from from an. Attorney that written on our behalf that was sent just, you know, earlier today. I have copies of it for the for the council. That addresses the the seeker issues and spells out better than I can in from from the podium here what why this project does not qualify for the exemption from secure that. That it's claiming or that the staff is claiming for it. First of all. As the as the the gentleman from from Marriott mentioned, this is a waterfront project. Whether it has a strip of dirt and rip wrap around. The front of it that separates it from the from the bay by 15 or 20 feet. It's a waterfront project. That is relevant. And one of the. Reasons it's relevant is that apart from the issue of whether it's surrounded by urban uses or not, which I'll get to, there is also an exception. There are exceptions to the exemptions. One of the exceptions to the exemptions, and this is spelled out in the letter, is that. When there are unusual circumstances that create the possibility for impacts such as impacts on water quality among others. A project cannot be cannot use these exemptions. Having a waterfront project like this, that's an unusual situation for a project that would call itself a infill project. Furthermore, to talk about the strip of dirt, the undeveloped future bay trail. In front of the hotel as an urban park is. Kind of absurd. And the court case that was cited about Balboa Park. I mean, come on. Is that Balboa Park? Balboa Park has museums in it. This is a this is a project that is directly up against the San Francisco Bay, which is not Balboa Park. Furthermore, the study that was done. About endangered about the protected species, that burrowing owl. Notes that further observation, both studies, there were two of them. They both note that further observations should be done and that this is a. Potential site for burrowing owls. And the Sequoia exemption requires no value for habitat for burrowing owls. Does all of this mean that you can't build anything there? No, it doesn't mean you can't build anything there. What it means is you have to do an analysis under Sequoia to find out what the impacts are. So we. Hope and expect. That the council. Will. Recognize this as this is a place where as a situation where squat should be applied and that the spirit and the letter of the law should be should be followed, and that development projects should be truly studied and analyzed and approved on their merits. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Not Lamborn and then Michael McDonough. Dana, sorry. And then Maria Aguilar. It's. Good evening, Ms.. Spencer. I was going to say good evening to Vice Mayor, who's not here and to all of the city council members. And thank you for your service. I come here when I'm passionate about something and you're here all the time. I don't know exactly how to put this. Let me see. I'm going to speak from three perspectives. One is I'm a 24 year resident of Alameda. I live right over the bridge at install and high. Secondly, I'm a business traveler. But what kind of business traveler I am? I am the training director for Unite Here International Union. Travel all over the country. And I absolutely think there is a legal basis. This is not an appropriate exemption to the urban infill exemption. This is a really incomplete picture of this entire waterfront area. I went out there today and photographed it. Unfortunately, it's on my phone. But listen, this isn't. This is the San Francisco Bay. This is on a tiny, tiny piece of land. The reason it's five stories tall is because it can barely accommodate this kind of an establishment. There isn't enough parking there. I went looking for 2183 North Loop Road. It's already in use. And then I went and I found a 2.88 acre parcel of land. That would be a better place for this hotel. There's a huge as you know, the Esplanade project is is potentially huge. It's a vast piece of land right next to the ferry terminal. Who's buying it? What's it going to be? Yes, this could definitely challenge whatever urban exemption they're looking for. Are they planning any parking for the ferry terminal? That place was jam packed. So is this really going. Is there going to be available parking? Potentially unlikely. So, yes, you could end up building this. I'll describe what this is in a minute and not really have parking available. Councilman Odie. What is this? I travel Houston. You know, San Antonio, Dallas, Florida. This is a business travelers, low and moderately priced, downscaled hotel upscaled motel. Just like the Hampton Inn. Just like the extended stay. It's not. There aren't going to be weddings and events there. There aren't going to be people there on the weekends. I stay in places like this where you usually put something like this is right near the freeway, right near easy access on to the freeway, close to an Applebee's. And if you're in Texas, Hooters, it's not the kind of development that belongs on our waterfront. And I don't think it'll stand up to the legal appeal that we're talking about, much less the unavailability of the parking. Hampton Inn isn't going to help you out. They're worried about the competition. So I ask you to do anything in your power as our council, to stop this development. The fact that it's zoned for a hotel doesn't mean it has to be. Doesn't the fact that it's zoned for 100 feet doesn't have to be? And you should be doing the kind of examination of development of Harbor Bay that you did for Alameda Point. Thank you. And then you would know how tall Hampton Inn is. Thank you. Michael McDonough. Maria Aguilar. And then Melody Lie. Early. Welcome back, Madam Mayor and the rest of the Council. It's been a long month without you. I'm Michael McDonough, president of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce. And I'm really glad that you're letting the speaker speak over the over their time limit, because there is not enough time for me to tell you everything I want to tell you . So I'm going to take as much time as the union people did if if you agree. You know, the LME, the Chamber of Commerce is pro-business. That's what Chamber of Commerce is all over the world do. And this is a good project for business. We've heard about the shuttles that'll take people to Park Street. I'm surprised the Park Street people aren't here because this is good for Park Street when we've heard about the businesses there that need places to stay. I know that's true. There's a lot of businesses there that need this hotel. We've heard from a couple of people how the Hampton Inn is always crowded and full. But, you know, this square issue is a red herring. There is studies done about sexual abuse. And this is a classic example. This is associations that are not. And you