{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2019-10-28", "page": 1, "text": "of\nof\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING\nOF THE\nPENSION BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA\nHELD 4:30 P.M., JULY 29, 2019\nALAMEDA CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA\nCONFERENCE ROOM 391\n1.\nThe meeting was called to order by Nancy Bronstein at 4:32 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL:\nPresent: Secretary Nancy Bronstein, Nancy Elzig via teleconference, Bill\nSoderlund. Absent: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft\nStaff: Elliott Otto, Finance Representative, Chad Barr, Human Resources\nTechnician.\n3.\nMINUTES:\nThe minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 28, 2019 were moved for\nacceptance by Trustee Soderlund and seconded by Nancy Elzig. Passed 2-0\n(Soderlund abstained due to absence from January meeting). The minutes of\nthe Regular Meeting of April 29, 2019 were moved for acceptance by Trustee\nElzig and seconded by Trustee Soderlund. Passed 3-0.\n4.\nAGENDA ITEMS:\n4-A. Pension Payroll and Financial Reports - Quarter Ending June 30, 2019\nand City of Alameda Police & Fire Pension Funds Financial Reports for the\nPeriod Ending June 30, 2019.\nFinance Representative Otto explained the quarterly reports. There was\na\ndecrease from the prior month due to Lucymay Schrieber, 1079 Pensioner,\npassing away. Offsetting the decrease was the uniform allowance being paid\nout. Representative Otto further explained the quarterly financial report showing", "path": "PensionBoard/2019-10-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2019-10-28", "page": 2, "text": "City of Alameda\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nPension Board - Monday, July 29, 2019\nPage 2\nthat $732,657 would be moved to pay down unfunded liability. This will be\nreflected in the September 2019 statement.\nTrustee Elzig asked what are the contractual services listed. Representative\nOtto replied those are actuarial costs. Trustee Soderlund asked how often than\nhappens and Representative Otto replied he thought it was every 2 years, but\ncould check.\nTrustee Elzig moved to accept the financial statement as presented and Trustee\nSoderlund seconded. Passed 3-0.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT):\nThere were no oral communications from the public.\n6.\nPENSION BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD):\nThere were no oral communications from the Board.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT:\nThere being no additional items to come before the board, the meeting was\nadjourned at 4:41 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nme\nNancy Bronstein\nHuman Resources Director", "path": "PensionBoard/2019-10-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-10-28", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2019\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Curtis convened the meeting at 7:01 p.m.\n2. FLAG SALUTE\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: Board Members Curtis, Rothenberg, Ruiz, Saheba, and Teague.\nAbsent: Board Members Cavanaugh and Hom.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nNone.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\nNone.\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2019-7378\nPLN16-0391 - Design Review - 1920 Minturn Street - Applicant: Rick Stuart for Listo\nProperties - Public hearing to consider Design Review and parking rate determination to\nremove a 4,847-square-foot modular building and construct an approximately 10,780-\nsquare-foot one-story light industrial building with surface parking. The project is on an\napproximately 18,973-square-foot lot located at 1920 Minturn Street. The project requires\na parking rate determination pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code 30-7.6 - Schedule of\nRequired Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Spaces. The site is within the M-1,\nIntermediate Industrial (Manufacturing) zoning district. The project is categorically exempt\nfrom the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15332 - In-fill\nDevelopment Projects.\nLinda Barrera, Planner II, gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be\nfound at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4196726&GUID=81C02D52-\n937B-4946-8472-F5FF82C7CFB2&FullText=1\n.\nBoard Member Teague asked whether any parking restrictions were made when the\nbuilding at 1925 Union Street was remodeled.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 5\nOctober 28, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-10-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-10-28", "page": 2, "text": "Staff Member Barrera said that the staff level design review and lot line adjustment for the\nother building did not include any parking requirements.\nBoard Member Teague asked if there were any existing easements or agreements to\nrequire this application to provide parking for the other building.\nStaff Member Barrera said there is no existing requirement. She added that the project is\nproposing a deed restriction for shared access to the driveway.\nBoard Member Teague asked why we were treating two different parcels as if they were\none.\nStaff Member Barrera said staff approached the project with the understanding the two\nproperties have historically shared parking.\nBoard Member Teague asked if we could add more parking spaces on this property\nwithout triggering the need for an additional Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) parking\nspace.\nStaff Member Barrera said they could technically add four more parking spaces before\nrequiring an additional ADA space.\nBoard Member Saheba asked if Planning Staff had any concerns about the frontage on\nMinturn Street not having direct access to the building.\nStaff Member Barrera said staff felt the access and design fit the location and proposed\nuse well.\nBoard Member Saheba said it seems like there is an opportunity for at least the one unit\nfacing Minturn to have a door facing the street. He asked about the introduction of the\nstucco in the new building and whether it would be compatible with the rest of the materials\nwhich mirror the historic Listo building.\nStaff Member Barrera said the stucco helps differentiate the new building from the old\nbuilding, consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards.\nPresident Curtis asked what would happen with the reciprocal parking agreement if one\nof the buildings was sold.