Public Hearing to Consider (1) the Planning Board’s 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, and (2) Adoption of Resolution Approving Vesting Tentative Map 10305 and Density Bonus Application for the Development of 52 Homes on 2.78 Acres of Land at 2100 Clement Avenue.  The Proposal is Categorically Exempt from Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 Infill Development Projects. (Community Development 481001)
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. I am going to spare you a PowerPoint. Thank you. As much as I love to giving those and tell you that this is a project that has been before the planning board also for about six months. The initial version of this project was not very good. The neighborhood made it very clear that they didn't think it was very good. The planning board made made it very clear they didn't like the design and to the developers credit, they then went back to the drawing board and really tried to respond and completely redesign the project. The big changes that I just will highlight and the big highlights to this project. Inclusionary housing another seven or eight units. I think it's seven total. Affordable, very low, low and moderate, which are interspersed throughout the project. So not separated, interspersed the open space, a very nice open space plan that exceeds the zoning requirements and also is designed to not just be a public open space for the residents of the new project, but really tries to create an open space and neighborhood park for the project. And the adjacent neighborhoods, as we just think is a great way of integrating new neighbors into an existing, really wonderful neighborhood. And the total unit count also, just for your information, went from the project, qualified for a density bonus to increase the total number of units up to 58 through the the initial proposals 58 through the redesigning the unit count came down to 52 units. So the developer essentially eliminated six bonus units that they qualified for under state density law to make this a better project for the neighborhood. So final planning board hearing a couple just a month or so ago. All the speakers who came to the meeting were in favor of the project, which I can't remember a hearing that has happened in recent history. So that for me was a huge validation of the work that the developer and particularly the neighborhood. I cannot express how much gratitude I have for the neighborhood, you know, hosting meetings out of their homes, walking around the site, really helping us design this project so that it would really work well. So I'm really pleased about that. The planning board at the last hearing, though, pulled out a condition of approval that staff had been recommending about parking. Parking, as with all our projects, as we just spent 2 hours discussing parking as an issue, parking was also an issue on this project, and we had a condition of approval recommended by staff about the cars and how the project should have cars. That really made it clear to the new homeowners, Look, parking is an issue. You need to park your cars in your garage, not use your garage for storing all your stuff and then putting your cars out onto the neighborhood. The planning board pulled that condition out. They added some concerns about some of the wording in the condition and the fact that, you know, I've identified in the staff report some of their rationale. The neighborhood is very concerned by this last minute, not last minute, this final action by the planning board. I think what you'll hear tonight from some of the neighbors who were able to who are still here, if any, are still here. I know some of the neighbors left during last year and they said, look, I'm sorry, I'm can't stay. I just can't just can't stay. But tell them I'm here to support the project, but I want that condition back in. What you'll see I handed out this morning or this afternoon in the staff report we gave you, we highlighted this issue and put in a two sentence condition in your staff report that you could consider putting back in or the neighborhood if you want to do that. And I think you'll hear from some neighbors tonight asking you to do that. Since the staff report was published before, you know, a while ago, the neighbors have tweaked the language a little bit. We've reviewed this language with the developer. City staff is certainly fine with it. And the language that the neighborhood. Yes, it's that little piece of paper there that the neighborhood would like you to re-insert into the conditions of approvals before you tonight. And I think you'll hear from them also. Suggesting that language. We worked it out with them ahead of time so that if you decide to put off or three. So we try to save you the effort of trying to word it yourself tonight, but you obviously can adjust the language if you see fit. Marilyn, you should see a separate piece of paper. The separate white piece of paper. I'm going to end my my comments here. I think you have a speaker slip from Andrew Warner City Ventures. That's the project applicant. He is also going to forego his 25 slide PowerPoint presentation given way I forced him. I'd like you to. No way are you getting up there and giving that. But he would like to say a few words under public comment about his project, and I think you. Have a few questions for him. We are I am finished with my presentation if you have any questions. I know I haven't given this project very much attention here, but I. Remember our. A question. Thank you, Mr. Thomas, for for you. So in the base case, there's 43 units. And we through email, we discussed how you arrived at the 43 units via the language of the zoning. So, so I get that. And