would expect if this was a secret issue, we'd have environmentalist here. We haven't heard from an environmentalist. We are hearing from associations that have another agenda using Sequoia as an excuse to get up here and try to hold this project up. And that I think we're all smart enough not to let that be pulled over our eyes, because this is this is not a secret issue. We've got a couple of issues where the original plan says that this whole park was approved through Sequoia. There should be no question at all. We've done other sequence studies where, well, there's an exemption. I believe it's probably a fair exemption. We have attorneys I haven't heard from any attorneys from the unions. And I'm not against unions, by the way. I used to be a member of one. This just doesn't seem like a union issue to me. This is a red herring when it comes to sequel, trying to get another agenda passed, using an environmental issue by someone who is not an environmental association. Interesting. I would have I would expect that some environmentalists here, if it was on the parking issue, it looks like the the people are the developers are willing to work with us on the parking, whether it's the shared parking. And we have the option of saying you can't get a building permit until you have the lease. I mean, that would be an and an amendment you could make if that's a concern of yours. They're saying occupancy without. I'm sure, like Mr. Odey said, they're not going to spend the money until they know they have the shared agreement. But if you wanted to, you could say you can't get a permit until you get the shared agreement. So I think whether it's the other parking lot that they could purchase or whether it's the shared agreement, they're willing to work with you to make sure there's plenty of parking. And I think so that doesn't really seem like an issue either. So if sex was not an issue and parking is not an issue and we're not within the law to challenge the height until 2019. And the other thing I was thinking about the light issue. I don't think there are going to be spotlights going out from the fifth floor of that building so that it should project light into the neighborhood. There might be lights projected on to the building to show, you know, that there's a hotel there. But I can't imagine it going, you know, half a mile or so away to to be a really problem with the light either. There's so many business reasons for doing this. Revenues alone with the occupancy tax as it is, even if we don't raise it at 10%, which is low for the for the surrounding areas, this the performance for this hotel will show that one the first year we'll get the city will get $400,000. In the 10th year, it'll get $1,000,000. And probably upwards from that from there. And if we raise it with Tony's recommendation, it's even more so. This is a real win for the city. And if the square is not an issue, it's a red herring. If the parking is not an issue, because they got solutions for that. And if we can't challenge, then this comes down to numbers. And it's good for business. It's good for the businesses on Harbor Bay. It's good for businesses on Park Street. It's great for the city because we want to keep the revenues here and not in Oakland or San Francisco. This is a really good project for the city. I don't think we're going to destroy the bay. This is something that I think is I would like to recommend from the chamber standpoint not to challenge this, to let the planning board do its job, to let the city attorneys do their job and let this stand the way it is without appeal or review. Thank you. Thank you. Maria Aguilar. The Melody Lee. And then wailing Huber. Not just. What? I don't just. Mean. I'm Rosemary. I love. Me. Good evening. My name is Maria Aguilar. Yesterday, I kept our whole global housekeeper thing. It made. Me think. I'm here because I work as a housekeeper in Emeryville. A little higher even. I hope our won't support opportunity that is that. Trabaja boys are larger. More more people when America in sympathy and thought. I work in the Hyatt Hotel in Emeryville. I have very good opportunities at work. I have good, good wages, good benefits, good health insurance. That's 100% paid. Even your pocket, Miss Companero, some men don't care. Representative Hacking is the thing. It's not Central. Perk. No Zoroastrian war movie one of Beneficios You know not gonna be any gay, Barry me thank you I don't know Bill can of resigning homeboy boyfriend if he's your pal Austria-Hungary's yes or be any are we not? No. It's a condition the trabajo cancerous tenemos. I'm here because my coworkers nominated me to come represent them here tonight. We have good benefits and good wages and benefits where we work, but it would really hurt us if you approve a hotel that doesn't offer good wages and benefits. MARQUEZ Yeah. I'll tell you. What else I can offer them. One over two features by La la la housekeeper. And Thatcher's paternal biographer. Oprah said No longer is the hotel hero princess. Because if if this hotel is built, that doesn't offer any benefits for the housekeepers. Our bosses are going to want to offer us whatever this this hotel offers. In Las who they met. Will not. Hang up or yellow a housekeeper get the hammer when US opportunities move. Weintraub Our whole NOI says, I throw our whole you Carol Ekeremor jealousy that they allow me to say are you while Gabriela housekeeper. In the city of Emeryville. They've supported us a lot to make sure that we housekeepers they deported housekeepers a lot to make sure that we have good opportunities, job opportunities, that we don't have an excessive workload and and good benefits. And we we hope that the city of Alameda will do the same. Yet what I say this today that we were I'm. Not just. And thank you for this opportunity. Good evening. I'll also be translating if necessary. And then. Melody. Good evening. Uh, well, hang on. I made you something. I've lived in Alameda for 20 years. Utilize the mo suck to do yoga phase and structure. There used to be not as many problems with traffic. Now it's extremely there's a lot of traffic problems. Uh. I, I own dojo right now. I work in oakland, the corridor. Hey. So this could l.a. Mogollon, we got lala. You can go out the more benefit moa you saw. Oh, my. Ah, vacation. Banga. Uh. And my holiday career. So if there's a hotel here billed with no union, it's likely to have no benefits, no sick days. Vacation. Health care. How much. And my pay a minimum wage and. Pay minimum wage. More guy and go. No raises. Howdy. I'm doing some clinical patents are proposing a medical. Take the Hill Hampton end. The workers there pay 50% of the cost. The full cost of medical insurance. How to keep, I hope my night watchman. Tong