Title
Public Hearing to Consider An Appeal Filed by Brian Tremper of the May 28 and July 22, 2019 Planning Board Decisions for a 172-Room Hotel and Restaurant at 2900 Harbor Bay Parkway (PLN 18-0381) and Adoption of Related Resolution. (Planning and Building 481005)
Body
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In December 2018, the City of Alameda (City) Planning Board approved Design Review and a Final Development Plan for a 172-room hotel and restaurant located at 2900 Harbor Bay Parkway in the Harbor Bay Business Park (project). The Planning Board Resolution PB18-23 (Exhibit 1) included Condition No. 6, which required that the applicant return at a later date for Planning Board review and approval of the final architectural details, colors and material selections, and landscape materials. On February 5, 2019, the City Council considered an appeal of the Planning Board’s decision and upheld Resolution PB18-23 approving the Design Review and Development Plan for the project. The City Council also asked that the Planning Board consider the building setback when the applicant returned to fulfill the requirements of Condition No. 6.
On May 28, 2019, the Planning Board reconsidered and reaffirmed the building setback for the project. On June 6, Brian Tremper (appellant) filed a Petition for Appeal of the Planning Board’s decision on behalf of the Freeport Homeowners Association (Exhibit 2).
On July 22, the Planning Board approved the final architectural details, colors and material selections, and landscape materials for the project, as required by Condition No. 6. On August 19, the appellant supplemented the Petition for Appeal by electronic mail to reflect the Planning Board’s July 22 decision (Exhibit 3, and together with Exhibit 2, the “appeal”).
As described below, the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the Planning Board’s actions, findings and conclusions are in violation of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) or were not supported by substantial evidence.
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a de novo hearing to review the project in light of the whole record, deny the appeal, and uphold Planning Board Resolution PB19-16.
BACKGROUND
The project is located on a vacant 5.5 acre portion of the Esplanade development site within the Harbor Bay Business Park immediately adjacent to the Harbor Bay Ferry Terminal. The property is designated “Business Park” in the General Plan and zoned Commercial Manufacturing - Planned Development (CM-PD) in the AMC. Hotels are expressly permitted uses for this site in both the General Plan and the CM-PD zoning.
The project has undergone an extensive public process, starting with a public hearing/study session on October 8, 2018, where the Planning Board directed the applicant to make a number of changes to the proposed site plan, landscape and parking plan, and architectural design.
On December 10, 2018, the Planning Board held a public hearing, approved a final development plan and design review for the project (Resolution PB18-23), subject to Condition No. 6, which required that the applicant return at a later date for Planning Board review and approval of the final architectural details, colors and material selections, and landscape materials. The Planning Board’s decision was appealed by Mr. Tremper and Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union 304.
On February 5, 2019, following a public hearing, the City Council denied both appeals and approved a final development plan and design review for the project (Resolution No. 15488), upholding the Planning Board’s decision. The City Council also asked the Planning Board to consider increasing the building setback from Shoreline Park by 10-15 feet when approving the final architectural elevations and landscape plan.
On February 7, 2019, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) held a public hearing and determined that the project was consistent with existing BCDC site approvals and provided maximum feasible public waterfront access consistent with BCDC standards and requirements.
On February 16 and May 11, 2019, staff held community meetings with Harbor Bay residents to discuss the building setback, elevations and landscape plan.
Consistent with Condition No. 6, on May 28, 2019, the applicant returned to the Planning Board with revised plans. The Planning Board conducted a public hearing and reconsidered and reaffirmed the building setback (Exhibits 6-7). On June 6, Mr. Tremper filed an appeal of the Planning Board’s May 28 decision (Exhibit 2).
On July 1 and July 8, 2019, staff held additional meetings with the neighbors to review and comment on revised designs.
On July 22, 2019, the Planning Board approved the architectural details, colors and material selections, and landscape materials for the project, as required by Condition No. 6 (Exhibit 10), and on August 19, Mr. Tremper submitted a revised appeal (Exhibit 3).
The Planning Board’s May and July actions represent the final discretionary approvals for the project. If the City Council upholds the Planning Board’s decision, the applicant will be able to proceed with construction of the project.