then. In order to get ultimately to the 52 cases, two events happened. One is that the applicant indicates that they're going to dedicate 5% of the units to a very low income. And when you when you pull the 5%, very low income trigger, then you're eligible for the bonus, which is 20%. So that so 20% of 43 is nine. So 43 plus nine is 52. So here's the question. Because what I hear over and over again at my office hours and, you know, already all of us on council and the planning board here is just too much housing, particularly in our historic areas. Why don't they pull the moderate income trigger of 10% off? If 10% of the 43 is moderate income, then that leads to instead of a bonus of 20%, it would be 5% or a total unit of from 43 to 45. Is it this? Is that the part of the applicant the say? Yeah, it's the way state density bonus law is structured. It's the applicant's choice to either just in arc in the city of Alameda case just give us our minimum inclusionary requirement which doesn't trigger density bonuses. And then if they want a bonus or a waiver, then they can choose to give us more affordable. And they get to choose. In which category they want to do it. Mm hmm. So in this case, they chose to increase the very low. Which gives a 20% bonus. Okay. Can you clarify for. In regards to parking, you have 52 homes. Is it based on the number of spaces that are required? Is it based on bedrooms? It's based on, you know, in Alameda, it's based on size of units. So every unit in this project has a two car garage in Alameda. If your project if your unit size is over 3000 square feet, then you need a third parking space. But in this case, it's two per unit plus six guest parking. So so then we're being asked to prove these spaces based upon this formula. The garage. Two per. Unit. So the garages are actually two parking spaces that are the formula that we require for this number of homes. Correct. So the formulas say that if they don't, someone doesn't own a home. I own a car. I'm sorry that they then don't have to have a space. Or is the form because. Okay. So whether you. Which this language suggests that and I mean that's what it says residents who own vehicles park their vehicles in their garages, which I think suggests that if a resident doesn't have two cars, that they can put storage in one of the spaces. Is that what that is supposed to mean? So what this so this is a condition of approval. It says that your car shall require that if if a every unit comes with a two car garage. Right. So they're going to have a two car garage. Right. But if they. If you want car. Or zero cars, can they fill those two spaces with anything else? Or do they have to keep. The way this language is written is okay, you have to park. If you have a car, you have to park it. In your right. But it doesn't don't have a car. Then you can use your garage for something else, but not for business workshops or offices or living. Okay. But the formula truly is so if you have 52 homes, you're required. It's based upon that formula that we required to parking spaces for each of those homes, parking spaces. We are building two parking spaces for each home. So every home will have two parking spaces. Well, what this condition is really getting at is the people who live in those homes. If they have cars, we want them parking them in the garages that were built in those units. But we don't want them doing it parking their cars in the neighborhood. So I appreciate that. I know I'll. Listen to the speakers, but I have a question. Regarding that. Any other questions before I call the speakers? Dorothy Freeman. Then Joe Woodard. And then Andrew Warner. Good morning, Mayor Spencer. Council Members Thank you. Staff City Ventures and any citizens that are still with us. The development. You see before you tonight is. Very different than the development presented. To the Planning Board six months ago. We believe this layout will help the new residents become part. Of our. Community. The large open space will give the children from the. New. Families and the. Neighborhood a place to come together and play. Some of the large, bulky units have. Been made smaller. So they fit better with the. Existing historical. Homes in our neighborhood. There are. Now two entrances, one. On climate and one on Mulberry. Instead of just the one off a vehicle. These positive changes are the. Result of many hours spent. By a lot of people working. Together. Our city government board members. City ventures. Our own historical. Society. All made themselves available. To the neighborhood. Community. For many, many meetings. Some people deserve extra recognition. Andrew Thomas, city planner and his staff. Chris Barclay of the Alameda Historical Society. Andrew Warner at City Ventures. All of our city. Council members and many. Neighborhood folks, especially Jenny Meyer, who have busy jobs but took time to be involved. The nature of housing in Alameda is. Changing from Measure eight. Compliant developments to high density. Developments. These high density developments like Site A at Alameda. Point Del Monte Chapman Warehouse and now 2100 Clement. Bring issues. That haven't been seen been on. Our forefront since the 1960s. High density townhome developments. Places a lot. Of families and their vehicles. Into a much. Smaller area than. Single family. Homes. Zone development developments. Along the northern waterfront will bring many more. Townhome developments. To. Our neighborhood. Parking is. Already limited because. Many of the homes in our neighborhood are actually multi-family. Units and most. Do not have off street parking for all the. Cars. Owned. By their residents. Even people who travel by bike, public transit and walk will. Own cars