body,date,page,text,path
PensionBoard,2019-10-28,1,"of
of
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
PENSION BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD 4:30 P.M., JULY 29, 2019
ALAMEDA CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA
CONFERENCE ROOM 391
1.
The meeting was called to order by Nancy Bronstein at 4:32 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Secretary Nancy Bronstein, Nancy Elzig via teleconference, Bill
Soderlund. Absent: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft
Staff: Elliott Otto, Finance Representative, Chad Barr, Human Resources
Technician.
3.
MINUTES:
The minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 28, 2019 were moved for
acceptance by Trustee Soderlund and seconded by Nancy Elzig. Passed 2-0
(Soderlund abstained due to absence from January meeting). The minutes of
the Regular Meeting of April 29, 2019 were moved for acceptance by Trustee
Elzig and seconded by Trustee Soderlund. Passed 3-0.
4.
AGENDA ITEMS:
4-A. Pension Payroll and Financial Reports - Quarter Ending June 30, 2019
and City of Alameda Police & Fire Pension Funds Financial Reports for the
Period Ending June 30, 2019.
Finance Representative Otto explained the quarterly reports. There was
a
decrease from the prior month due to Lucymay Schrieber, 1079 Pensioner,
passing away. Offsetting the decrease was the uniform allowance being paid
out. Representative Otto further explained the quarterly financial report showing",PensionBoard/2019-10-28.pdf
PensionBoard,2019-10-28,2,"City of Alameda
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Pension Board - Monday, July 29, 2019
Page 2
that $732,657 would be moved to pay down unfunded liability. This will be
reflected in the September 2019 statement.
Trustee Elzig asked what are the contractual services listed. Representative
Otto replied those are actuarial costs. Trustee Soderlund asked how often than
happens and Representative Otto replied he thought it was every 2 years, but
could check.
Trustee Elzig moved to accept the financial statement as presented and Trustee
Soderlund seconded. Passed 3-0.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT):
There were no oral communications from the public.
6.
PENSION BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD):
There were no oral communications from the Board.
7.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no additional items to come before the board, the meeting was
adjourned at 4:41 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
me
Nancy Bronstein
Human Resources Director",PensionBoard/2019-10-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2019-10-28,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2019
1. CONVENE
President Curtis convened the meeting at 7:01 p.m.
2. FLAG SALUTE
3. ROLL CALL
Present: Board Members Curtis, Rothenberg, Ruiz, Saheba, and Teague.
Absent: Board Members Cavanaugh and Hom.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
None.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2019-7378
PLN16-0391 - Design Review - 1920 Minturn Street - Applicant: Rick Stuart for Listo
Properties - Public hearing to consider Design Review and parking rate determination to
remove a 4,847-square-foot modular building and construct an approximately 10,780-
square-foot one-story light industrial building with surface parking. The project is on an
approximately 18,973-square-foot lot located at 1920 Minturn Street. The project requires
a parking rate determination pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code 30-7.6 - Schedule of
Required Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Spaces. The site is within the M-1,
Intermediate Industrial (Manufacturing) zoning district. The project is categorically exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15332 - In-fill
Development Projects.
Linda Barrera, Planner II, gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be
found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4196726&GUID=81C02D52-
937B-4946-8472-F5FF82C7CFB2&FullText=1
.
Board Member Teague asked whether any parking restrictions were made when the
building at 1925 Union Street was remodeled.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 1 of 5
October 28, 2019",PlanningBoard/2019-10-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2019-10-28,2,"Staff Member Barrera said that the staff level design review and lot line adjustment for the
other building did not include any parking requirements.
Board Member Teague asked if there were any existing easements or agreements to
require this application to provide parking for the other building.
Staff Member Barrera said there is no existing requirement. She added that the project is
proposing a deed restriction for shared access to the driveway.
Board Member Teague asked why we were treating two different parcels as if they were
one.
Staff Member Barrera said staff approached the project with the understanding the two
properties have historically shared parking.
Board Member Teague asked if we could add more parking spaces on this property
without triggering the need for an additional Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) parking
space.
Staff Member Barrera said they could technically add four more parking spaces before
requiring an additional ADA space.
Board Member Saheba asked if Planning Staff had any concerns about the frontage on
Minturn Street not having direct access to the building.
Staff Member Barrera said staff felt the access and design fit the location and proposed
use well.
Board Member Saheba said it seems like there is an opportunity for at least the one unit
facing Minturn to have a door facing the street. He asked about the introduction of the
stucco in the new building and whether it would be compatible with the rest of the materials
which mirror the historic Listo building.
Staff Member Barrera said the stucco helps differentiate the new building from the old
building, consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards.
President Curtis asked what would happen with the reciprocal parking agreement if one
of the buildings was sold.
Rick Stewart, applicant, said he does not see the building going into a high occupancy
type business model in the future.
