{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2020-10-26", "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 27, 2020\nALAMEDA CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA\nCONFERENCE ROOM 391\n1.\nThe meeting was called to order by Nancy Bronstein at 4:35 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL:\nPresent: Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Secretary Nancy Bronstein, Trustee Bill\nSoderlund via teleconference. Absent: Trustee Nancy Elzig.\nStaff: Tran Nguyen, Financial Services Manager, Angela Nichols, Finance\nAccountant, Chad Barr, Human Resources Technician.\n3.\nMINUTES:\nThe minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 27, 2020 were moved for\nacceptance by Trustee Soderlund and seconded by Nancy Bronstein. Passed by\nroll call vote, 3-0.\n4.\nAGENDA ITEMS:\n4-A. Pension Payroll and Financial Reports - Quarters Ending March 31, 2020\nand June 30, 2020 and City of Alameda Police & Fire Pension Funds Financial\nReports for the Period Ending March 31, 2020 and June 30, 2019.\nFinance Accountant Nichols explained the quarterly reports. Due to the passing\nof 1079 pensioner Wanda Westmoreland, there was a decrease in payments,\noffset by the annual increase in February, retroactive to January. March had a\ndecrease due to the retro pay being removed, however the quarterly allowance\nwas paid out. For the 4rd quarter there were no changes to plan 1082 and 1079\nsaw a small increase due to the quarterly uniform pay out in June.", "path": "PensionBoard/2020-10-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2020-10-26", "page": 2, "text": "City of Alameda\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nPension Board - Monday, July 27, 2020\nPage 2\nTrustee Soderlund commented he was glad to see money in the fund and Mayor\nAshcraft added that future retirements might change the financial status.\nTrustee Soderlund moved to accept the financial statements as presented and\nSecretary Bronstein seconded. Passed by roll call vote, 3-0.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT):\nThere were no oral communications from the public.\n6.\nPENSION BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD):\nTrustee Soderlund asked if a police representative had been found for the Board\nand Secretary Bronstein stated none had been found yet and added that HR had\nresearched whether the position's criteria could be expanded to include a larger\npool of possible members and determined it could not.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT:\nThere being no additional items to come before the board, the meeting was\nadjourned at 4:44 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nmember\nNancy Bronstein\nHuman Resources Director", "path": "PensionBoard/2020-10-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-10-26", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2020\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Alan Teague convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\nThis meeting was Via Zoom.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE\n3.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Board Members Curtis, Hom, Rothenberg, Cisneros, Ruiz, Saheba, and Teague.\nAbsent: None.\n4.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nNone.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n6.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nNone.\n7.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2020-8420\nDel Monte Development Agreement Annual Review and Proposed Amendment-\nApplicants: TL Partners I, LP and Alta Buena Vista Owner, LLC. The applicants are\nrequesting: 1) a periodic review of the Del Monte Warehouse Project Development\nAgreement, and 2) a Planning Board recommendation that the City Council approve a\nThird Amendment to the Development Agreement to address delays in construction\nschedules for the Clement Extension Improvements. The consideration of an Annual\nReport is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the\nproposed time extension would have no impact on the environment that was not already\nconsidered under the original project environmental documents. No further environmental\nreview is required.\nBoard Member Teresa Ruiz recused herself from this discussion and vote.\nAndrew Thomas, Director of Planning Building and Transportation, introduced the item.\nThe staff report and attachments can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4669281&GUID=42749C90-\n34A2-43DE-A040-6EC485AE21B5&FullText=1.\nPresident Teague opened up the board's clarifying questions.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 9\nOctober 26, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-10-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-10-26", "page": 2, "text": "Board Member Hanson Hom asked if the new road completion date was also tied to the\ncompletion of a certain amount of affordable housing units.\nDirector Thomas said yes and explained more about the language in the development\nagreement and with monthly reports, they would be aware of any issues that would cause\na delay.\nBoard Member Xiomara Cisneros wanted to know if the board could allow extensions\nwithout public hearings.\nDirector Thomas explained what the board's options were.\nPresident Teague offered other options for the board in case of delays.\nBoard Member Rona Rothenberg suggested adding language to the resolution and to the\ndevelopment agreement about what to do in case of delays.