DISCUSSION
AMC Section 30-25.1 provides the public with the opportunity to appeal any “decision” by the Planning Board. As stated in Section 30-25.1, the purpose of the appeal process is to “avoid results inconsistent with the purposes of [the Zoning Code].”
Even though the Council already upheld the Planning Board’s December 2018 decision to approve the Design Review and Development Plan for the project (PB18-23), under AMC Section 30-25.1, the appellant may appeal the subsequent Planning Board decisions following the City Council’s direction to reconsider the setback and the final approvals required by Condition No. 6.
However, staff does not believe that the Planning Board’s final decisions on May 28 or July 22, 2019 were “inconsistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code”.
The Planning Board’s actions to reaffirm the building setback on May 28, 2019 and the final architectural details, colors and material selections, and landscape materials on July 22, 2019, were the culmination of over nine months of extensive public review, including public hearings by the City Council and BCDC. The Planning Board’s decisions were supported by substantial evidence, based on the relevant AMC requirements for the site and careful consideration of all of the evidence and testimony presented by project advocates and opponents at numerous hearings and meetings, and should be upheld.
The following discussion focuses on the specific challenges raised by the appellant.
Appellant Argument #1: The appeal (Exhibit 2) states that the Planning Board’s May 28 decision to approve the final building footprint “was based upon incomplete design drawings which did not include an [sic] 400 + square foot area required by the Marriott Corporation for an employee breakroom and additional storage.”
Response: The footprint approved by the Planning Board on May 28 is the same footprint that was presented to the Planning Board on July 22, 2019. Whether the Marriott Corporation has approved the floor plans is not relevant to the Planning Board’s determination that the proposed footprint and setback was consistent with the requirements of the AMC.
The Marriott Corporation is not the applicant for this project. Mr. Robert Leach is the applicant and the plans that the Planning Board approved were the plans requested by Mr. Leach. It is worth noting that Mr. Leach stated on the record at both the May 28 and July 22 public meetings that his plans are designed to meet the requirements of the Marriott Corporation and include all necessary “back of house” and staff support space needed to run a modern hotel of 172 rooms.
As discussed at the May 28 public hearing and documented again in the July 22, 2019 staff report, the footprint of the hotel and restaurant did change after December 2018 to accommodate a number of architectural changes requested by the community and to accommodate the additional “back of house” support space needed for hotel operations:
• The first floor footprint increased from 23,310 feet to 24,627 square feet to accommodate the additional “back of house” space. Internally, the “back of house” space increased and the conference room space was reduced to make room for a gym.
• The second floor increased in size by 867 square feet.
• The third, fourth and fifth floors decreased in size by about 776 square feet on each floor for a total reduction in floor area of 2,298 square feet on the top three floors.
• When considered as a whole, the total floor area of the hotel (all floors) was reduced by 114 square feet from 112,990 to 112,876, and the total floor area of the restaurant was reduced by 355 square feet from 7,000 to 6,645 square feet.
The Planning Board correctly concluded that the approved building footprint and floor plans meet all the development standards for the property including building coverage, setback, and floor area ratio requirements.
Appellant Argument #2: The appeal (Exhibit 2) states that the City did not conduct enough neighborhood meetings.
Response: There is no requirement for the City to hold community meetings in addition to the required public hearings. Nevertheless, City staff hosted two neighborhood meetings in Harbor Bay - on Saturday, February 16, 2019 and Saturday, May 11, 2019 - to review and discuss potential design changes with the neighbors. Following the May 28 public hearing, City staff hosted two additional neighborhood meetings at City Hall on July 1 and July 8 before the July 22 public hearing.
In addition, the applicant attended several neighborhood meetings on the proposed project. The applicant met with the Harbor Bay Business Park Association on August 21, 2018. The applicant also held community meetings with the Harbor Bay Island neighbors on September 26, 2018, the Freeport Homeowners Association Board on October 11, 2018, and the Freeport Homeowners Association on November 7, 2018.
Moreover, each of the required public hearings was properly noticed in accordance with State and local requirements (the AMC utilizes State law requirements). The City published advertisements in the Alameda Sun newspaper, mailed notices to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the property, and posted notices in nearby public paths for each of the City’s public hearings.
