{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2021-01-25", "page": 1, "text": "any\nOF\nTERKA\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING\nOF THE\nPENSION BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA\nHELD 4:30 P.M., OCTOBER 26, 2020\nALAMEDA CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA\nCONFERENCE ROOM 391\n1.\nThe meeting was called to order by Nancy Bronstein at 4:38 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL:\nPresent: Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Secretary Nancy Bronstein, Trustee\nNancy Elzig, via teleconference, Trustee Bill Soderlund via teleconference.\nStaff: Annie To, Finance Director, Tran Nguyen, Financial Services Manager,\nGrace Li, Finance Accountant, Chad Barr, Human Resources Technician.\n3.\nMINUTES:\nThe minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 27, 2020 were moved for acceptance\nby Trustee Soderlund and seconded by Nancy Bronstein. Passed by roll call\nvote, 4-0.\n4.\nAGENDA ITEMS:\n4-A. Pension Payroll and Financial Reports - Quarters Ending September 30,\n2020 and City of Alameda Police & Fire Pension Funds Financial Reports for the\nPeriod Ending September 30, 2020.\nFinancial Services Manager Nguyen explained the quarterly reports. There was a\nsmall decrease in the 3rd month due to the passing of a pensioner, even though\nthere was a uniform pay out. Mayor Ashcraft asked what happens to a plan\nwhen there are no members left in the plan. Staff member Nguyen stated that\nthe actuarial had indicated it was likely the 1079 plan would end before the 1082\nplan. Secretary Bronstein stated the excess revenue would then be transferred to\nthe OPEB account. Mayor Ashcraft asked if City Council has approved the", "path": "PensionBoard/2021-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2021-01-25", "page": 2, "text": "City of Alameda\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nPension Board - Monday, October 26, 2020\nPage 2\ntransfer and Secretary Bronstein indicated they had, but could change again.\nTrustee Soderlund indicated that in his time on the board he has seen the\nnumber of members decline.\nMayor Ashcraft thanked staff for providing condolence letters for family of\npensioner, regarding pensioner's death memo.\nTrustee Soderlund stated he had a question regarding the financial reports\nindicating expenditures for health benefits for plan members. Mayor Ashcraft\nasked if both 1079 and 1082 members receive health benefits. Staff member\nNguyen stated they do. Trustee Soderlund asked if individuals have one plan or\nif there are individual plans for members. Secretary Bronstein said she will bring\nthat information to the next meeting.\nTrustee Soderlund moved to accept the financial statements as presented and\nTrustee Elzig seconded. Passed by roll call vote, 4-0.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT):\nThere were no oral communications from the public.\n6.\nPENSION BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD):\nTrustee Elzig asked if a police representative had been found for the Board and\nSecretary Bronstein stated none had been found yet. Mayor Ashcraft asked if\nthe requirement to live in Alameda was in the City Charter or another document\nas something in the Charter would require voting to change. Secretary Bronstein\nstated she believed it was the Charter. Mayor Ashcraft considered the idea of\ntalking with the City Attorney to discuss changing the requirement.\nTrustee Soderlund thanked staff members for their work on this Board.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT:\nThere being no additional items to come before the board, the meeting was\nadjourned at 4:55 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nme", "path": "PensionBoard/2021-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2021-01-25", "page": 3, "text": "City of Alameda\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nPension Board - Monday, October 26, 2020\nPage 3\nNancy Bronstein\nHuman Resources Director", "path": "PensionBoard/2021-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-01-25", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, JANUARY 25, 2021\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Alan Teague convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\nThis meeting was via Zoom.\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nVice President Asheshh Saheba led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: Board Members Curtis, Hom, Cisneros, Ruiz, Saheba, Rothenberg, and Teague.\nAbsent: None.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nPresident Teague clarified that Agenda Item 7-C 2021-599 would be discussed in the Staff\nCommunications section of the meeting.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\nNone.\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2021-587\nPublic Hearing to Consider an Amendment to Alameda Municipal Code to Delete Section\n30-12.2 requiring a distance separation of 1,000 feet between bars in Alameda. The\nproposed amendment is categorically exempt from further review under California\nEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3)\nthe general rule that CEQA only applies to actions that have the potential to cause a\nsignificant impact on the environment, and 15183, projects consistent with a community\nplan, general plan or zoning.\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=4752251&GUID=D35C8154-\n040E-40F5-ACF9-C9818C25D1CC&FullText=1\nPresident Teague opened the board clarifying questions.\nApprove Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 9\nJanuary 25, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-01-25", "page": 2, "text": "Board Member Teresa Ruiz wanted to know the distance between the new bar wanting to\nopen and The Fireside Lounge.\nDirector Thomas said it was directly across Webster Street.\nPresident Teague opened public comments.\nJim Oddie, a resident, was in full support of this amendment and believed it would be good\nfor all businesses in Alameda as they recover from the effects of Covid-19 closures.\nPresident Teague closed public comments and opened board discussions.\nBoard Member Ron Curtis was in favor of the change and saw no reason to have 1,000\nfeet distance. He believed this would only enhance all the bars in the area.\nBoard Member Hanson Hom was in full support of this zoning change.\nBoard Member Xiomara Cisneros agreed with her fellow board members and was in\nsupport of the change.\nVice President Saheba supported this zoning change.