Title
Continued Public Hearing of Item 6-E on the March 19, 2019 City Council Agenda to Consider Adoption of Resolution Denying the Appeal and Remanding the Design Review for a 96-Room Hotel with 62 Parking Spaces at 1825 Park Street (PLN17-0538) for Further Consideration by the Planning Board for Reasons Independently Considered by the City Council that Were Not Raised in the Appeal. (Planning, Building & Transportation 481005) [Please note: Public Comment was closed on March 19, 2019]
Body
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Amy Wooldridge, Interim City Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On January 28, 2019, the Planning Board held a public hearing and approved a Design Review and Parking Reduction application for a 96-room hotel at 1825 Park Street (the project). Within 10 days of the decision, the City of Alameda (City) received an appeal from a local hotel workers union, UNITE HERE Local 2850, requesting review of the decision by the City Council (Exhibit 1). Based upon a review of the appeal in light of the entire record, staff recommends that the City Council find the project as conditioned is consistent with:
• The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
• The City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance,
• The City’s Design Review Manual, and
• The City’s Economic Development Strategic Plan.
Staff further recommends the City Council find that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the Planning Board’s actions, findings and conclusions, including but not limited to its actions, findings, and conclusions pursuant to CEQA, were not supported by substantial evidence. Staff is recommending that the City Council review the project de novo in light of the whole record and affirm the Planning Board’s decision to approve the project.
BACKGROUND
The proposed 96-room hotel with a parking lot with 62 spaces would be located on a 0.73-acre lot on the southwest corner of Park Street and Clement Avenue. The site is currently occupied by a commercial business selling scooters. The property is designated as Community Commercial by the General Plan. The property is located within the NP-G, North Park Street Gateway, zoning district with a Multi-Family Residential Combining Zone (MF) Overlay. The Community Commercial General Plan land use designation is intended for a variety of commercial businesses, including hotel uses. Similarly, the NP-G zoning district also allows a range of commercial uses including hotels, which are permitted by right. Hotel use on the site is also consistent with the recently-adopted Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP) recommended by the Planning Board and unanimously approved by the City Council in 2018. The EDSP identifies hotels as a critical component of the City’s economic development strategy.
On March 26, 2018, the Planning Board held a study session on the proposed hotel and directed the applicant to make changes to the architectural design and include a parking demand analysis of the existing hotel at 1628 Webster Street.
At the direction of the Planning Board, the four-story hotel is designed in the streamline moderne architectural style. The hotel exterior is defined by strong horizontal bands dividing the three upper floors with accent features including horizontal window overhangs and mullions. The entrance to the hotel is defined by a rounded corner, which extends upward to the roof where it meets a parapet that forms a crown above the building. A prominent fin is featured on the Park Street building elevation.
On January 28, 2019, the Planning Board held a public hearing on the project and reviewed the revised design (Exhibit 2). At that meeting, the Planning Board determined the project to be consistent with all existing General Plan and Zoning requirements governing the site and made findings that the project qualified for a CEQA exemption as Infill Development. The Planning Board approved the Design Review and Parking Reduction with conditions including that the final elevation details and landscaping return to the Board for final approval (Exhibit 3). The Planning Board also required the hotel to operate a valet program to ensure that all parking demand generated by the hotel be accommodated on-site.
On February 6, 2019, Ty Hudson, on behalf of UNITE HERE Local 2850, filed an appeal of the Planning Board decision.
Pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) Section 30-25.5, the City Council’s public hearing is a de novo hearing on the merits of the appeal. Upon reviewing the appeal, the available information, and the public comments, the City Council may:
• Uphold the Planning Board’s decision and approve the project,
• Uphold the Planning Board’s decision and approve the project with new conditions,
• Deny the project, or
• Remand the project back to the Planning Board for further consideration. The remand may direct the Planning Board to reconsider the parking waiver approval, the design review approval, or both.
DISCUSSION
The following discussion addresses the appellant’s four main arguments in opposition to the Planning Board’s decision to approve this hotel project.
