Adoption of Resolutions Appointing Arnold Brillinger and Reappointing Susan Deutsch as Member of the Commission on Disability Issues; Appointing David Mitchell and Sandy Sullivan as Members of the Planning Board; Reappointing Daniel Hoy as a Member of the Public Art Commission; Appointing Ronald Limoges and Adam Trujillo as Members of the Recreation and Park Commission; and Reappointing Chris Miley as a Member of the Transportation Commission.
Adoption of resolutions appointing Arnold Bollinger and Susan Deutsch as members of the Commission on Disability Issues, David Mitchell and Sandy Sullivan as members of the Planning Board and Hoyt to the Public Art Commission on the motion. Adam prior to the Park Commission and Chris Smiley to the Transportation Commission. And we have nine speakers on this item. Dania Alvarez, Walt Jacobs and Laurie Zupan. We're not going to have a presentation by staff. For those of you that don't know what this is. The mayor, myself, I have appointed nominated different people to different commissions. And then it comes to council to vote whether or not to approve my nominations. Good evening, city council and city staff. My name is Donna Alvarez and I'm a lifelong resident of Alameda. I submitted a letter to the city clerk late this afternoon, and I would like to read it so that it can be a matter of public record. Dear Council members to serve on the Planning Board is an honor and a privilege and a wonderful way to perform one's civic duty. I consider myself quite fortunate to have experienced this type of community service firsthand, and for that I will be forever grateful. It became clear during my days as a planning board member that those appointed to the Planning Board should have an ability to listen to opposing views while keeping a clear focus on where the real public interests lie. What was not only within the law, but also really fair, and the ability to distinguish between fact and opinion with the position one needed to assemble information from both written and oral testimony and apply it to the making of meaningful recommendations that were based upon adopted plans, ordinances, required findings of fact and established policies, and not upon personal values. Therefore, the letters written to convey my disappointment in the wording found in the Planning Board applications submitted by Sandy Sullivan on June 15th, 2015. Specifically the comment made in the other comments section of Ms.. Sullivan's application. I am not a realtor. I found this comment unnecessary and inappropriate, and because I am a realtor personally offensive. In some cities, it is a requirement that at least one of the members of a planning board commission be a representative from a community group that participates in land use issues. On a personal note, and as a lifelong Alameda resident, I believe in individual. Taking a leadership position on a city board should not make disparaging remarks towards other members of the community as a validation of their qualifications. To appoint an individual that demonstrates the same attitude is not the best interest of our residents in our city. Therefore, instead of appointing Mr. Sullivan, I am asking you to submit another nominee for the position of Planning. Board Member. Thank you for your time and consideration. Walt Jacobs. And then Lorazepam. Well, it's been a few years since I've had the opportunity to address the City Council, but my name is Walt Jacobs and I am a realtor and I just wanted to speak on behalf of Donya because I've had an opportunity to work with her for many, many years in the profession. And she is a thorough professional, a caring individual, and she does her job right. That I agree with everything that went on in the Planning Commission last year. Not necessarily. But good, lively discussions and lots of listening on her part. I seem to be trapped in the world of history myself right now. Been around so long that they just keep me there to remind them the way things used to be or not to forget this or not to forget that. And I enjoy that role. But I think that having the history of what was before, along with what is going to happen, is critically important because you know, that word seamless and things like that is a crock. What you really need to do is try to generate a smooth transition as you can into the next evolution of where this city is going to go. And I think that she has performed in a way that would definitely be the way I would like to see something transition, because Elamite is changing and we all know it. Thank you very much. Laurie and then John Knox White and then David and Lisa McDonough. Good evening, mayors and members of the council. I appreciate you listening this evening. I currently sit on the planning board and past president of the planning board and have sat on several city commissions. I've done a lot of volunteer work for the city and I'm very concerned about the process that's happened for this nomination, because I feel that it is a process of intimidation for sitting volunteers on every board. It has been the practice of mayors in this town for as long as I recall. In almost every case, members are reappointed to the board when they're up for a term and they apply for the reappointment to the term. They respect all of the efforts that those volunteers have made in serving their city. And if those volunteers want to continue, if there has not been misconduct, they typically extend that. It's been very rare that that does not happen. The reason I think that that happens in many cases is because mayors understand that volunteers give up a lot of their time, a lot of their energy and a lot of their resources. I know I personally put several hours into the planning board activities every week and have for the past several years. I