and. Have visitors to their homes. Our research shows restrictions requiring the use of garages for parking vehicles is the standard part of CCAR restrictions, including townhomes here in Alameda. There is not enough room on Alameda Alameda City. Streets. To park. All the vehicles from the coming high density developments. Including 2100 clement. For townhomes. Alameda needs to have. CCR rules CC and. Our rules requiring the use of garages. For the part for parking. Their cars. Our neighborhood already has problems with parking. The two parking spaces provided for each unit at. 2100 Clement are. Meant to give the. Residents parking so they don't have to compete with. The existing neighborhood residents for. Street parking. I am requesting. The council approved. The CC in our statement presented by staff that requires use of garages that the use of garages be for parking of vehicles. Thank you very. Much. Good evening. My name is Joe Woodard. I live on Eagle a block from this develop this proposed development. I've spoken with all of the council members about this issue. So we're hoping that you will approve the the language that require people in this new development to use their garages to park their cars. And it's necessary because of the collision between this new kind of development, this town owned development, and the older houses on Eagle and Willow, which were subdivided, many of them during World War two, to make room for the work force. That built the Pacific. Fleet. And those houses didn't make accommodations then for parking. A lot of them don't have garages, several of them don't have driveways. They got to be on the street. So any argument about creating two classes of people is moot because there are already two classes of people, those who live in the older houses, those who will live in these new townhouses. We've got to make a plan for how to get these people to work along with each other and live in harmony. Now, the developers has been very good. At working with us to. Do this. We want to make sure that we include the CC in ours for the homeowners association to enforce something that's legal in in state law and a common thing done in many town developments in Alameda so that we can get along and we think it'll work. Help us. Morning Board. I am Andrew Warner with Citi Ventures. I would be remiss, first of all, if I didn't also mention that Dorothy Freeman has spent an inordinate amount of time and effort on this project. Working with me and with her neighbors and with Andrew Thomas. And her input has been invaluable. And I agree with what the neighbors have said and what Andrew said, that the project is in a much better place right now than it was when we first brought it forward. This has been a great experience for us. I think one of the things that Dorothy mentioned as well is that we've been able to find a way to integrate this new community into an established historic community. Alameda. I understand councilmember de sox concern about that specifically, but I think that the neighbors have shown we've been able to achieve some of those goals. I don't want to rehash the whole project, but I will say that we as the applicant are completely fine with the condition that staff has provided you for the parking restriction requiring our homeowners to use their garages for parking and not for storage, not changing the use and happy to answer any other questions you may have about the project. Yeah, I do have a question. So, you know, the density bonus there is very. Different kinds of triggers for the density bonus. And the trigger that you pulled is the 5%, dedicating 5% to very low income, which then allows you to get 20%. Is there. Any reason why we're not doing the 10% trigger for moderate income? Yeah. So the main reason is when we looked at this project and we looked at this site, we did a presentation at the planning board. When we look at project like these, we like to put a half mile radius on the project. We consider that a good walking distance for people to see what kind of services they can get to. And you may have seen it in the package itself, but what that shows is that this is a great place for density. Right. You're less than half a mile from Park Street and all of the local stores and Park Street. And so you want to get some more houses there. We've talked to the Purchasing Business Association quite a bit, Chamber of Commerce and different business groups. They like the idea of having more housing density around Parker Street. There's also great transportation opportunities. A lot of the great busses travel right along Park Street. The Fruitvale BART Station is only about a mile and a half away. So these are the areas of where Alameda should be thinking about adding more density. So when we looked at the density bonus, we wanted to get the most density that we could. We will point out to for people concerned about density and traffic. I mean, we understand that we have reduced the overall number of units from 58 to 52. And the housing element predicted, I think 53 homes for this site in particular. So there's kind of lots of reasons why we ended up with that number. I have a question. When you normally do a project like this with 52 homes and how many of actually the breakdown, how many how many bedrooms total are in this project? Well, it's a good question. We've got four homes that are two bedrooms each. And the rest of them are a mix of 3 to 4 bedrooms. Um, no. Call it three and a half per. Don't make me do that math. I had during if the 160 ish bedroom's total. Okay. So these are actually large larger homes. And then I think we normally look at the average number of bedrooms is three and a half. And so when you have three and a