\nDirector Thomas said yes, they would add language that allows the City Manager to grant\none 1-year extension. If and when they do that the staff would report to the Planning\nBoard.\nPresident Teague opened the public hearing.\nThere were no public speakers.\nPresident Teague closed the public hearing and open board discussions.\nBoard Member Ron Curtis pointed out a typo on the resolution. He also believed it was\nvery important for the board to be aware of any delays and the reasons for those delays.\nBoard Member Hom supported the extension and agreed with the additional language.\nBoard Member Curtis made the motion to approve to accept the annual report, the\ndraft resolution with the amendment that any future extensions be allowed by the\nCity Manager with a caveat it comes before the board on the Consent Calendar.\nBoard Member Rothenberg seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. Board\nMember Ruiz abstained.\n7-B 2020-8427\nConditional Use Permit for Alameda Commercially Zoned Properties. Public hearing to\nconsider an Amendment to Use Permit PLN20-0215 to allow the temporary use of\nprivately owned outdoor space and parking lots and City-owned sidewalks and on-street\nparking spaces in certain commercially zoned districts for retail and commercial purposes\nduring the COVID-19 Health Emergency. The project is exempt from the California\nEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 - Minor\nAlteration of Existing Facilities, 15304(e) - Minor Temporary Use of Land, and 15305 -\nMinor Alterations to Land Use Limitations.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 9\nOctober 26, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-10-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-10-26", "page": 3, "text": "Director Thomas introduced this item. The staff report and attachments can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4669283&GUID=01CEDDCC-\n6817-4A45-BA6F-368FECD6F785&FullText=1\nPresident Teague opened the board's clarifying questions.\nBoard Member Hom asked about any other updates or provisions that should be amended\nin the operational conditions.\nDirector Thomas said the permit needs and issues are ever-changing and they had been\nhandling them as they come up. He then explained what the permits cover and what\nadditional needs arise case by case depending on the business and district.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked about the draft conditions 4,5, and 6 and wanted there to be\nclear language about what type of tent is and isn't allowed. She noted a particular tent she\nhad seen in use that had 3 closed sides and a roof and that did not seem safe.\nDirector Thomas said the intent was to follow the County Health Order and the tent she\ndescribed was not allowed. The enforcement of the County Health Order had been a major\neffort by the staff. He further explained that they now had code enforcers walk around the\nneighborhoods.\nVice President Asheshh Saheba wanted to know if this use permit would address what\nmost businesses were asking for.\nDirector Thomas said yes and that staff has been meeting regularly with the business\ncommunity and this resolution does everything they need.\nBoard Member Cisneros wanted to know if there could be any discounts on the permit\nfees for businesses.\nDirector Thomas said yes and gave details about what the city-wide use permit meant fee-\nwise to businesses and recently City Council waved the encroachment permit fee for all\nencroachment fees. He also discussed the Alameda Strong Program that issues grants\nand financial aid.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked about consistency in resolution conditions 4,5, and 6\nand what the blanket use permit meant for pre-existing use permits and encroachment\npermits.\nDirector Thomas explained how this blanket use permit overrides any previous use\npermits and how the city has handled encroachment permits to make things as smooth\nand quick as possible.\nPresident Teague asked for clarification on existing use permits for businesses.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 3 of 9\nOctober 26, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-10-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-10-26", "page": 4, "text": "Director Thomas said this use permit supersedes any other use permit for a temporary\ntime, in this case when Covid restrictions are lifted.\nPresident Teague opened up public comments.\nThere were no speakers.\nPresident Teague closed public comments and opened board discussions.\nBoard Member Ruiz wanted to amend conditions 4 and 6 to include the same tent and\numbrella usage that is listed under condition 5 for consistency.\nBoard Member Rothenberg wanted to amend the language in condition 6 to have the\nproviso listed under condition 5 \"and meet the current county health orders\".\nBoard Member Ruiz made a motion to approve the resolution with the following\namendments, incorporate usage of tents and umbrellas under conditions number 4\nand 6 and change the wording in condition 6 to have the proviso listed under\ncondition 5 \"and meet with the current County Health Order\". Board Member Hom\nseconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.\n7-C 2020-8429\nPLN17-0600 - 1051 Harbor Bay Parkway - Development Plan and Design Review\n-\nApplicant: Arris Studio Architects for Shriji Hospitality, Inc. Public hearing to consider\nDevelopment Plan and Design Review Application No. PLN17-0600 to allow construction\nof an approximately 133,611-square-foot, five-story hotel with 236 guest rooms located at\n1051 Harbor Bay Parkway. The property is located within the C-M-PD, Commercial\nManufacturing Planned Development zoning district. The project is categorically exempt\nfrom the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines\nSection 15332, In-fill Development.