know when member Marilynn as you Ashcraft was on the planning board, I know she put me to shame bicycling to every single location across the island and spending time to talk to all the neighbors. An example that I do try to emulate as much as possible, but it is a huge investment and there's a huge amount of insulation. There are a lot of ordinances, a lot of plans, a lot of guides. There's a lot of history. You have to understand what it is you're charged with implementing. It is not a matter of personal opinion. There are restrictions on what it is that you can do and say, what you can provide as guidance, what is legal, what can what you might do that could cost this city a significant amount of money. It really requires a lot of startup time. It requires a lot of staff time to disrespect all of the effort that a good performing member puts into a council or commission is really, in my opinion, a matter of bullying because the reason those members are typically excluded is because they have expressed an opinion or a point of view that is not aligned with the person . It suppresses expression on all of the boards because, you know, if you speak out of line with the mayor who's appointing the members, you won't be reappointed. Donnie Alvarez was probably the best member on the board of this last year, two years that she's been on there in terms of soliciting opinion and bringing it forward, bringing forward misconceptions, bringing forward opinions that were not aligned with hers and making sure that they were heard by the whole board. She reached out like almost no one else on this board does because of her role, because of all the people she can reach and because of everything else she does. I'm extremely disappointed with the failure to renominate her, and I hope you will do what you can to address this. Thank you. John Knox White. Good evening. John Knox White. I am a current planning board member. I have two reasons for being here. First, I want to just give thanks to Donya for her for her service. I was disappointed that she has not been renominated. She has. You know, a year and a half ago she was along with me and president at the time, David Burton. Every other week at 7 a.m., we were here at City Hall, the city staff working on the two point plan for two and a half months. There are very, very few people who have put the time and energy into trying to bring forward plans that this council, the five of you have all supported. So far, not one one plan has come forward that has not been supported. And yet, you know, I'm also here to acknowledge that the mayor has the right to nominate who she wants. And I think we have to fully move forward with that and support that. In fact, actually, I think it's very good that we are reevaluating the process for nominating the nominating process. The nominating process, I would say, is the charter is clear. The mayor nominates I would I would correct what was said a little earlier. The charter is also clear that the council appoints the planning board. The council appoints our commissions. Our boards and commissions are the council's bodies. They are not the mayor's bodies. And I'm here to say, as a part of the shaking up of this process and throwing tradition out the window to encourage the council to really, you know, take on that role in a way that they haven't for many, many years. And it's something that I've been critical of for many, many years, that the the appointment process is not supposed to be a rubber stamp. And really, it is on you, all five of you, to take ownership of each individual that goes to the boards and commissions and to make sure that you are aware of who is who is being nominated and what they stand for and to make sure that they embody what it is. This the entire group, all five of you wish to see in our planning board. I'm not here to speak against either of the nominees. I know very little about them because there's very little about them in their in their applications. That could be great. And if you if you so appoint them tonight, I look forward to serving with them and will do so. But I will ask you to do your due diligence. So far there have been two appointments that did not require City Council or City Council approval for the Sunshine Committee and for the Rent Advisory Committee. And the appointment from the mayor at the Sunshine Committee is a person who just last month said that he thought the Brown Act was a problem because you can't get together with a majority to the council and come to a consensus in a back room when nobody's watching. And his question, the efficacy and the need for a sunshine ordinance, the appointment of the latest appointee to the rack to the Rent Advisory Committee, that the topic that we all just sat through about an hour and a half of discussion is somebody who led the fight against affordable housing in the eighties in Alameda, who literally wrote the ballot measure against affordable housing in Alameda. So don't just take it that everything is everything is great and we should just move forward. Please do your due diligence and do the things that you were elected to do. This is one of those key things, and it's very important and I encourage you to do your due diligence tonight. Thank you. David and Lisa McDonough and then Larry Witt and Chris Christopher Koster. David and Lisa McDonough do not appear to be here. Larry. And Christopher and then my kind of very. Madame Mayor, members of the City Council, thank you for this opportunity to speak to you. My name is Larry Witty. I'm a 15 year resident of the city of Alameda and a neighbor of Dan Alvarez and ordinances. I move to Alameda and have come to value her neighborliness and her knowledge of the city. Alameda is going through a great deal of change. And I can tell you