half bedrooms, then we're talking about we're talking two parking spaces for three and a half bedrooms. And currently, a phenomenon we having in town is homeowners renting out rooms, extra rooms that then require additional parking. And as was already shared by speakers, that there is not additional that there you have homes that don't have any parking that are completely dependent upon the street parking and hear, hear and maybe discuss the staff when you're looking at projects that where the average home is three and a half bedrooms and two to me only requiring two parking spaces for that and. I think that's unrealistic. And I, I mean, based upon where I live and what I see, if you have three and a half bedrooms, you could very well have more than two cars per unit. And the majority of these units of the 5248 are our 3 to 4 bedrooms, which is actually very large for an Alameda home. Many of our homes are two bedrooms, one bath. Yeah. So just to clarify. Andrew. Speaker eight of the 52. Have between three and four bedrooms. All the rest have three bedrooms and four of them have two bedrooms. So. The vast majority of these are three bedroom homes and. I mean. That's this has been our code for a very long time. It's this is not a code we came up with for this project in particular. There was no exceptions made for this application. I mean, this is this is the same code that we require for whether it's a two or three or four bedroom home here in Alameda. As I said, when we when a home gets over 3000 square feet in Alameda, then we require three. The largest size home here is 2300 square feet. So you're right, that's a big home. But so I guess I guess I'm mumbling here. No, no, I'm so I appreciate that. So, again, I'm going to have a concern about the number of spaces and then the guest parking. There's six spaces total and. So is there a formula for six spaces for 52 homes? If I if I can if I can address I think you bring up a good point, which is that the new community is going to have more parking for the homeowners than the surrounding community is in general. Right. And I think it's one of the things that our neighbors mentioned is that they have a lot of overflow parking to the street because a lot of their homes have been split up into multiple units and they don't have garages because they weren't they weren't designed that way. So this while it is adding new housing to the neighborhood, it is certainly mitigating the parking concern because fewer of those cars are going to end up being on the street because these homes will have garages in them. You know, the the guest parking spaces, the city of Alameda doesn't have a specific requirement for guest parking spaces. We started this back in March with I think we had 20 parking spaces at that point. It came down, it went back up and it was all over the place. Again, working with the neighbors. We landed on a balance of the number of homes that were going to be in the community, how much guest parking we were going to be able to provide and how much open space we were going to be able to provide. So I think you don't want to miss the idea that there's 15,000 square feet of public park that's being created. And the final tradeoff that was made and that was decided upon with the neighbors and staff and the planning board, was this decision between how much guest parking do we want and how much do we want to have this nice public park where the new residents are going to be able to interact with the existing neighborhood? That's how the decision kind of was. Thank you. Member Ashcraft, how. Many square feet was the public. Park? It's about 15,000. Okay. And then, Mr. Werner, will there also be opportunities to park on the Clement Street frontage? Yeah, so that's a good point. The south side of Clement does currently have public parking, which is not utilized very much right now because it's a truck route and it's mostly commercial along that frontage. So we would expect that some of the overflow parking would end up on Clement Street. All right. Any other member, Odie? Thank you, Madam Chair. I also want to thank the neighbors for all of their hard work on that. And I did meet with with Jenny and Dorothy, and they had a couple of other things that I just wanted to make sure we covered. So I think one thing they were concerned about, which I'm concerned about also, is that we keep as many trees as we can along below and eagle. I'm not sure what the plan is, but you know, that would be my preference. Yeah. And then I think they also talked about, you know, the bike path. Maybe this is more for staff, but, you know, the the mulberry thing where it goes and turns off know if we can keep that bike bike path going all the way to Clement. You're not you don't own that that building that the school district does. But yeah, that'd be something we want to keep keep in the future. The the planning board conditions of approval. They still have to come back to the planning board on some of the architecture. You're not approving the architecture tonight and you're not approving the final Street plan tonight. The neighbors concerns about this and this. We're talking about the city street plan. This is they're replanting all three sides of this block with city street trees. So the planning board is going to approve at a future meeting the final street tree plan, which, of course, will be reviewed by the public works department. And if that includes a removal of trees that are currently on this and it's a real strange mix of trees right now. And of course, under our public notice and requirements for street tree removal. So there's a whole process which is yet to come with the neighbors and a public hearing before the planning board on