Ghazi. The housekeeper and the houseman don't get the same rate of pay. Q What an idea is something you don't take over. That hotel is only three stories. This hotel is five stories. It's just too tall. Well, the Hemel Mole pie. We hope that you won't approve this project. Thank you. Thank you. I think I'm the next speaker. When. You hear her name. Melody Lee. I think you. So my name is Wiley Humor and I'm the president of Unite Here Local 2850 thank you very much, Mayor Spencer and council members for allowing us to speak today. So as you've heard from some of our members, one of our concerns is the quality of jobs. You know, I believe that that's a concern for the city. We've heard that expressed by the city manager that, you know, using a space for parking when it could be a job generator would not be a good use of Blandin in Alameda. So I think that that is a priority, but it's not something that is before you today for your consideration. Right. We are concerned because of the conversations that we regularly have with nonunion workers here in Alameda and on Helgenberger in the limited service hotel industry, where first there are very few jobs. I mean, a hotel like this might have ten housekeepers, four front desk agents and, you know, a couple of drivers. We're not we're talking about a hotel that small enough to be exempt from many of the provisions of the ACA, exempt from the family medical leave. Right. Not a giant job generator and then quality of jobs we're very concerned about. We speak to Hampton Inn workers here in Alameda about the quality of their jobs. You know, as they some of them work also in union hotels or recently moved from a nonunion to a union hotel. So. So that's a concern for us. We wish it could be a concern for you, but of course, it's not before you. Today, the parking is the issue that is is before you today. And the question that I have is, given that it's not going to be a huge job generator or a quality job generator, the employer has made no commitments about the level of benefits or wages. Right. Why would the city then bend over backwards to go out of its way to give it exemptions to the code on the issues of parking and secure? So we're talking about possibly having them purchase land, which for all the reasons that have already been said by the city staff, by the Planning Commission is not a good idea. It's furthermore pretty far from the hotel or leasing land. Now the issue and the idea of leasing shared parking from the business park across the street has been out there since April. So my question is, why has the developer not secured such a lease since April? And they came before the board again in July and said, no, we still have not secured such a lease. And then they came before you today in September, said, no, we still have not secured such a lease, but we're looking at some purchased parking instead. Now, I should point out that the code requires it's not just a suggestion, but it's a requirement that any shared parking be less than a thousand feet or less away from the hotel. So the only option is the Harbor Bay Park. Across the street is the office park across the street. We had one speaker come to the July planning board meeting who said, interestingly, I am a part owner in the parking lot across the street and we don't have enough parking. We certainly do not have an agreement with this hotel that we're going to provide shared parking. And we are already concerned that the people who are coming to this hotel are going to UN illegally or without our permission park in our lot, which we don't have space for. We've already established that every meeting space in the city is full. So this these meeting spaces are going to be full all the time during the day, not when the shared parking is available. Right. And I should note that only 50 of the spaces are actually at ground level. 32 of the spaces at this hotel are being proposed are on lifts. So you're going to need staff who are going to have to valet people, shuttle people, operate the lifts. Only 50 people are going to be able to park by just driving their cars into a space that is going to create a massive traffic problem. There's going to be people walking the quarter mile to get across the street by going around to the next crosswalk if they do secure that space that furthermore, the code requires that they have a seven year lease in place and and and so far they haven't been able to produce anything. So thank you for your time. Thank you. Next. I have a slip that doesn't have a name on it. Someone that lives on Otis. Anyone turn in a slip without a name? Oh. All right. Anyway. Is it all right to identify you? It is 2811 notice. All right. Mike had a very. My name is Mike had a very present planning board. I apologize for that lapse there. So my testimony in front with the planning board on this project is on the website, so you could just refer to that. But I feel obligated to give you guys a thumbnail sketch of what my reservations were on this project. And the project was not a unanimous vote at the planning board. I was the one dissenting vote on it. And basically my feelings on this project are I feel like I've been here before. We've done this before in Alameda. We've been sold projects that look wonderful and they're going to be fantastic. And the planning board spent six months on this. So I am pretty conversant with this. And I saw the designs come. I saw them get sent back. I saw them come back again and really appreciably in the massing and design and just the overall appeal of the project didn't change much. And the drawback with the project in my mind's eye is that you've got a site that is too small to accommodate this hotel, and that point has been made by several previous speakers. So I won't belabor the issue, but this reminds me of the wonderful, beautiful, unique Alameda Target store we're going to have, which is going to be unlike any other Target store you've ever seen. Well, that Target stores exactly like every other Target store that you've ever seen, you could be in Dublin or Kansas City, for that matter . So this building, this is probably the best looking drawing I've seen of it yet, but I've also seen a lot of Fairfield Inns. I'm a business traveler also. There's a Fairfield Inn over by the Coliseum. And, you know, this is not what Alameda should be aiming for. I think that, you know, the Patels, it puts a lot of time and effort into this. But I don't think this is the right spot and I don't think it's the right project. On the sequel issue, Andrew Thomas has a famous quote. Now, Harbor Bay was built by the hand of Man. Well, I agree with you, Andrew, but so is the Naval Air Station. And we're not exempting projects down there from secret