that I've seen quite a bit of it. 15 years ago, I couldn't see moving on on the island. The residents of Park Street were nothing to write home about. And also, I think Alameda has started the the school district's enrollment started to start to decline. And obviously now it's been exacerbated by my entire day in Alameda going to movie shopping, having lunch and dinner. And now enrollment in the schools is almost 11,000. I know that there are a lot of challenges going on as well with Alameda. As we know, people are concerned about transportation, traffic, overcrowding and as you've heard, rising rents. And at this critical point, I think it's important that we have people who are on the planning board, who are experts on, you know, on on Alameda. And and, Don, you're really being brings a lifetime of experience and expertize to to to the to the planning board. She has she's studied and worked internationally. She's proven herself as a professional who looks out for the best interests of Alameda. She seeks collaboration and strives for solutions that are fair to all. She has deep knowledge of the real estate market and the impact of development on the quality of life in Alameda. She thoroughly prepares for meetings. She listened to those on both sides of an issue and is valuable by members of the commission. Now, as we as we as we've heard, El Camino will always change. No one can stop that to optimally, optimally deal with this change and to enable controlled growth. We need experts like Daniel Alvarez. And I ask the mayor and the city council to consider permitting Daniel Alvarez to continue her work with the planning board. Thank you. Christopher Koster, then my Canterbury and then Nancy Garden. And if you'd like to speak on this issue, please turn in your slip. Good evening, dear mayor. Vice Mayor, City Council members. Come or come before you tonight to ask that you reappoint a member of the Planning Board who would like to continue doing the great volunteer work she has been doing tirelessly for the last few years. Just a few years ago when I myself joined the planning board, the board was badly in need of volunteers who would want to join council. Councilwoman, as he asked Gaffney, attest to her being president of the board for an extended period of time as the board didn't even have enough members at the time in order to hold elections. I myself was asked to join the board after I had applied in 2010, but as luck would have it, I started a new job with a different architectural firm and position. My elects are postponed my election to the board for one year. The spot was still available one year to the date I filled someone's vacant spot and now I serve on my own, only my first term. Since then, we've been fortunate enough to have the full board to assist the city in delicate decisions for future development design review and decide on amendments to the City Charter Code and design guidelines. For each of these aspects, Danny Alvarez has tuned to what's going on in Alameda and often raises concerns that she has with new projects when she disagrees with, often sparking debate among the board members. She has been an asset to the board and the community. Having a background in real estate, as you know, has provided her with the skills and understanding current market about current market rates, housing needs and affordability issues. Finally, in just a short period of time at the board, Danielle has risen to the position of VP on the board, which has to stand for something here. Again, I urge you to keep Daniela Alvarez on the board at this critical time in Alameda history as we gear up to work together on Alameda Point and other great future Alameda projects. Thank you. My name is Mike Canterbury. I'm a lifelong Alameda resident, and I'm president of the Planning Board. I'm here this evening to discuss the mayor's nominations for the planning board. Actually, more succinctly. I'm here to discuss an appointment. The mayor did not put forward that of current Vice President Tonya Alvarez. It has been the practice in Alameda for mayors, nominations to various boards and commissions to be authorized by the council with little or no discussion. Although in my case, I must admit, I garnered a no vote when I was appointed to the Planning Board. It's also been the past practice of mayors to reappoint board members who are eligible to serve out additional terms. In my particular case, I harbor no illusions that I'll be reappointed. But I'm a political person. I can live with that. What I don't understand, what I'll never understand is why an eligible person completely qualified like Donna Alvarez, is not being reappointed. She's basically an apolitical person. She does her homework. She works with every issue that comes before the board to the envy of its members. If you've been to one of our meetings, as most of you have, you know, we have some very detail oriented folks, so that's quite a complement. Her credentials as a caring, committed Alameda. Alameda are unparalleled. Everybody knows a story of her family overcoming huge odds after becoming Cuban exiles after Castro took over. If anyone understands a call to service and the obligation to serve, it's Tanya Alvarez. What this non appointment does is send a message to members of boards and commissions that we don't care how well you served or how hard you worked or how committed you are to Alameda. If you're appointed by someone we don't like, you're out. It looks to me like the only thing Donya Alvarez is guilty of is being appointed by Mary Gilmore. As I said earlier, I understand your prerogative. I also understand that if the rules are going to be changed, throwing out the past practice of reappointing previous mayoral appointments, then the council has an obligation to assert itself. In