the street trees. And then the other thing that we're going to continue, we've just begun sort of having preliminary conversations with the school district about their little piece. Okay, this project going to get that that bike path through and that public has through for about two thirds of the block. Right. We, the city of Alameda, are going to then take the lead with the school district to see if we can work something out, the school district, so we can get access all through. And then the project is offered. If we can get access from the school district, then do some of the physical improvements, you know, to the front right away. It going to be a nice pass through. And just, you know, on the trees, the more mature trees that are there that, you know, would be okay. Yeah, we so we, we love having mature trees in our community. So it looks great. It's everybody. Everybody likes them. So as many of them as we can say if we're definitely going to. And I think there was some issue about the, you know, the picnic area and where it's located. But yeah. There that's another thing that is Andrew mentioned is coming back to the planning board is the final design of that open space. Okay. So hopefully the neighbors will have a lot of. Input and continue to be involved in this process. So if they don't like it, you don't like it, let me know. Any other questions for the developer? Oh, before I press. Mr. Werner, can you tell us where are those affordable units going to be located in the development? So they're interspersed throughout the community. Um, I don't have the plan in front of me, but I want to say there's 12 different buildings and so they're just kind of in the middle of a building. You may have four market rate units and one affordable unit. They're the same as the market rate homes. And as I understand it, they'll look just like the market rate homes, too. Exactly. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right, next speaker Jennie Meier, then Helen Soares and then Stephanie Butler. And then our last speaker on this item is Karen Bay. If you'd like to speak on this item, please turn on your slips. I'm so tired. How can you be here so late? I'm not even going to read this and I work so hard on it. But you know what? It's okay. It's all right. No. No point. I think you got the point. You read this five page missile that you wrote about the S.S. And I think the biggest issue I think that really needs to be underscored here is that whatever wording is used, it's really important that cars fit in the garage. I know that a CCAR that restricts parking will be of no use unless there's some kind of enforcement policy at the front end of this thing that says you're signing this knowing that you're going to abide by these restrictions, the HRA is going to enforce it and there must be some kind of policy set in place and itemized all kinds of ways in which that can be done. I'm sure you can imagine what those are, but certainly it might involve fines first, fines second fine toll the car or I read places where the the the actual garages were considered as common area and they found some legal way to enforce it in this way. But there are ways that it can be done. But if we don't put any teeth in this at the outset. Whatever wording you put in, the restriction is going to be somewhat useless. So I encourage you to add something to whatever you vote on that would put some teeth in it for us. And I respectfully kind of acknowledge your comment about the restrictions being onerous, but I sat about that for some time and said, yes, it's equally onerous for most of us living in the neighborhood that have driveways and are not allowed to put a parking garage at the end of my driveway, even if I have a pad at the end of it. I mean, there are all kinds of rules on our old houses that make those restrictions much worse than what they're going to endure. In point of fact, I have garage envy. I would love to have a garage at the end of my driveway so that the sun doesn't utterly destroy my car. So I can give you other restrictions that are on my house. But I won't bore you with those details. There are a lot of them. So actually, I think that the two tiered neighborhood exists by virtue of the ages of our houses and. I just think that having these restrictions will somewhat equalize the situation. I even have pictures if you want to see how bad the parking is. But just envision Mulberry Eagle Willow and wrapped around Clement 7 a.m. in the morning, you might find one parking space. That's about what it is. And. It's not like that all day, but it is like that. At 7 a.m. in the morning, because people come home at all different times of day and night. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker Helena Soares. I echo the good morning. I am Helen Source. I represent the Alameda Home Team tonight, and I'm speaking in favor of this Clement development. From a broader city view. This developer, Andrew Warner, has really carried out an exceptional community outreach, not just a routine gesture, but you've seen the results of him really listening, really hearing what was being said and cooperated with modifying plans for these 52 precious units. That'll help serve a few people that really badly need homes in Alameda. And the added delight that he has scattered different incomes in different locations. Building the same unit for the same. Market is a very, very great accomplishment for us. The architecture also hasn't been talked about a lot tonight other than the disparities in how you manage pre-World War Two housing and current ones. But the architecture, this infill housing has been really carefully designed to fit in with the adjacent stately homes, and it will be a credit to the city as it is developed. It's also been designed carefully to take advantage of local nearby transit opportunities and even better, this development of open space for various activities in an area that badly needs that type of relief from density. This attractive infill development meets the ideals we advocate for in the positive additions to our community, our special community. These affordable homes are a small number. There's been a shocking week for us in the last few months. The Alameda Housing Authority recently received 336,000 36,000 applications for its housing choice. Vouchers. 