consideration. The infill thing I am familiar with what happened in the legislature a couple of years ago on the infill development stuff as under Jerry Brown. I think we're all pretty sure why that happened. All we got to do is walk out and look at this. This is not an infill project. I'm not an attorney. I'm not a secure attorney, but I tend to believe what my eyes tell me and not unfounded type of things. So I said I was going to be brief, but I see the yellow lights on. I think that's at the parking was an issue, obviously, but out of those three issues, I think parking would have been the third. So thanks for your time. You have to extend the meeting past 1130 now. We do at the. End of it now, we can just go all night. Joe Ernst. If I if I may, Madam Mayor, just quickly, I just want to make it clear that the planning board supported this project, approved. The sequel. So, Mr. Hanbury, I mean, he is not speaking for the planning board. I believe the vote was 4 to 1. Yeah, but the. Planning board. With four votes made a recommendation and actually decided this this matter. Thank you, Joe Ernst. And he's our last speaker. If you'd like to speak on this item, please turn on your slip. Good evening, Madam Chair. Members of the. Council. My name is Joe Ernst, and I'm here tonight as president of the Harbor Bay Business Park Association. I was asked to come to this meeting on behalf of owners and also as a landowner and developer at the business park. As Dan Reedy mentioned, we did have a recent annual meeting of the owners, and there was a lot of significant concern expressed by the ownership over the appeals and the reasons for these appeals and what what impact it will have on the existing approvals and development agreements. And what rights do these owners have if these approvals these rights are impacted? You know, so therefore, on behalf of the business park and the owners, you know, we do oppose this appeal based on Sequoia, which, you know, in this case is for non environmental purposes. And we do oppose the appeal of a project that does comply completely with the planned development that is in place. The development agreement and plan development are very important documents. In addition, you know, bccdc, we do have bccdc documents in place for the business park and Bccdc had to render an opinion on this project and found that , you know, there is adequate public access and distance from the waterfront, that there are not negative impacts on the water. So, you know, this, you know, by definition is appropriate for the waterfront and does not impact, you know, on the measures of Sequoia. You know, we've approved you know, my firm has developed, approved, recruited companies to over 1.3 million square feet of property of buildings in the park in the last 12 to 15 years, using these same documents, these same processes. Nothing's been challenged on this basis. You know, we're very familiar with the environmental issues, the wildlife issues. So and furthermore, you know, the business park, the original secret documents approved five over 5 million square feet of development. To date, there's less than three square, 3 million square feet of development in the business park. It approved building structures up to 100 feet with a conditional use to go to 156 feet. You know, so, you know, these this project does comply with the with every aspect of the planned development in the development agreement. You know, limits then says that, you know, if it complies, therefore, you know, that's on the basis which you have to approve. You know, there's still about 60,000 square feet or excuse me, 60 acres of land in the business park yet to be developed. That's about 22%. Most of that is held by significant owners who have plans in place to develop, are very concerned. You know what? Upholding an appeal on these basis would mean and would like to know what their rights are. You know, the business park does need hotels. You know, Penumbra was very accurate. You know, Hampton is always full. V.F. is having to send employee visitors on a daily basis to San Francisco. That's just. A lost. Opportunity for Alameda. You know, I think it's a well-designed project. I think it brings nice variety to the business park. And, you know, we spent a lot of time over the last several months talking about what it takes to recruit businesses to Alameda, that we want jobs and we need to send the right message. And I think. By upholding or by opposing the appeal here, we're sending that right message and honoring the agreements that are in place. Thank you. Thank you. He was our last speaker on the item council member. Comments, questions and Brody. Comments have come in. Question So Andrew is still here. Sorry. No, it's all right. So this this issue with this parking thing is still I didn't nobody said whether they liked one or the other. But Miss Huber said something about. You know, the different appearances before the planning board. Yes. We'll get a lease. Yes, we'll get a lease. And then the conversation with the owner of the property. I mean, where are we on that? I mean. Well. Is that accurate that there there's no parking there now and there's no there's been no approach. Many of them, you know, about a lease or we. The discussion with the applicant has been very clear. We're not going to let you open this without at least now, of course, they also. But the planning board never said, oh, let's see the lease, let's see the lease. We want to see an executed lease. The assumption was and the way it's always handled in every project is it's going to be a condition of this project that you get a lease and that you prove you have a lease. I mean, you think about it. She doesn't even know if she has a project yet. Why wouldn't she signed a lease for parking? She needs to know that she can build a project. Then that way we structure. It is you. But we're not going to let you occupy unless you have the lease. And then based on our prior conversation, if you want to change that and move that trigger further up. So it's like, no, you show us a lease before you build a building permit. I guess the thing I'm concerned about is it has to be within a certain number of feet. If we have the shared parking and looking at this map on exhibit three, page three, I think it is, you know, there's not a lot of spaces around there and within that that limit. And if, you know, there's not availability there and there's no desire on behalf of the owners of that one property to even enter in such a lease because the parking lot is full. I mean, realistically, where is that going to go. If she can't get a lease? I like your proposal to change the condition to a building permit. She can't get a lease and she can't do shared