this case, the mayor's put two Ford, two names instead of rubber stamping the appointments. The council should stand up, evaluate the applications and vote accordingly. In a situation where the mayor has the ability to make appointments over her term to reflect her views. The council has to take a stand. There are many appointments that are going to be made over the next three and a half years. It would be completely reasonable to reappoint Alvarez and then reappoint one of the mayors suggested appointees. Daniel Alvarez does not deserve to be collateral damage in a political calculation. Those voting need to explain why they're taking their positions. In Alameda tradition die hard. The mayor and the council are treading new ground here, and I urge you to be very careful and cautious. Thank you for your time. Nancy Gordon. And then she's our last speaker on this item. Mayor Spencer, Vice Mayor, Metro, AC and Council. Thank you so much for your outstanding service to our wonderful city. I became aware of this not from my business partner at the office, Donna, but from the article in the paper by Mr. Hanna. Barry and I went, Well, this doesn't seem to make sense to me. So I did a little bit more research. And I just want to speak incredibly. Positively for Donna Alvarez. I chose her to be my partner at the office to take care of my real estate clients when I'm not there. I totally trust her. She goes beyond the call of duty. She does more than just her homework that she needs to do. She thinks beyond the box. Outside the box. She's way more techie than I am. And to rely on that. She wants to go beyond what people might ask. And anticipate what they may need to know. And I've seen her in action, and I've appreciated. Her quality of leadership and her integrity. She was the president of the Board of Realtors, as most of us know, did an excellent job. She's just an exemplary person. And I was very pleased to come to a recent planning board meeting and hear all of you speak and hear Donya speak. On the project. I think we're the island high schoolers, and the architectural drawings didn't seem to be popular with anybody, gratefully, but I could see. That there's a lot of conscious consideration of what's going on in Alameda. In line with. How many more developments we're going to. Have. All the issues. With the traffic. But I really trust Donya. With. Decisions on. The planning board and to. Give it her all. And I if there's any possible way. To reinstate her, I think it's definitely worth it. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chair. I believe. Mr.. I'm sorry. I believe Mr. McDonough has returned into the room. I know he had a speaker slip. She'd like to approach. That's okay. That's what I thought. A different story. Okay. Thank you. Well, sorry. So at this point, you. Had your chance. At this point there being far as I know, there are no other speakers on this item. Right. M.I.A. Yes. I actually asked the clerk to have the two planning board nominees come so I could do my due diligence and ask them questions. Are they here? So. So before I do that, I'd like to move adoption of the appointments to the Commission on Disability. The Commission. The Public Arts Commission. The Recreation and Parks Commission. And the Transportation Commission. And then separate out the Planning Board until we have a chance to talk to the to the individual nominees and then have a deliberation. I'll second that. After the vote. Well, okay. So I would also suggest if we're going to be if we're going to do that, that we pulled the item of reappointing Chris Smiley to transportation. We have a motion on the floor. It's been seconded. I call for the vote. All in favor. I suppose I'm going to support passage of the motion. To leave. That was for the 4 to 1 motion carries or to one. Okay. So we've approved the other nominees to the commissions. Including the Transportation Commission. I got it right. So. Is Miss Sullivan the only one here? Yes. No, she's here. Is she the only. Only one of the two? No. No, Mr. Mitchell. This is her, too. Okay, great. So I don't know. Does anyone else want to ask questions or. Because maybe we should have. I have some comments to make, but you can if you. It's up to the mayor. I, I can wait to make my comments. I just like to, you know, kind of judge some of their, you know, how they go about making decisions on the planning board and know I don't care if I ask one, one, one set of questions than one the other, it doesn't really matter to me. So. So I'm not. As far as I know, this is unprecedented. However, it is not unprecedented for the mayor not to reappoint everyone that had been appointed in the past. I understand that. But we do have a responsibility to actually make the appointments and confirm them. So, you know, I did not have the opportunity to have a discussion behind closed doors with any of these these candidates. So I'd like to, you know, have that discussion here in public. I'm not sure how this works. Anyone want to weigh in on how we could do this. Madam Mayor? Well, at this. Point. I would encourage that we at least hold off on the appointments to the Planning Commission so that council members who so decide can have the time to meet the nominees. That would be my recommendation. Well, then I'd like to make a comments. You know, I'd like to do that in public. I mean, this is, you know, we're going to have a referral on this later if we get to that point on the agenda. But and this is the most important board and commission in the entire city. And I think the public has a right to hear the philosophy of what people that will be making important decisions affecting everyone's future, whether it be traffic or development or anything like that here in public in a transparent manner. So I mean I'd like to