\nHenry Dong, Planner III, gave a presentation. Staff report and attachments can be found\nat  https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4669285&GUID=94E406E1\n-\nDF-4525-8D55-CA986CC18DF1&FullText=1.\nAdriana Cook, the applicant, also gave a presentation describing all the major changes to\nthe project.\nVijay Patel, the owner, also addressed the board and talked about the changes they were\nmaking as well as all the green initiatives they were taking.\nPresident Teague opened the board's clarifying questions.\nBoard Member Curtis suggested they add page numbers to the traffic report. He asked\nabout the Federal Aviation Administration's suggestion on a larger sprinkler system and\nsmaller windows.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 4 of 9\nOctober 26, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-10-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-10-26", "page": 5, "text": "Ms. Cook said they will use a full NFPA13 sprinkler system and for the window sizing, they\nwill address that acoustically.\nBoard Member Hom asked about what type of materials the finished Trespa panels were.\nMs. Cook answered the Trespa panels were laminated resin type of panel. It has no\ntexture on it but it does have a high-resolution print on it. Very long-lasting and of higher\nquality.\nBoard Member Hom asked about what tree removal was planned.\nMs. Cook referred to the landscape architect who explained which trees they were keeping\nand removing. She said the tree removal was due to the grading requirements of the site.\nBoard Member Hom wanted to know who maintained the trees between the sidewalk and\nthe roadways.\nAllen Tai, City Planner, believed it was maintained by the Business Park Association.\nBoard Member Hom asked about the restaurant in the hotel and wanted to know if it would\nbe open to the general public.\nMs. Cook said it would be for hotel guests and customers only.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked about some of the larger trees slated for removal and wanted\nto know if any effort had been made to preserve or relocate them.\nKay, the landscape architect, said it is very difficult to relocate a tree of that size. For the\nones they are removing they are planting new ones that are more sustainable to the site.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked about what material was used for the cantilever metal\nawnings.\nMs. Cook answered they were aluminum or steel depending on weight.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked about window color, in some places it was described as clear\nanodized, and in others, it's described as clear or dark grey, she just wanted clarification.\nMs. Cook said it would be clear anodized glass. \\\nBoard Member Ruiz wanted to know the final material and the color for the metal roofing\nused for the trash enclosures.\nMs. Cook said it would stucco to match and the color for the roofing would match the\ncolors for the rest of the building.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 5 of 9\nOctober 26, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-10-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-10-26", "page": 6, "text": "Vice President Saheba asked about the parking lot and wanted to know if the office\nbuilding would be parking there as well if they need overflow parking.\nMs. Cook said that is not the agreement and the office building has a sufficient parking\narea.\nVice President Saheba wanted to know the staff's perspective on the parking.\nStaff Member Dong explained how the parking agreement works and what the parking\nanalysis had shown.\nStaff Member Tai explained more about the zoning and how the shared parking\narrangements worked.\nBoard Member Saheba asked if all the stucco would be smooth and wanted to know if the\ndesign on the laser cut metal screen was the final design.\nMs. Cook said yes the stucco would be smooth and that was a concept design, it's meant\nto be a visual buffer from the office building and the entrance of the hotel.\nBoard Member Saheba asked other questions about design choices from a custom metal\nawning and material choices.\nMs. Cook explained the plans and changes that were made according to the staff's\nrecommendations.\nBoard Member Cisneros wanted to know some background on the project.\nStaff Member Dong explained what changes had happened since 2018.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked about resolution number 1, permit conditions, and\nwanted to make sure they had researched fire access. She also questioned if the work\nwould be done in two years. She also had questions about public art, bird-safe windows,\nand the type of lighting that would be used. Also like Board Member Saheba, she thought\nthe parking analysis was not very clear.\nMs. Cook answered they had done research into fire access and how they worked with\nCity Staff on fire access. She also said that with Mr. Patel's background they feel confident\nthey can make the two-year mark for completion.\nStaff Member Tai explained how the staff requires a final building plan to make sure the\nproject is compliant with the dark sky ordinance and bird-safe windows. For the two year\nvesting that comes from the zoning code. For CEQA, this project meets the requirements\ncriteria for infill development.