parking. And then obviously then the assumption behind the planning board's approval is was faulty. We have been assured throughout this process that we can get a lease now if she can't actually come up with one, well, then you're right. We shouldn't build a hotel. I mean, through no fault of our own, I'm sure, you know, they're making very good efforts at it, but. Nobody in the past has had a problem getting a lease. So if she has a problem, then she should not build this hotel. And we should I should not be standing up here telling you she's going to get a lease if she, in fact, can't. But we have never required somebody to show us and executed lease before we give them the very first land use entitlement. It's always been okay, we have agreement. Your conditions. Here's what our entitlement is and we proceed. And then what about the lighting? I mean. The lighting of the hotel. It's you. Know, if you look on I think it's page. Oh. What was it, Paige? It's still page three. So all of those homes along Lagoon on Ratto. All of their master bedrooms at night. You know, I'm going to look out onto this hotel. You know, they wanted, I heard iconic. And, you know, the picture this picture here that's up on the screen, you know, shows a building that's. From the waterfront looks iconic. But you know, what about from the other side? I mean, are there things we can do to mitigate? There's a couple of lights, the reflection, the colors, the windows. I mean. There's a couple of things we can do. We have a condition of approval that requires a lighting plan. Well, first of all, let me start. The planning board already started this conversation. They said, look, no signage up there. So the signage on this building is actually for a building of this size, very sedate. There's a there's a building on the signage on the side, not in the front or back, and then a low one on the front, which is basically a monument type sign. And so they're not going to see any lit up signs at all. They are going to see a building. There's a condition of approval about a lighting plan to be submitted with the with the building permits, which is typically reviewed at the staff level. The types of things we look for is downward facing lights, not shedding on neighboring properties there. Certainly, there's something any particular things you want to add? You can certainly do that, like make sure that we communicate with the neighbors. The other thing I will point out, though, there is prop. I mean, you're right. Maybe this gets built very quickly. Those neighbors to their living room windows will be seeing this. That is a temporary situation because what they're going to be seeing is the expansion of the V.F. campus. There is a vacant parcel between the lagoon and this property. So and everything out there is very, very flat. So they're not going to see this hotel five years from now. They're going to be looking at the back of the next expansion of the VRF campus, which is going to block their view. You mean? I guess my concern is if you look at this picture, I mean. And sorry. Oh, go ahead. This is the view from the master bedrooms of the rental road. People, you know, it's it's white. So, I mean, I'm a layperson, but white reflects light, right. So moonlight, car, cars and whatever spotlights they put on it. You know, I'm not that concerned about the view from the from the bayside. You know, right. From the I understand. Is I don't I don't want Mr. Hager to come back and say, you saw the the VFR problem, but then you built this other thing that's giving me even more light. So give me what we hope it will be. But so, I mean, that's kind of my my issue. And we do have the right under de novo review to kind of that's ask a planning board to go back and look at the light issue. Well right. Or you can tell us how you want the light issue. You can either refer back for further discussion about lighting. You can also give us and we have the project architect here as well tonight. I mean, if you want specific kinds of lighting. I'd like to hear from the project architect because I was ready to ask for that condition to slide steady. But Councilmember. My name is. Will you pull the microphone down? I'm a little. Short. I have. One more thing left for. This. All right. Mayor. Nice. Mayor, Councilmember, thank you for the opportunity in addressing your question. The latest title 24 California Energy Code strictly restricts the amount of lighting you can have on the building. And also, we can definitely, as a responsible architect, we definitely will shield the lighting from what shooting projecting into the neighbors windows. In terms of what your comments about the white reflecting light, that's a simple color palette. Color is very hard to depict in renderings and also in real life and daylighting it bounces light differently and everybody has different perception of it depends on the weather and sun angle. So what we can do is actually putting in a condition to have a planner or staff going out there and do a final approval of the colored palette on site, which we have done in other jurisdictions successfully. Okay. And then I guess my other and I'm still kind of debating this in my head, you know, I wonder if my colleagues would be interested in, you know, having one vote on the secure. Because that may be a different we may have different findings on the sequel and then having a second vote on whether we're going to upheld based on the mayor's de novo review of the project that, you know, may include things like the parking. Well, can we hear from the city attorney on that? Yes. There's no reason why you can't do that. You have two separate actions before you. One is the appeal from the from the union, which is the Sequoia appeal. And you could vote on that to to deny the appeal and uphold the Sequoia. And then you can also address then the mayor's call for review on de novo and make decisions on that. Is that what you're making? I mean. Well. Well, I think I've made a decision on the sequel, but, you know, I haven't really on the other because I. Think I hear appropriate. So it's very clear in regards to any appeal that may be brought on this we what findings we made, what our decision was. So I would recommend that we bifurcate the two points. Then I would like to move to move at least on the sequel that we we deny the appeal based on sequel grounds. And uphold the Planning Board decision on those grounds only. If we have a second. Our second. Any discussion. I believe that there were significant. Issues raised in regards to the secret issue that at least warrants more than an exemption. And I and I don't support of the city waiving something that I think is very critical of the project I believe is on the water could