go ahead and ask my questions if was. So that's impressive as far as I know. Are there other councilmembers that would support doing it in public but in that manner? I'm of two minds. Did the did the applicants have notice that this was going to occur? And Ms.. Sullivan's indicated she has no problem addressing questions and. And Mr. Mitchell says it's fine as well. So. STAFF Is there any problem with this? Okay. Any issue. All right. Let's continue. So did you want both of them diverge at this point? I'm not going to ask different questions of each one or. Okay. US the same beach. Yeah. Maybe we can just come up and then alternate. So with that. I'm Sandy Sullivan. Thank you. And you are? Mr. Mitchell, I'm David Mitchell. Thank you for coming, and I appreciate you being amenable to answering some questions. So, you know, I can feel comfortable with your nominations so you can pick who's going to go first. But I think the first question is. You know, housing affordability is an issue of great interest and concern here in Alameda. What do you feel is the Planning Board's role in maintaining affordability, and how would you propose the board do so? Well, that's a very good question. I just lost my son, my grandson and my daughter in law to Folsom because of the affordable housing issue here in Alameda. So it is a concern. I am not fully versed on what the solutions should be. I am a person that believes that property owners have certain rights and tenants have certain rights. And I think you've made a good first step and we'll see how it goes. It may not be nearly enough, and I like the idea of seeing what best practices are across other cities. Yeah. I think the best way to handle affordable housing is to look at new construction that's happening in condos and things that are going in the city and making possibly certain percentages of that. Those homes are affordable. That's one way to look at it. And then I think another way to address it is to, of course, look at to see what other cities are doing and see what works best with a community like ours. With. With. Similar populations, that sort of thing. Maybe we'll just switch so you have a chance to think. Okay. So can you kind of explain your understanding of the role of the planning board? Yeah, well, so the role of planning board is to, you know, approve projects that are happening throughout the city. My particular philosophy is, you know, I'm for growth, but I'm for smart, sustainable growth. I want to keep Alameda charming. And, you know, I'm a basically a resident first and foremost. And I live here for a reason. And I want to keep Alameda a really good place to live. And, you know, that's where I'm coming from. Yes. I have lived on both sides of the island. I started my stint in Alameda on the. West. Side as a younger person. I now live in Harbor Bay and I've been in this location about 24 years. The planning board is a really critical role in in in the city and what it is and the character of the city, because it makes the decisions that are going to determine what the city is like in years ahead, long past our terms. And I think based on my background in the kind of work I have done in that I can be an asset to this and to the planning board and. Q So how would you adjudicate on an issue that you might philosophically, philosophically disagree with, but there is no legal reasoning that would allow you to vote against it? I think it would if there's no legal reason that you can't. Still vote. Against it. I mean, I like to think of myself as a very open person. I have a lot of experience dealing with the public and dealing with issues. And I. I, I like to. Look at both sides. I like to do my homework. I like to do some investigation from the standpoint of getting feedback from other publics that are involved or would be impacted. And that's how I work. Yeah. I would just address it with, um, not wanting to bog the city down. Of course, in litigation that could be really problematic as well. But trying to also put Alameda first and any decisions that they do make. And then, you know, this kind of a two parter, you know, what do you think was a good decision made by the planning board in the last year and why? And what was the decision made by the planning board that you would have made differently? And why and how would you work with your fellow board members to create that consensus? What kind of good and bad and how you would get people to change their mind. I think the good is that we are getting some exciting things happening in the city and some new building going on. I think if if you asked me an example of of less than optimal, I would use Bayport as an example. I spend a lot of time out there visiting friends. I don't know if any of you have gone on Easter or Thanksgiving Day with a car full of food and there's no place to park because most people use. Their. Garages as aboveground basements and so they are parked on the street. So parking in that development is a huge, huge issue. I would say there were some things that could have been done design wise that would have added more parking without destroying the ambiance of the neighborhood. And that would be the one thing that would have been done better. Yeah. For me, I think the the Del Monte Project, you know, the parking obviously could be problematic and that's criticism. And I think I would look at another issue that maybe hasn't come before, but is the Harbor Clubs a very interesting issue? And I think most people support leaving it where it is. Um, so to the two issues that I recently looked at that I thought were very interesting. Do you have an opinion on that Harbor Bay Club? Um. Well, I. I don't think I would. You don't want. To really. You don't want to. Say what's going to come before me? And I don't have an