Adequacy of the Parking Analysis and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Measures
Per AMC Section 30-4.25(d)(vi), the 96-room hotel requires a total of 96 parking spaces, one space for each hotel room. The Planning Board approved the project with 62 parking spaces, but required a valet program to accommodate all 96 spaces when needed. Furthermore, the approved project must participate in the City’s TDM program and provide complimentary shuttle service to hotel guests. AMC Section 30-7.13 [Reductions in Parking Requirements] allows the Planning Board to approve projects with fewer onsite parking spaces than required by code. Such parking reduction requests are approved when the Planning Board finds that a project has incorporated measures to reduce parking demand for the life of the project. The measures applicable to this project include participation in a TDM program and submittal of a Parking Demand Study.
Appellant’s Argument #1: The appellant claims that the TDM measures approved by the Planning Board do not constitute a TDM “program.”
Discussion: The approved project is required to join the Alameda Transportation Management Association (TMA), which is the City’s official TDM program. TMA participation requires the hotel to make annual financial contributions toward providing every hotel employee with a complimentary AC Transit EasyPass. Annual reporting, monitoring, and status reporting is built into the TDM program. The City Council and Planning Board have recognized Alameda TMA program participation as the appropriate TDM program for other large development projects including Alameda Landing, Alameda Point, Del Monte, and other commercial/residential projects. Participation in the Alameda TMA fully satisfies the TDM program parameters set forth in AMC Section 30-7.13.
Appellant’s Argument #2: The appellant claims that the project has not sufficiently demonstrated an effective reduction in parking demand.
Discussion: In accordance with AMC Section 30-7.13, a Parking Demand Study was prepared as part of the parking reduction request, to demonstrate that the demand for parking from the use is less than the minimum required. The parking study (attached as Exhibit 4) analyzed different parking demand scenarios, including a conservative scenario according to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) standards and an actual scenario based on a similar hotel in Alameda at 1628 Webster Street. Table 1 below outlines the parking demand projections:
|
Table 1 - Parking Demand Comparison |
|
|
Weekday |
Weekend |
|
|
Parking per Room |
Applied to this Project |
Parking per Room |
Applied to this Project |
|
Zoning Ordinance |
1.00 |
96 spaces |
1.00 |
96 spaces |
|
ITE Conservative Estimate |
0.64 |
61 spaces |
0.90 |
86 spaces |
|
Actual Demand at 1628 Webster Hotel |
0.40 |
38 spaces |
0.64 |
62 spaces |
|
Approved Project |
0.65 |
62 spaces |
0.65 |
62 spaces |
|
Approved Project with Valet Plan |
1.00 |
96 spaces |
1.00 |
96 spaces |
The parking study demonstrates that during the weekday, the hotel’s 62-space parking lot will accommodate both conservative and actual parking demand scenarios. On the weekend, the parking lot will be at full capacity or short 24-spaces under the conservative scenario. To address the potential shortage of onsite parking under the conservative scenario, the Planning Board approved the 62-space parking lot but it also required the hotel to provide a Valet Parking Plan to accommodate up to 96 cars onsite. The valet plan would minimize any parking impact to the surrounding neighborhood streets if and when the parking demand at the hotel exceeds 62 parking spaces. The applicant has subsequently prepared a Valet Parking Plan showing that all 96 parking spaces required under the zoning code can be accommodated on site (Exhibit 5).
Although the valet plan shows that the hotel’s parking lot could accommodate 96 vehicles (a worst-case parking scenario), the hotel will be taking additional steps to reduce parking demand. The approved project will also offer 24-hour complimentary carpool rideshare services (e.g., Lyft and Uber) within a three-mile radius from the hotel. This service would shuttle hotel guests to and from the Oakland Airport, South Shore Center, Fruitvale BART station, Harbor Bay Ferry Terminal, Alameda Landing, Main Street Ferry Terminal, Park/Webster Streets, and other destinations. The study for the hotel further validates the effectiveness of rideshare services to reduce parking demand at hotels. When compared to other land uses, the study cites that 59% of hotel guests who do not drive opt for ride-hailing services. The Planning Board agreed that this service will be well-utilized and will decrease demand for parking at this hotel.