very well have impact and not only in regards to being on the water, but also in regards to its impact on our community to suggest that traffic. To me, it's not a minor issue. It is a significant issue. We are talking about two conference rooms to accommodate 50 each as well as 100 spaces of the hotel and employes. So I think that that could very well result in traffic that at least warrants a review of a current review as opposed to something that was done in 1989. So for. So those are issues that I have with the project. Any other comments in a second? My comment is that. Member days. I just see. Yes. Madam Mayor, just a point of clarification. The traffic analysis was done in 2014. Thank you. On the matter of Sequoia as it relates to traffic and the cities that are serving users in the meeting spaces. When I look at the people who are gathered here and count the people, I mean, it's practically 50 or so people who are in the audience. Maybe we're south of 50, but you get. So that tells me right off the bat that I'm not convinced that what we're seeing here rises to the level of not following through on planning, board and staff and city attorney's recommendation. So. I'm okay with. Brexit. That you're voting for the motion, is that correct? We haven't called the question yet. We're just. Yeah, we're just trying to see. Okay. Did you. Still have. Issues? Yeah, I have a number of. You have to. Do you want to make them? I'm ready to vote. All right. All those in favor. I oppose to the motion passes 3 to 1. All right. Thank you. And then I want to hear what my colleagues have to say about the others. I'll be happy to start unless. Mr. Brash. Councilmember de do you want to start? Because I think I often do. Oh, jump. Ready? Not really. No. I'll. I'll. I'll listen to what others have to say. Okay. So I am going to move that. We uphold the planning board's action. And I spend a lot of time on this and talked to a lot of people. A number of you here in the in the room. Anybody who contacted me about this, I talked to and this is what it comes down to for me. I appreciate hearing from the homeowners because we always need to balance adjacent uses. And you are homeowners who live next to a business park. But I appreciate hearing from the project architect, because I also know from my six years on the planning board that this is the sort of thing you do all the time. And I think lighting and a ways to address these problems have become even more sophisticated. So it is my desire and I think we will find a way to add a condition to make sure that the neighbors are not impacted. But we also need to think about the message we're sending to the business park. And not only that, to businesses who might be thinking of locating here in Alameda because we still have vacancies in that business park. We'd like to fill up our Alameda point development. And we you know, we celebrate the fact that Penumbra is adding employees. They've acquired more buildings and they're looking to acquire even more VF outdoors in North Face and we just heard earlier about our sales tax revenue reported for the last quarter. Two of the top producing sales tax generators are Penumbra and V.F. Outdoors. This is this is good for our city. We want to do more. We have heard that the hotels that we currently have are filled up. This is good. I want our hotels to be filled up and I don't want to see our business park visitors having to go to San Francisco or over to Oakland to stay because I'd rather have them stay and spend their money and generate revenue here in Alameda. We also know that this project, the Tier, which stands for Transient Occupancy Tax, which is a significant contributor, contributor to our general fund, is going to contribute between 400 and $500,000 annually starting the first year of business and increasing after that. And the so the need is there. I think we can make it a project that serves the community well. I think it's attractive. I like the fact that the waterfront trail is being extended, a crosswalk is being put in across the street. A lot of improvements are coming along with the developer's money. I'm also concerned with fairness. We want to have applicants feel that they come before our bodies and are treated fairly. So the same requirements we required of the Hampton Inn in terms of following what the Alameda Municipal Code its the law says for parking we're doing here . I am adamant though because I feel it's good planning principles that we do shared parking, not just paving over a waterfront space to be an asphalt parking lot when I know there's plenty of potential for shared parking out there. And we again, we need to be aware of. The benefits to the tourist city were always looking for ways to generate revenue. We are really fortunate that we have these great companies. I mean, they're doing Penumbra is doing a wonderful life saving kinds of work. Let's, you know, let's make it easier on them to have their visit business clients come to visit them and not add to the traffic with them having to have their busses and limos ferrying people to San Francisco to stay. So I think we can add a few conditions to make sure that the needs that were addressed are addressed as far as the union issues. Nobody from the union met with me. I did ask Mina Patel when I met. She mentioned Alameda is rather low minimum wage. And I said, well, why don't you match what Oakland is paying? And I think hopefully people have seen the letter that was sent that they are starting to pay, starting with a wage of $12 and I think $0.32, $0.35 an hour, because that's what Oakland does. And and I want to see more employers doing that. But the issues before us right now are the appeal of the well, we've we've dealt with the Unite Here Appeal. And now I know this is a more open ended call for review, but I am prepared to follow the Planning Board's recommendation with a couple of tweaks to make sure that this is the most sound project we can put together. Thank you. I have a question. Could you clarify, are the shared parking, is it within 1000 feet or less of the development? Is there a code section? There is a perimeter. There is a distance in the muni code, I believe it's a. Microphone. And they're there. My recollection of the municipal code for me, my recollection is there is a standard for the distance. It's designed for retail projects, but that is the standard and I believe it is a thousand feet. And this proposed lot that could be purchased as 1500 feet. Yeah. But it's not a shared parking lot, right? It's so it's a different animal. Is there any code section that goes? No. I mean, let's be clear. Just for the record, since we've got folks here who are threatening us for not following the code, the code says