36,000. In just five days. If it had been open longer, there'd been more. These 52 units will help. So I hope you'll please add your seal of approval and send this. Development on its way to being a reality. Thank you. Stephanie Butler and then Karen B. Karen Baye. And she's our last speaker unless anyone else wants to slap. Good evening, Mayor Spencer. Members of the city council. So tonight we had a room packed with people. Who need affordable housing. To me, it's very clear that we have a housing crisis in Alameda that we need to address. The new residents that are wishing to move to Alameda are now competing with the current the residents that are currently living here. To me, that says that we need more housing, not less housing. The project at 2100 Clement Avenue at both market rate units and affordable units. This developer has done a great job and outreach. He's given us an exciting project to add to comment. So I urge you tonight to approve this project and really give it some serious thought. Do we? Do we really? And face of what's happened here tonight, do we really want to to slow down development and not approve housing? I mean. We have a serious. Housing crisis tonight. It blew up in my face tonight. I sat next to a woman and listened to her story and. We really need to roll up our sleeves and work hard to solve this problem. And adding more housing to Alameda, bringing more housing to Alameda is. Is a very, very. Important part of the solution. So thank you. All right, council members, member Ashcraft. Thank you. Mary Spencer Yeah, good morning, everyone. First, I do want to acknowledge both the neighbors and the developer's developer. I met with Dorothy Freeman, Joe Woodward and Ginny Dormir last week. And they well and I have worked with Dorothy and Joe for quite a few years since I was on the planning board way back when. And I know them to be conscientious. They do their homework, they study an issue, and they're persistent. And they also told me and displeased me that the developer, Andrew Warner, was wonderful to work with. And then when I talked with him, he told me that the neighbors and EU3 in particular have helped make this a better project . And I that just pleases me to know and to hear that because it's too easy in some cases for neighbors to just, you know, resist a project and saying, not in my backyard, not in my neighborhood. Dorothy and Joe and Ginny don't do that. They say, well, you know, now this isn't going to fly, but let us show you what will. And there was a lot of back and forth, give and take, and that's a great model. What I also like about this project, and it's been brought out, is that out of the 52 units, seven of them are affordable to very low income families. We need this kind of housing in Alameda and this is the way we provide it with developer money. This project is also going to improve the neighborhood because on on Sunday I did take a bike ride I guess stories happens that I do my site visits on bike well because you can see so much and so I wrote down streets I see where you live. And then the gate to the warehouse property was open because they were having that pink elephant sale. Mom and me, I don't know how they're ever going to take care of that space habitat, someone else's problem. But I was able to just ride in between and around the different warehouses. People. It's going to be good to get those out of your neighborhood and to get green space instead. And so anyway, I applaud the effort that's gone into this, the work of the planning board, because I know it went through several iterations there. So I am certainly prepared to support this project tonight and I heard this morning and I hope my colleagues will as well. Thank you. And. Vice Mayor. I'd like to make sure that this language as written is included in our in the conditions of approval of this tentative map. I'm glad the newly appointed planning board member is still here, because I think what the neighborhood drove here within the constraints of what entitlements that the developer has is a model for Alameda of in working with again what. Entitlement. What rights the developer has. But making the open space, making the parking and making the appearance match the neighborhood. And I think that's a very good lesson. So I'd I'd like my colleagues to agree that this language is written, should be placed as part of the conditions of approval tonight. And I'm ready to vote for that approval myself. It was only the hour that made me forget what happened. Thank you. And member Odie. