Typo?
"but recommended that the city limit the hotel's exclusive use of the public to five years"
The phrase seems to be missing a word. Public spaces perhaps?

NO to the parking proposal by Marriott. Giving exclusive use of public parking spaces to a for-profit commercial enterprise should be illegal, if it isn't now. I'd like exclusive use of the street parking in front of my house, too.

MP is salivating over the possibility of getting transient tax money & is evidently willing to waive its own laws to get it. Bad precedent.

It would be a violation of the California Constitution (which explicitly prohibits gifts of public property) and a horrible precedent (why not do this for every other proposed development in the city) to give the Marriott Residence Inn Garwood Way (even for five years) for the Inn to meet its parking requirements. The city should enter into a long term, prepaid lease at market rates with Marriott for this property.

The transient occupancy tax was passed by the voters without any provision of offsetting that tax by providing city land at no cost to the hotels impacted by that tax.