opinion because I believe, you know, some of some of the opinions have been expressed. And, yeah, I would want to look review all the material before I would make a public announcement about that particular property. I was thinking the city attorney might want to weigh in. Yeah, I think what you have heard here is you cannot express an opinion on something that might be coming before you. So I think that's a clear direction that needs to be thought about and addressed. And I think maybe one of council member Otis questions was kind of directed that way. There is a problem in prejudging. And having firm opinions before you have the facts. Before you that could cause you to recuse yourself from. Yeah. And I appreciate you sharing that. And in asking it that way, I think that that would have been nice to include that in your question. Well, it's important that we be fair here. Thank you. Member de started you. Well I. Guess I am now. With. Well, the question that I have just for both of you if you can just. Well, first of all, let me say thank you very much for submitting your application to serve. I will say this much, though, that Dana Macedonia Alvarez, she did a yeoman's work. And I would have preferred that she be nominated because of the work that she had done substantively and procedurally, the way in which she worked. The charter is clear, though, that it is the mayor prerogative to nominate. It make nominations. So and generally, when we get the packets, we get the backgrounds of the persons, you know, the things that you fill out. So if you could just for the public, just kind of give us, you know, the 62nd summary of who you are, you know, how long have you lived in Alameda for the public? Any pertinent background? That's all. Thank you. I've lived in Alameda all total. Over 30 years. I have a long track record in in my community of providing surf service, volunteer service. I spent six years on the Architectural Committee for the Community of Harbor Bay, all 3000 homes and only left when I termed out. I have been chairman and am chairman of the Landscape Committee for Bal Point and it has 14 parks and integrating three landscaping plans into existing infrastructure has been a major project. I have also served on the Bal Point Board of Directors a total of four different times, twice as President, and have been responsible for a number of initiatives and policies that have put the association in a firm financial footing, as well as brought some new thinking and some new ideas and to to. The. Board. So in a nutshell, my child was raised in Alameda, attended Alameda schools. I like it here. Hi. My name is David Mitchell. As you know, I, um, I've lived in Alameda about ten years. I represent the new blood of Alameda. Really? I have five year old twins that just started Otis in kindergarten on Monday. And my my idea was to try to interject some new blood into the planning board and into volunteering here. Um, I currently own a company that produces, um, luxury home decor items and everything is manufactured in Oakland. Um, so I do have a background in design and also work really closely with architects and contractors on projects. I know how to do CAD drawings and drawings and using computer graphics, which is like illustrator and things. Um, I, I just have a real interest in seeing aluminum continue to prosper and grow and just do it in a very smart, sustainable way that makes sense for everyone that lives here. Thank you. Any other questions? Member Ashcroft. Just one for Ms.. Sullivan. Could you help us understand why you included the sentence in your application? I am not. And you underlined not a real person. It had nothing to do with Donna. Donna, I didn't even know you were a real estate agent. It had to do with my beliefs that in some of these boards and commissions. Well, there are certain parts of being a realtor can be an asset. There's certain other parts that can be a conflict. And that's a personal feeling. And I felt it was important to say that I had no connections to any realty firm or developer. I'm really interested in representing the residents of Alameda that the character of this town and the what's important to residents is integrated with all the new opportunities and new building that is coming forward. Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry. I just like to mention also that in case my background seems unclear when I do, when I did submit my application, I also included a cover letter and my full resume is for you to review. And those are public information. Right. And remember and I have some comments that I want to make when I'm over it. Does anyone else have questions or should we let these good people sit down? I'd like to share that. I actually I appreciate member Otis idea of having you come here. It reminds me as to why I nominated you. I thought I think you both clearly answered the questions and are very impressive. Thank you. And I thank you for the opportunity. Yes, yes, yes, yes. If I may, can I have each of you explain what your experience has been in interacting with the City Border Commission or the city council or any other public activity where you had to participate or or otherwise contribute? Yeah, I'll answer that first of zero. I have never been part of a board here, participated in on the board or volunteered for anything. This is basically, like I mentioned, I'm I'm trying to interject something new to the city. I think I represent some of the families that are living here and moving here. And I do obviously, I have volunteered for my kids schools and things like that, but that has nothing to do with sort of this public forum. So. I have attended council meetings under the former regime or council and mayor and found it a very, very positive experience with a couple of very