Appellant Argument #3: The appeal (Exhibit 3) states that the Planning Board’s May 28 decision approved the hotel building setback based on inaccurate plans.
Response: The setback of the building from the Shoreline Park property line did not change after December 10, 2018. As shown on the front pages of the plans included at the December 10, 2018 Planning Board meeting, the February 5, 2019 City Council meeting, the February 7, 2019 BCDC meeting, the May 28, 2019 Planning Board meeting, and the July 22, 2019 Planning Board meeting, the hotel, restaurant, pool enclosure, and patio are set back 35 feet from the Shoreline Park and the hotel building itself is set back 40 feet. As stated at each meeting, these setbacks are consistent with the minimum required 35 foot setback established by the AMC and BCDC.
Conclusions
Based upon a review of the appeal in light of the whole record, staff recommends that the City Council conduct a de novo hearing, deny the appeal, and uphold the Planning Board’s Resolution PB19-16 for a 172-room hotel and restaurant at 2900 Harbor Bay Parkway.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may:
1. Uphold the Planning Board decision, as recommended.
2. Uphold and revise the Planning Board’s decisions on the project relating to Condition No. 6 of PB18-23 or the building setback for the project.
3. Remand the matter back to the Planning Board for further consideration on any specific aspect of the design responsive and relating to Condition No. 6 of PB18-23 or the building setback for the project.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The proposed 172-room hotel and restaurant will provide a significant economic asset for Alameda. It is conservatively estimated to generate approximately $1 million annually in Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue during its first three years of operation. The TOT is expected to gradually increase thereafter once the hotel becomes established in the marketplace. This will make the Marriott one of the largest revenue-generating businesses in the City, matching the scale of the entire sales tax collected from one of Alameda’s major shopping centers.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
General Plan Land Use Element policies support hotel uses within the Harbor Bay Business Park. General Plan Transportation Element policies support transportation design solutions that balance the needs of all modes of transportation, including pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and automobile facilities. The project is also consistent with the Harbor Bay Isle Development Agreement.
Hotel use on the site is also consistent with the City’s Economic Development Strategic Plan recommended by the Planning Board and unanimously approved by the City Council in 2018, which identifies hotels as a critical component of the City’s economic development strategy.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Adoption of this resolution is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act under McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group v. City of St. Helena (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 80, which found that design review for by right projects is a ministerial decision under Public Resources Code section 21080.
CLIMATE IMPACTS
The project will contribute to the City’s Climate Action Plan goals to reduce Alameda’s greenhouse gas emissions, increase quality of life on the island, and adapt to climate change impacts. The project will be designed, constructed, and operated with Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification to insure the hotel meets green building standards, and minimizes the use of energy, water, and other resources. The project supports alternative transportation by providing shuttle services for their customers, and additional parking spaces for the Harbor Bay Ferry Terminal. In addition, the hotel and restaurant provide local services within walking distance for the nearby businesses and residents.
RECOMMENDATION
Hold a public hearing to consider an appeal filed by Brian Tremper of the May 28 and July 22, 2019 Planning Board decisions for a 172-room hotel and restaurant at 2900 Harbor Bay Parkway (PLN 18-0381) and adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding Planning Board Resolution PB19-16.
CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends affirming the Planning Board’s decision.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Planning, Building, & Transportation Director
Financial Impact section reviewed,
Elena Adair, Finance Director
Exhibits:
1. December 10, 2018 Planning Board Resolution PB18-23
2. June 6, 2019 Brian Tremper Petition for Appeal
3. August 19, 2019 Brian Tremper Correspondence
4. May 28, 2019 Planning Board Staff Report
5. May 28, 2019 Project Plans
6. May 28, 2019 Planning Board Resolution PB19-09
7. May 28, 2019 Planning Board Resolution PB19-10
8. July 22, 2019 Planning Board Staff Report
9. July 22, 2019 Project Plans
10. July 22, 2019 Planning Board Resolution PB19-16
cc: Eric Levitt, City Manager