the planning board. And upon appeal at this hearing, you can set the parking at exactly what you want. You could today say no parking at all. You're fine. But so you have the ability to to structure this parking exactly the way you want it. But under your zoning ordinance. And the only code section that pertains to the distance of the parking speaks to 1000 feet or. Relates. To 1000 feet for a shared parking arrangement. You know, it's designed for Park Street and it's designed for customers. That's why the 1000 feet, it's, you know, but if you want to hold them to that standard for this thing, then, you know, it's just just a different application. In this case, it's valet parking. It's not customers walking to a store, but that's what that standard is designed for. And the code is for more of a Park Street or Webster Street, where a retailer is sharing parking with another retailer. Thank you. Ben Brody, I'm. Sorry to have a question. So, I mean, is it feasible that the developer could enter in a contingent lease saying, you know, you'll give me this shared parking, but I'm not going to start paying rent, you know, either, A, until the the project is open and B I cannot get out of the lease. Yes. If for some reason I don't get approval on the project. So, I mean, I'm wondering if that would be something that. You know, should be pursued because I'm still not feeling well. Council member doesn't talk, but. Member, De Saag. Well, thank you very much. You know, these are the type of tough issues that we as council members get elected to make. Oftentimes when there are situations where residential land users bump up against business land uses. You know it. Sometimes we shy away from making these kind of decisions. But but here we are. And it's imperative that we continue to move forward with strengthening the local economy here in Alameda. And we talk about Penumbra, for example. You know, when we went out to their annual employee celebration several weeks ago, now we got a chance to talk with the with the CEO of the company. And, you know, he himself a lot he's uprooting his family, moving from San Francisco to move to Alameda. So we need to continue to move that kind of progress along. You know, this this project that we have before us. You know, it's not the silver bullet that's going to answer everything with regard to our economic development, but it is a key part of it. You know, the businesses that we have now at Harvard Vale, to the credit of all the people who have put together that business park throughout the decades. You know, you've got some great corporations there. Peet's Coffee, V.F., Outdoors, Penumbra, the Oakland Raiders. All these companies bringing in clients, people from throughout the world. And we need to keep moving that momentum. And so I hear what the residents have to say. I know that they're concerned, particularly in light of the concerns about the light coming from V.F.. I hear that. But but this is one of those tough decisions, though, that I think we have to move this project along. So I'm supportive of it. And Brody. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So. I mean, if I had my druthers, I would refer this back to the planning board to resolve this parking issue, either with some contingent lease that that we can be safe and secure knowing that there's going to be one or there's some permanent solution that's been approved and gone through a design review that it doesn't also shine light into into neighbors windows. But. And also the lighting. But based on, you know, there's four of us up here and we need three to to pass something. And I'm not sure that I'm going to get a remand. So I'm hopeful that those that are supportive of this project, you know, would consider, you know, some type of of, you know. Contingency on on this this parking being resolved one way or the other and and some way to mitigate the light. Well or agreeing to remand it back to the planning board until those those two issues are resolved. What if we don't get the one? Then it'd be good to get the other. Well, my recommendation then, on that, what you just said right now is for us to just figure out what's the language here. Because if we can move the project along without having it remanded and, and that meets, that satisfies the project proponents and that satisfies you then. No. Yeah. Why not? I don't think I have the votes to remand, so. I think you're right. And also I'm with Councilmember De. So he said it more than once. We need to move this project along. If we bounce it back to the planning board, we just stretch this process out and it's already been stretched out quite a bit. I think we can give Andrew Thomas adequate instruction as to what we want. And I think the the architect put it very well in terms of the lighting, and I think the condition regarding shared parking is already. But, you know, I think the difference was you want the issuance of a building permit rather than an occupancy permit to be the triggering event. I mean, I'd be more I think that's probably more fair to everyone now. I think you. Just know. That. But that can be done, you know, like right here. Right now. Right. But. You know, also that there be some concrete solution. You know, not I might get a lease or I might go off and buy because I don't think building a parking lot behind people's bedrooms is the best idea. And if that's the alternative and it doesn't sound like leasing, it seems there's problems with the possible of getting a lease. So. That's why I'm leaning towards remanding. But again, without the votes, I select the solved. And I'm just going to jump in. Sorry, Andrew, to talk of you with your permission, Madame Mayor, that I actually had a conversation with Joe Ernst, president of the Harvard Business Association. And he indicated to me that because this is such an important project to the business park and the leasing agent is working on finding shared parking , they're going to find a solution. I mean, it's it's a mutually beneficial situation. So I think by upholding what the planning board did, but just tweaking it to require that they won't be able to get their building permit until that lease is in hand. We solved the problem, the parking problem. I would. Certainly. Agree that their next step to moving forward on this is getting a building permit. And what if you amend the condition to say you don't get a building permit until this city sees the signed lease for the additional spaces, then that basically ensures that you get that lease. I would also suggest that given the conversation, I think there's a relationship between the valet parking and the distance, the thousand foot. Is its design for Park Street, Webster Street. And it's not designed for