small exceptions that are no longer here. So it was a really it was a good experience. I've been to planning board meetings, also a good experience some time ago and I've worked with the planning permit department, which was also. A positive experience. So this is been a good city to work with. I guess I should say that I have been to previous city council meetings and planning board meetings. I just have never been a nominee to any of these boards or commissions. Well, I'd like to thank you both for being such good spirits. Yes, thank you. I appreciate it. So may I make my comments? Yes, thank you. Thank you, everybody. I know we still have some items to to cover, but thanks for all the people who are in the audience. So I want to disclose that Donna Alvarez and I have known each other a long time. Our sons played soccer together when they were little boys. They're not little boys anymore. Mine is 24. But that is not why I'm speaking out tonight. I had the opportunity over the city council's August break to reflect on Donna not being reappointed to the planning board. Donna, as we have heard, is a member who has served her community and this board with distinction. She has spent hundreds of hours or more reading, probably thousands of pages of materials over the years and familiarizing herself with the matters that came before the planning board. She would like to be reappointed, but was not. What troubles me most and again, reflection over the city over the summer, I just decided sometimes your conscious conscience dictates that you have to say what you believe and can't keep silent about it. What troubles me the most are the events that led to the mayor's decision not to reappoint Donna. It is well known that the mayor attends almost every board and commission meeting, sometimes getting up to offer public comment. But one can attribute that to a new mayor, and certainly with no previous border commission, city board or commission experience herself trying to familiarize herself with procedure. But I have also heard from a number of board and commission members that the mayor told them that she attends these meetings to see how they vote and wants to appoint people who share her political position. This concerns me as a lawyer because of what I would call a chilling effect. I want to have well-qualified individuals serving on our boards and commissions, and they don't all have to agree with my political perspective. But I want independent members who will render objective decisions based on staff report, staff reports, and that would include include the applicable, applicable laws and regulations. Public testimony, meeting with applicants, meeting with residents. It's all the things we do in the course of preparing to make a decision rather than voting the way they think the mayor wants them to in order to be reappointed. The city council and the city are better served by this course of action. And of course, the city council always has the ability to call a board or commission decision for review. That's essentially an appeal, as is being done this evening, later in this agenda. This is not just my personal opinion. Since I returned in August from a vacation in August, I have heard from a number of not only members of the community, but other members of boards and commissions who shared similar sentiments about Donna not being reappointed, including this one, and I'm quoting The mayor's recent action also dismisses the investment of all city board volunteers and represents a dangerous path. With rare exception, past mayors have expressed their appreciation to all of the many volunteers required to run this city effectively, even those with whom they disagreed. The failure to renominate Ms.. Alvarez is a corrosive and divisive decision that sends a warning to all board members to comply with the mayor's specific agenda or be removed. This requirement to mimic the mayor the mayor's views and echoes the mayor's voice or be dismissed is the opposite of representative representative government. This is not about mayor's prerogative. It is about a process that should not be endorsed. And that's the end of the quote. What I would say to my fellow colleagues is I think there's a couple of ways we could proceed. I would love to see the mayor reverse her decision and reappoint Donna. But failing that, I would ask that we think carefully about the votes we're about to take on the nominees that have been put before us. Thank you. Iran's man. Brody. Thank you, Manama. So I just kind of want to take what my colleague just just said and take it one step further. You know, I, too, am really distressed over the fact that Ms.. Alvarez was not reappointed in the planning board meetings. You know, I've shown, you know, she was probably the most independent and the one that probably disagreed the most with the majority of the board. So, I mean, if we're looking for someone who has an independent voice and looks at things differently, then, you know, I think we have that person already there. And, you know, why why replace them? I do appreciate everyone who applies from board and commission. And, you know, we're very similar to, you know, we do this on a volunteer basis. We do have to run through a campaign that's not a, you know, a ten minute interview with with the five of us, but it takes a special breed to actually volunteer. So. And, you know, listening to the people talk, I can't recall any time since I've been here that, you know, while Jacobs, Nancy Gordon, John Knox, White, Mike Henneberry and Larry Zupan all agreed on one thing. And that one thing was that, you know, the best person to be on the planning board is. So I think and I kind of disagree a little bit with my colleague, Mr. De Saag, while the mayor does have the right to appoint and nobody