\nRick Stewart, applicant, said he does not see the building going into a high occupancy\ntype business model in the future.\nBoard Member Teague asked the applicant if he would be willing to do more parking if it\ndid not trigger the second ADA space.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 5\nOctober 28, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-10-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-10-28", "page": 3, "text": "Mr. Stewart said they would love to have more parking, but adding an additional aisle of\nparking would take away square footage from the building. He said the tenants at his\nproperty need full size spaces for their work vehicles.\nThere were no speakers.\nBoard Member Teague said he does not see how the Planning Board can treat the two\nparcels as one project. He added that it was unfortunate that the Listo building did not\nhave parking requirements. He said the parking is not an issue for him because the 19\nspaces for 10,000 square feet is enough for the new building and the Listo building does\nnot factor in to his evaluation.\nBoard Member Teague made a motion to approve the resolution with changes: Refer to\n15 surface and 6 covered parking spaces in the Design Review findings; the deed\nrestriction for the surface parking be encouraged but optional.\nPresident Curtis said it is in everyone's interest to require the shared parking deed\nrestriction.\nThe applicant indicated his willingness to enter into the shared parking deed restriction.\nBoard Member Teague said he would withdraw his proposed change to the resolution\nmaking the parking agreement optional.\nBoard Member Teague restated his motion to approve the project with the change\nto correctly distinguish between the 15 surface and 6 covered parking spaces.\nBoard Member Rothenberg seconded the motion.\nBoard Member Saheba said the location of the ADA stall may not be compliant with\nCalifornia Building Code (CBC) regulations. He suggested relocating the space to be\nadjacent to the walkway. He said he would need there to be at least one door in the unit\nfacing Minturn Street for him to support approving the project.\nMr. Stewart said they contemplated that design. He said they wanted to maintain\nconsistencybetweer the units and that a door in that location could create a grading issue.\nBoard Member Saheba suggested eliminating the stucco and using masonry for those\nareas, and increasing the glazing on the south elevation. In response to the applicant\npointing out the costdifferences between the masonry and stucco, Board Member Saheba\nsaid that he would at least like to eliminate the stucco on the Minturn and Union frontages,\nand allow stucco to remain on the other two sides.\nBoard Member Saheba asked if there were steps between the parking lot, rear walkway\nand doors of the units.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 3 of 5\nOctober 28, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-10-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-10-28", "page": 4, "text": "Mr. Stewart said that there are no steps from the parking area, down the driveway and\ninto the front doors of the units. He said that the area between the building and the\nsidewalk on Minturn is being using for bio-retention (storm water) purposes which may\nprevent a door facing Minturn from being feasible.\nAndrew Thomas, Planning, Building and Transportation Director, said that the Board could\ncondition the project to work with the applicant to attempt to work to make a door facing\nMinturn work.\nBoard Member Teague said he would support replacing the stucco on the east and west\nelevations with masonry, but he is not seeing an overwhelming need to add a door to the\nwest elevation.\nBoard Member Saheba said he does not see an added cost to moving a door from the\ndriveway side to the sidewalk. He added that providing direct access to the street provides\nactivation to the urban landscape.\nStaff Member Barrera pointed out the changes in grade between the driveway side and\nthe walkway side.\nBoard Member Teague accepted the suggested additional conditions as\namendments to his motion: replace the stucco on the east and west elevations with\nmasonry; and, if feasible, to add a door to the Minturn Street frontage if the ADA\naccessibility and C3 storm water management questions can be addressed without\nsignificant added expense. Board Member Rothenberg continued to second the\nmotion. The motion passed 5-0.\n8. MINUTES\n8-A 2019-7380\nDraft Meeting Minutes - September 23, 2019\nBoard Member Teague made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Ruiz\nseconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2019-7379\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions\nStaff Member Thomas gave an update. The staff report can be found at:\ntps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4196727&GUID=95B775F7-\nE387-4C98-96F9-911E14260FB1&FullText=1\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked why no action was taken on the FAAS use permit\napplication.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 4 of 5\nOctober 28, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-10-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2019-10-28", "page": 5, "text": "Staff Member Thomas said a couple of residents showed up at the meeting with some\nquestions and concerns about the animal shelter. He said they all agreed to give the\nneighbors and applicant time to meet and attempt to work out any concerns, and that the\nshelter is a long way from opening and in no major rush to approve the use permit. He\nadded that the applicant wants to have a good relationship with their neighbors.\nBoard Member Rothenberg said that it is useful to lock in the conditions early before the\nnon-profit expends money on the project.\n9-B 2019-7381\nOral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Thomas previewed upcoming meeting items.\nPresident Curtis asked that Board Member Teague's presentation on state housing\nlegislation be agendized for an upcoming meeting.\nStaff Member Thomas discussed the upcoming meeting on Measure A.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nBoard Member Teague thanked staff for cleaning up the items that went on to the City\nCouncil.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident Curtis adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 5 of 5\nOctober 28, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2019-10-28.pdf"}