a valet situation. So I. The other thing I will put forward for you to consider in that exact same same condition is we want to see a lease for a thousand feet. This project is require to have valet service, but we're not going to limit you to the 1000 feet. So that's something for you to consider. And with the lease, be just for the evening parking spaces, not during the day spaces. I mean, I think we have the example of the other hotel and that the parking I mean, that's what I was told that the parking lot tends to be just about empty during the day because that's when business travelers are out doing business. The need is in the evening, the. Need is in the evening so. That. It's not a case of first impression, in other words. And that takes into consideration the conference rooms. I think we have to let's not overplay. I mean, I know we want conference rooms and we've been saying it's got conference rooms. These are two, you know, reasonably small rooms. So it helps. But this is not a conference center by any means. I don't plan to support it. I think it requires I think it has insufficient parking. I think when you're talking about 101 hundred rooms to conference rooms employs, I think that 82 spaces on site is insufficient. I think that the suggestion of the 1000 feet or less in regards to valet when I've done valet parking, that means that you have people running to get your cars. I think 1000 I don't think it should be any more than a thousand feet for valet. I actually think that's a long, you know, to suggest that it's appropriate for valet parking to be farther than a thousand feet. That's a good runner going back and forth. And I haven't seen that in valet parking that I've used. So. And there was a comment in regards from the president kind of worried my Canterbury sites are too small to accommodate a hotel this size. I actually would agree with him because I don't think the that it is sufficient in regards to parking. I do think long term we could very well have a problem with parking. I appreciate that. It may not be a problem right now. I think you have examples all over the city, including at the ferry on Harbor Bay, that we our projects have been approved in the past with insufficient parking. So I think that that is critical that that be addressed at the beginning of the project. I also have concerns about the light and whatnot, but I don't think. I don't think it's appropriate to proceed. MEMBER Audie. And you know, I agree with the mayor's points, but if we don't cast an affirmative vote to add these additional conditions, then the project gets approved. As it is. Right. So. So I'm faced with the choice if I want something reminded. I agree with what the mayor says and all of her concerns. You know, do I vote for it so I can get something out of it that I think makes it better? Or do I not vote for it? And then I don't get anything that I think makes it better and it still goes forward in a way that I don't really like it. So. I would much rather have a vote for something that at least we can get some of these conditions in. As much as I really want to remain this, since we don't have the votes, it's it's I have to be I have to be for it with these extra conditions. It's really this is not a pleasant vote to do, but I'd like to have some say in how this works rather than let the the. The decision of the planning board to go forward as it has it's written today. Right. Well, with that, then I will move adoption of the resolution documenting the council action on this property. Do I have an address? 2350 Harvard Bay Parkway. With the with the conditions or the additional tasks that we've given staff to address. It's some clarification. I think I want those to ask you. Just get those on the record. So I think that that that the parking is resolved there either with a. The sign contingent lease or some other executable contract. Executed lease prior to building permit. Write for 24 hour lease. Parking. And or an approved, you know, parking lot that's gone through the design review process because if that doesn't work. She doesn't know. If it doesn't work, there's no project. But I'm not I'm my motion does not include paving over something to just be a parking lot. So then I think we should be clear that. We don't want any paid parking lot. I guess that's my fear. That felt like I said it six ways to say. Okay, I'm willing to say it again. I am talking about least shared parking. And then if it doesn't get through, there's no project. Exactly. So. And then the ball's in the applicant's court. And I think that's fair. You know, sides have to bear a risk and. Okay. And then that the lighting issue is mitigated. Absolutely. Well, let's play that out, though. Okay. So if for some reason they can't get the shared parking. Is the project die as is, or can the applicant come back to the council planning board and say, for whatever reason we could not get the we could not get at least. But as we had expressed from the beginning, we were always all too happy to purchase land to build. Is that a. Yes? They can definitely come back at that point and say, we want you to reconsider the motion from September 1st. Okay. But they would still need three votes. It would still need two votes. Okay. So is that enough clarification, Steph? I think so, yeah. But the lighting. The lighting. We have to review the lighting plan. I've been talking to the architect. There's no plans to light this building. You know, there's going to be laying on the ground floor. There's going to be a red light on the roof. That's the lighting plan. So what we want addressed is to avoid the impact on the neighbors like this. I think when somebody on the fifth floor turns on the light in their room, you're going to see that the light is on in the room. But there's no this is not about there's no need to light this building. We don't have to update it. We don't need to it doesn't need to glow at night. It's going to be a building. When the when you turn the lights in the rooms, you'll see that. Because it'll also be energy efficient, I believe. Yeah. Well, there's ways to mitigate. Okay. All right. So. Okay. Okay. All right. All right. All those in favor. I. I oppose motion passes. 3 to. 1. It's. Fish. And we're going to take a short break before we continue the next agenda item. Oh. My goodness. Oh. Could we take our seats? Let's proceed. If everyone could take their seats, please. We have more agenda items. All right, it's 1220 and let's go. All right. 60. Public hearing to consider the Planning Board recommendation to approve a vesting, tentative map and density bonus application to permit construction of 52 units on a 2.78 acre parcel located at 2100 Clement Avenue. An adoption of related resolution.