Board Member Teague asked the applicant if he would be willing to do more parking if it
did not trigger the second ADA space.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 2 of 5
October 28, 2019",PlanningBoard/2019-10-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2019-10-28,3,"Mr. Stewart said they would love to have more parking, but adding an additional aisle of
parking would take away square footage from the building. He said the tenants at his
property need full size spaces for their work vehicles.
There were no speakers.
Board Member Teague said he does not see how the Planning Board can treat the two
parcels as one project. He added that it was unfortunate that the Listo building did not
have parking requirements. He said the parking is not an issue for him because the 19
spaces for 10,000 square feet is enough for the new building and the Listo building does
not factor in to his evaluation.
Board Member Teague made a motion to approve the resolution with changes: Refer to
15 surface and 6 covered parking spaces in the Design Review findings; the deed
restriction for the surface parking be encouraged but optional.
President Curtis said it is in everyone's interest to require the shared parking deed
restriction.
The applicant indicated his willingness to enter into the shared parking deed restriction.
Board Member Teague said he would withdraw his proposed change to the resolution
making the parking agreement optional.
Board Member Teague restated his motion to approve the project with the change
to correctly distinguish between the 15 surface and 6 covered parking spaces.
Board Member Rothenberg seconded the motion.
Board Member Saheba said the location of the ADA stall may not be compliant with
California Building Code (CBC) regulations. He suggested relocating the space to be
adjacent to the walkway. He said he would need there to be at least one door in the unit
facing Minturn Street for him to support approving the project.
Mr. Stewart said they contemplated that design. He said they wanted to maintain
consistencybetweer the units and that a door in that location could create a grading issue.
Board Member Saheba suggested eliminating the stucco and using masonry for those
areas, and increasing the glazing on the south elevation. In response to the applicant
pointing out the costdifferences between the masonry and stucco, Board Member Saheba
said that he would at least like to eliminate the stucco on the Minturn and Union frontages,
and allow stucco to remain on the other two sides.
Board Member Saheba asked if there were steps between the parking lot, rear walkway
and doors of the units.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 3 of 5
October 28, 2019",PlanningBoard/2019-10-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2019-10-28,4,"Mr. Stewart said that there are no steps from the parking area, down the driveway and
into the front doors of the units. He said that the area between the building and the
sidewalk on Minturn is being using for bio-retention (storm water) purposes which may
prevent a door facing Minturn from being feasible.
Andrew Thomas, Planning, Building and Transportation Director, said that the Board could
condition the project to work with the applicant to attempt to work to make a door facing
Minturn work.
Board Member Teague said he would support replacing the stucco on the east and west
elevations with masonry, but he is not seeing an overwhelming need to add a door to the
west elevation.
Board Member Saheba said he does not see an added cost to moving a door from the
driveway side to the sidewalk. He added that providing direct access to the street provides
activation to the urban landscape.
Staff Member Barrera pointed out the changes in grade between the driveway side and
the walkway side.
Board Member Teague accepted the suggested additional conditions as
amendments to his motion: replace the stucco on the east and west elevations with
masonry; and, if feasible, to add a door to the Minturn Street frontage if the ADA
accessibility and C3 storm water management questions can be addressed without
significant added expense. Board Member Rothenberg continued to second the
motion. The motion passed 5-0.
8. MINUTES
8-A 2019-7380
Draft Meeting Minutes - September 23, 2019
Board Member Teague made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Ruiz
seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2019-7379
Planning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions
Staff Member Thomas gave an update. The staff report can be found at:
tps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4196727&GUID=95B775F7-
E387-4C98-96F9-911E14260FB1&FullText=1
Board Member Rothenberg asked why no action was taken on the FAAS use permit
application.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 4 of 5
October 28, 2019",PlanningBoard/2019-10-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2019-10-28,5,"Staff Member Thomas said a couple of residents showed up at the meeting with some
questions and concerns about the animal shelter. He said they all agreed to give the
neighbors and applicant time to meet and attempt to work out any concerns, and that the
shelter is a long way from opening and in no major rush to approve the use permit. He
added that the applicant wants to have a good relationship with their neighbors.
Board Member Rothenberg said that it is useful to lock in the conditions early before the
non-profit expends money on the project.
9-B 2019-7381
Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation
Department Projects
Staff Member Thomas previewed upcoming meeting items.
President Curtis asked that Board Member Teague's presentation on state housing
legislation be agendized for an upcoming meeting.
Staff Member Thomas discussed the upcoming meeting on Measure A.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Board Member Teague thanked staff for cleaning up the items that went on to the City
Council.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
13. ADJOURNMENT
President Curtis adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m.
Approved Planning Board Minutes
Page 5 of 5
October 28, 2019",PlanningBoard/2019-10-28.pdf