The project’s participation in the citywide TDM program and provision of complimentary rideshare services will ensure that parking demand will be reduced for the life of the project. Moreover, the Planning Board requirement for on-demand valet service will ensure that all hotel parking will be contained on the project site.
Adequacy of the Review under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Appellant’s Argument #3: The appellant claims that the project is not consistent with the parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and, therefore, does not qualify for the Class 32 Infill Development categorical exemption in the CEQA Guidelines.
Discussion: The project complies with all applicable development standards in the Zoning Ordinance, including the requirements for a parking reduction set forth in AMC Section 30-7.13. The fact that the Planning Board granted a parking reduction does not make the project inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Rather, the Zoning Ordinance states that the Planning Board may approve a parking reduction upon finding that the project meets the requirements in Section 30-7.13, and the Planning Board determined the project’s Parking Demand Study, rideshare service, and TMA participation met the requirements to approve a parking reduction. The project, with the reduction in parking requirements, is consistent with General Plan policies and complies with applicable zoning regulations. Therefore, this project qualifies for the Class 32 Infill Development projects categorical exemption under Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Application of the Multi-family Residential Combining Zone (MF) Zoning Overlay
Appellant’s Argument #4: The appellant claims that the project site has a MF Residential Overlay and, therefore, the City is being “irresponsible” for approving a hotel on this site instead of multi-family housing.
The MF overlay zoning district permits multifamily housing on the property, but it does not require residential use of the site. The MF Overlay does not mean the property is limited to only multi-family residential use, but rather it expands the permitted uses in the underlying North Park Street zone to include multi-family residential. Therefore, the property owner still possesses the right to develop the property with a commercial use, such as a hotel use, which is a permitted use of the property under the Municipal Code.
In terms of housing need, Alameda is on track to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirement of 1,723 housing units for the current eight-year cycle (2015-2023). In the first four years of the cycle, Alameda issued building permits for 620 housing units. In 2018, the City approved land use entitlements for over 1,500 units. During the next and final four years of this cycle, Alameda anticipates issuing building permits for over 1,000 units from approved projects not yet under construction, which would result in construction of over 1,723 housing units during the eight-year period. Therefore, the City does not need housing on this property to meet its RHNA requirement.
The Planning Board’s approval of this hotel is not “irresponsible.” In fact, the Planning Board’s approval is consistent with the General Plan, which designates the site as appropriate for a hotel under the Community Commercial land use designation. Furthermore, hotel use on the site is consistent with the City’s 2018 Economic Development Strategic Plan, which identifies hotels as a critical component of the City’s economic development strategy.
Conclusion
Based upon a review of the appeal in light of the entire record, staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Board’s decision and approve the Design Review application and the parking reduction for project.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Approval of the project will not negatively impact the General Fund. Construction and operation of a 96-room hotel is conservatively estimated to generate approximately $400,000 in Transient Occupancy Tax annually to the General Fund (Exhibit 6).
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
General Plan Land Use Element policies support hotel uses on Park Street. General Plan Transportation Element policies also support transportation design solutions that balance the needs of all modes of transportation, including pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and automobile facilities. The North Park Street Gateway zoning district permits hotels by-right. The project is also consistent with the EDSP, which identifies facilitating hotel development in Alameda as a key economic development priority.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15332 - Infill Development Projects. The project meets all requirements for the infill development exemption, including:
1. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
2. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
3. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.
4. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
5. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
As a separate and independent basis, the project is also exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15183 (projects consistent with General Plan and Zoning).
RECOMMENDATION
Hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution denying the appeal filed by Ty Hudson on Behalf of Unite Here Local 2850 and approving a design review and parking reduction to allow the construction of a 96-room hotel with 62 parking spaces at 1825 Park Street (PLN17-0538)
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Acting Planning, Building, & Transportation Director
Financial Impact section reviewed,
Elena Adair, Finance Director
Exhibits:
1. Petition for Appeal
2. Final Planning Board Resolution and Staff Report
3. Approved Project Plans
4. Traffic/Parking Demand Study
5. Valet Parking Plan
6. Economic Development Strategy Memorandum