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'll just be brief. I agree with everything the Vice Mayor just said. And also I believe we should. Put this language in there and thank you for all the hard work for the neighbors. And if there's something that doesn't work with the next process, you know, I'll do I'll pull the appeal for you , so just let me know. You have come? Yes. Thank you. I'm not ready to support the project before us. I think we need to do more hard work in terms of doing what we can to limit the number of units there when that possibility is there. And I think I think we're missing out on a chance now, and I'm not prepared to support. And I have questions in regards to it's my understanding these parking the garages, there's been discussion of requiring a window so that you can monitor if the spaces are being used, the spaces are for storage. Is that being considered at this point? Final design of the homes have not been approved yet. So that would be part of the design review on the homes. If that's something you're interested in, we can certainly integrate that into the planning process, which has to first go to the planning board and then of course, if you don't like the Planning Board's final design, you get all that for a review. I'm not going to do that again. This is something personally, I think it must have windows in the garages. That makes it very easy to determine whether the spaces are being used for storage or not. It's totally fine to have windows in the garages and for people who may feel like this is going to be some kind of police state where the archway is like peering into windows, it's very common to have windows and garage doors, and that's essentially what we would be doing. There would be windows in the garage doors. It would simply present the opportunity for people to for the HRA to check periodically that people weren't storing things in their garage and were more than happy to. Use the windows be required to not have a covering on them. So that's actually visible. So you can walk by and you can look in and you can see if this is being used for parking or available for parking versus storage, that's fine. So that's a concern of mine. I want to make it easy to enforce this. Another concern is a question is the language here is shall include prohibitions and a monitoring process to ensure that residents who own vehicles park their vehicles in their garages. I would prefer language that is that the parking spaces are available for parking, and I'm not sure about unless the owner proves that they do not. Own a car. Because if the owner has people visiting, they're going to have cars. We have a referral coming up on this Airbnb and if they, for instance that they rent out their home, they're going to have cars. And at the end of the day, there are only six parking spaces being allocated for visitor parking. Which. Which is going to be. It's going to be insufficient for 52 units. So there will be impact on the surrounding neighborhood. So in regards to so those are concerns I have. I don't know if any other council members have any of those concerns. But I don't want this project to impact the neighborhood. So this language I don't I don't think this language is specific enough. An American. I just think the windows and people peeking in other people's homes is a little creepy. But yeah. I was trying to make it clear it's actually not. We'll see if we can figure out a way to enforce it. And I'm just going to throw in there on the guest parking. I mean, in the neighborhood, we the neighborhoods we all live in, I mean, how many guest parking spaces are provided in our neighborhoods? They're not. It's called the public street. But I think that the fact that there are six is it six plus one handicapped. Or no. One's handicapped. Six plus one disabled parking spot? I you know, I think that's gone a long way. Guests can also park on a mat. And I think the mayor raised a good point. I think it's what you were trying to say is that say you only own one car and you have someone visiting you. They could park in your garage. Right? Right. That's so that goes to my concern, I. I would rather have the spaces allocated for parking as opposed to storage or any of these other things that are on here living quarters or whatnot. So I think the scenarios that the neighbor, the neighbors have spent a long time on this, they came up with these scenarios. They ran and passed Andrew to make sure that they were they pass muster. And so with that, I'm going to make a motion that we, the planning board. Approve or. Is it. Approved? That's okay that the planning board approved the vesting tentative map and density bonus application to permit construction of 52 units on a 2.78 acre parcel located at 2100 Clement Avenue. And adoption of resolution approving vesting. Tentative Map ten 305 and density bonus application for the development of 52 homes and 2.7 acres of land at 2100 Clement Avenue . The proposal is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act, known as Sequoia, pursuant to Secret Guidelines Section 1533 to infill development projects. With the stipulation that the CCAR is that we know well, it is that with the condition of approval for 2100 Clement also including these canards, which stands for covenants, conditions and restrictions that were distributed to us this evening. Our second. So if I'm hearing this correctly, by suggested changes are not being included. Correct? Correct. All right. Of that, I'm going to call the question all those in favor. I. Suppose. I or whatever. It's a motion passes 3 to 2. All right. Now. I'm just wondering, given that it's 10 minutes after one in the morning. Can I hold off on the referrals? I would appreciate that if we could hold off on the referrals. Read more. You read my mind that? Okay, they're really good, but I just feel like we won't do them justice at one in the morning. Well. You know, one's taken five years anyway. And the other one, I think, requires a charter change, so I'm fine with that. City Manager Communications. Very quickly, I just wanted to let folks know that our SLA hermit tracking system, which is a perfect tracking system we have in our building department now, has what has been linked to Zillow. So if you know what Zillow.com is, so this is.