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked what type of bike parking would be provided and what the\nlighting in the parking lot would look like.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 6 of 9\nOctober 26, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-10-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-10-26", "page": 7, "text": "Ms. Cook said they would provide whatever is the city standard.\nStaff Member Tai added that the city had adopted bike standards, the inverted U is what\nthey typically used but that is a detail that can be addressed at building plan review.\nStaff Member Dong pointed out the lighting design on the plans.\nPresident Teague opened up to public comment.\nThere were no public speakers.\nPresident Teague closed public comments and opened the board's discussion.\nBoard Member Curtis was willing to support this project with the existing resolution.\nBoard Member Hom believed the revised design was improved and could support this\nproject.\nBoard Member Ruiz did agree that this was an improved design however she was\nconcerned by the lack of sunshade on the southern elevation. She wanted to continue the\nitem and have the applicant come back after addressing many issues. She felt that the\nPlanning Board was being put in the position to approve the project due to economic\nreasons without further review. She made a motion to continue the item but there was no\nsecond.\nVice President Saheba considered this a \"gateway site\" due to it being one of the first\nbuildings you see coming from the airport. He still had concerns with every window not\nhave solar shading on the south elevation and an overall consistency needs to be carried\nthrough. He also thought the parking analysis should be presented in a way that offers\nmore clarity. He felt that if the staff could help with these concerns and revisions there was\nno need to bring this project back and could support.\nBoard Member Cisneros thought the design was very well thought out and appreciated\nthe comments made by Board Members Ruiz and Saheba and agreed that plans for\nsustainability could be improved. She did not want perfect to be the enemy of the good\nand she would support.\nBoard Member Rothenberg would support the project subject to the aesthetic and\nsustainability refinements proposed by Board Members Saheba and Ruiz. Also with\nvalidation of the parking requirements and entitlements as described in the documents.\nPresident Teague wanted something on the corner that made it a gateway welcoming\npeople to Alameda but would not hold up the project for that. He would support the project.\nStaff Member Tai wanted the applicant to confirm they were willing to work with staff on\nthe issues brought up this evening.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 7 of 9\nOctober 26, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-10-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-10-26", "page": 8, "text": "Ms. Cook said they were of course happy to continue to work with the staff.\nStaff Member Tai offered the idea that if the board was uncomfortable with a particular\nelevation that could come back or a condition can be worded where the staff can do the\nfinal review.\nBoard Member Hom made a motion to approve the design review and development\nplan for this project and find the project is exempt from CEQA, with the added\ncondition, to revise the sheets as necessary. Also, alterations to the south side\nelevation and review of the massing as it steps down would be handled by the staff.\nBoard Member Curtis seconded it and the motion passed 6-1 with Board Member\nRuiz voting against.\n8.\nMINUTES\n8-A 2020-8415\nDraft Meeting Minutes - May 11th, 2020\nBoard Member Curtis wanted a correction on page 4, \"the applicant needed more time\"\nand then ended the sentence there.\nBoard Member Curtis made a motion to approve the minutes with the correction.\nBoard Member Rothenberg seconded the motion. The minutes passed 6-0, Board\nMember Cisneros abstained.\n8-B 2020-8416\nDraft Meeting Minutes - June 8th, 2020\nPresident Teague wanted to add \"Board Member Teague was in favor of having the\nelections that evening.\"\nBoard Member Rothenberg made a motion to approve the minutes with the\ncorrection. Board Member Hom seconded and the motion. The minutes passed 6-0,\nBoard Member Cisneros abstained.\n9.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2020-8417\nPlanning, Building, and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions.\nNo board member wanted to call any item for review.\n9-B 2020-8418\nOral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation\nDepartment Projects.\nStaff Member Tai said the next meeting would be another forum on the General Plan, and\nafter that would be a regular board meeting with two items on the agenda. The two items\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 8 of 9\nOctober 26, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-10-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-10-26", "page": 9, "text": "would be the Alameda Municipal Power Solar Proposal and a residential project on Santa\nClara.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n12.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nBilly tried to speak but unfortunately they were having technical difficulties.\n13.\nADJOURNMENT\nPresident Curtis adjourned the meeting at 9:37 p.m.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 9 of 9\nOctober 26, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-10-26.pdf"}