is taking that right away from her, nobody's nominate. I mean, nobody's taking that away. But we also have a duty and an obligation to confirm. And I take that obligation seriously. And, you know, to this day, I have not voted against any of the mayor's appointments. So I don't have any issue with, you know, this mayor and her appointees. I just have an issue with this one. So we have, you know, a couple of choices here. We could rubber stamp these two appointments, which, you know, we may, in fact. Well, do we could, you know, pick one of the two and encourage, you know, a reopening of of one. You know, I don't know if I could pick one of the two because, you know, they both had, you know, some very good answers to the questions, you know, or we could say, let's reject both of them and let the mayor go back and pick, you know, which one of the two she wants to bring back and hopefully reconsider reappointing Donna. But at this point, you know, I, I do not intend on on voting in favor of these, because I think Donna should be one of the people on this list. So first I'd like to share. I appreciate Ms.. Alvarez's service for the past two years. I take the nomination process very seriously. Myself along with a staff member interviewed personally. Almost every single person that applied for every commission, including those that were seeking reappointment. I attend the meetings of. Of. Ten many commission and board meetings. I listen to the public as they speak. I try to. I tried to. Here coming with these nominations. I tried to make very what I would call fair and balanced nominations that best will meet the needs of our community moving forward. I'd like to share that. I did ask for reappointment of, in fact, all other candidates that were seeking reappointment. There was a suggestion that I was not reappointing anyone that the prior administration had appointed. That's not true. And and I appreciate that member already had of Mr. Mitchell and Ms.. Sullivan speak today. First thing I had, I had never met either of them before. I was very impressed with their answers during the interview process, and I was very impressed again today with their answers. In regards to another member's comments that I only appoint people that share my political perspectives. I don't believe that is true. If you look at all of the other people that have been renominated, we do not necessarily agree on on political issues. What I was looking for truly was an interview process similar to what people would be asked to go through when applying for a job, because this is very serious to our community. And and and I appreciate that some people may disagree with me on this. I would encourage. You know, the applications are here, they're public information. And I'd also encourage people to attend these meetings. And I'm confident I stand by my nominations and I hope that council will support my nominations. Yes. I am saddened that Ms.. Alvarez was not renominated by Mayor Spencer. But my reading of the charter. The charter clearly says that it is the mayor who nominates certain positions. And whether one chooses to call that politics or not. You know, if the mayor has a certain agenda in mind. Then. Oh. That is that comes with the territory of elections. Elections have consequences. So she has nominated these two individuals who on paper and in person, in my opinion, are qualified to serve on the planning board in lieu of not nominating Ms.. Alvarez. So I'm ready and willing to support the appointments. I would have preferred that Ms.. Alvarez receive the nomination. But the charter is clear about the process that is in place. Yes. I think. That we've had some discussion here. About some points that go to people's qualifications. I did look at the applications of all the people who applied, and we have very qualified candidates here. I appreciate the candidates and the nominees and Mr. Rudy's initiative to have the public here and present themselves as they will be serving with the city where I diverged in opinion from the planning board was not on their ability to fulfill the law. It was on the application of discretionary decisions. On our housing element. Which in my opinion, has over a zoned the entire northern waterfront of the city and of the application and compliance with our density bonus ordinance, which this Council had to add to additionally clarify. I'm confident that these two nominees can do the task. And I think it will be healthy at the discussion level in the planning board to have some new faces of. I am glad, Miss Sullivan. And I'll take her at a word for it that her remark about not being a realtor was not meant to disparage Ms.. Alvarez. I will not stand for any member of a board of disrupting or acting otherwise unprofessional with their colleagues when they get there. So I hope that that case is closed. I'd like us to go forward and hit the challenges that we have in front of us, especially with planning, especially with dealing with with the over zoning of the city. And especially with managing the. State mandate of a density bonus that has contributed to some of these difficulties. Their emotion. I'll move the nominees or the planning board is 11 and Mr.. Mitchell was second. All of us in favor? I suppose. No, no. Motion passes 3 to 2. Thank you. Now, if the council could just have all of the people who have been officially added in to come on up, to take the oath really quickly, we will juggle them in. And I'm. And again, their room. But. I'm. I do. Thank you. He had a. Oh. Good luck. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. I was just getting back home. Not for the first day with Peters. She couldn't. She couldn't go. She. Me. Yeah. So now we're going to proceed with a sexy. 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