\nBoard Member Ruiz said in general she saw no issue with the language change but she\ndid have some concerns. The first being competition, it's great that the current owner of\nThe Fireside Lounge is in support but what about future owners. The second was that yes\nthe attitude of bars now has changed and people think positively of them now but that\nmight change in the future. The third was is the board \"opening Pandora's Box\" about what\ncan change such as the distance between liquors stores. She wanted to hear from her\nfellow board members about these concerns.\nBoard Member Rona Rothenberg was in support of this change and thought that the staff\nreport and draft resolution established the terms efficiently to address the items that Board\nMember Ruiz had raised. She believed this change was meritorious to be approved.\nPresident Teague wanted clarification that this was different than modifying the Planning\nCode and wanted to know about the process.\nDirector Thomas said this would be a provision of the Planning Code and explained more\nabout the process.\nPresident Teague was in full support of this change. He was not concerned about the\ncompetition aspect since other types of businesses do not have this limitation. He also\nbelieved that due to the current climate anything the board could do to encourage and\nhelp the business community was a good thing.\nApprove Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 9\nJanuary 25, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-01-25", "page": 3, "text": "Board Member Hom addressed Board Member Ruiz's concern about liquor stores. He\nbelieved liquor stores were fundamentally different than bars and didn't see that as an\nissue.\nBoard Member Curtis made a motion to approve the proposed ordinance\namendment and send it to the City Council for their approval. Board Member Hom\nseconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.\n7-B 2021-588\nStudy Session to Review, Comment, and Provide Direction on Proposed Process and\nSchedule to Update the City's General Plan Housing Element for 2023 to 2031. No action\nwill be taken by the Planning Board at the study session.\nDirector Thomas gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4752252&GUID=4F5E4468-\nA12F-4311-95DC-DAOOBDCD34B2&FullText=1\nPresident Teague handled the Q&A portion.\nWhat about the carryover from the previous RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation)?\nHow is that handled? Is that part of this number?\nDirector Thomas said no it's not part of this number, but Alameda was on track to meet\nthe full complement of units. In March they would report to the state in their Annual Report\nwhere they show what they had done. However, Alameda had not met the affordable\nrequirement.\nWhy aren't they looking at the R1 for the special overlay for reusing existing housing?\nDirector Thomas said that already under state and local law you could add second units\nand junior units. It's called R1 because that's what it is zoned as, but you can add up to 3\nunits. It's the least developed list but the staff is looking into it. He believed this was\nsomething the community should discuss more, some cities had even discussed no longer\nallowing single-family zoning.\nHow are these requirements addressing the housing shortage?\nDirector Thomas said everyone was confused by the numbers. The state understood that\nthe City of Alameda doesn't build a single housing unit. Cities play an important role in the\nability of others to build housing. The cities establish the zoning for land and review\nprojects. He explained how the housing numbers are broken down and how the city can\nget its affordable requirements.\nWhy are we taking the extra step this time to ask for guidance?\nApprove Planning Board Minutes\nPage 3 of 9\nJanuary 25, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-01-25", "page": 4, "text": "Director Thomas said the City Council doesn't have to take this advice. Due to the outcome\nof Measure Z with the community, voting to keep a prohibition on multifamily housing in\nAlameda, the staff prepared this plan.\nShould we pursue the strategy of asking the government to remove that cap?\nDirector Thomas said absolutely, he did not see that happening in the next 18 months.\nThe numbers that you show for Alameda Point are those based on removing the cap or\nas it currently is?\nDirector Thomas said these numbers are assuming we can get rid of our cap which is less\nthan the Federal Government cap.\nWhat is the potential for Alameda Point if the cap is removed?\nDirector Thomas said if we remove our internal cap the city could get about 1500 units at\nAlameda Point. If the local cap was removed then the cap from the Navy is around 1900\nunits.\nWhat about the 50,000 dollars per Market Rate to go above the cap? Is that any number\nabove the cap?\nDirector Thomas explained about the Navy cap was structured.\nWith the pandemic working remotely has become routine. Are ABAG (Association of Bay\nArea Governments) and the state doing anything to reflect that or is that being ignored as\npart of the RHNA numbers?\nDirector Thomas said that Alameda had a workshop on this issue on December 2nd, 2020\nwith the City Council and a representative who answered these types of questions and\nencouraged people to take a look at that video.\nCould Building 8 (Work Live) be rezoned at multifamily?\nDirector Thomas said absolutely. He further explained how the Work/Live zoning worked\nabout how it still wouldn't count for housing.\nDirector Thomas ended the Q&A portion by giving his City of Alameda contact information\nin case any questions did not get answered. He can be reached at 510-774-5361 or\nathomas@alamedaca.gov.\nPresident Teague opened public comment.\nApprove Planning Board Minutes\nPage 4 of 9\nJanuary 25, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-01-25", "page": 5, "text": "William Smith wanted to stress that the housing element provides more than just the\nhousing needs, it provides social relations across many backgrounds. He also thought it\nwas important to change the character of neighborhoods for the better (affordable housing,\nwalkability, bike-friendly) but still protect the historical aspects.\nDonna Fletcher was concerned by the number of projects and approvals coming down the\npipeline, thinking that people would become processing agents rather than being\n\"guardians\" of Alameda. She wanted the city to manage this mandate but still end up with\nsomething residents would love. Every project that gets built should add value and beauty\nto Alameda. She also hoped that the board would seriously consider renegotiating the\n2014 agreement with the caps.\nPresident Teague closed public comment and opened board discussion.\nBoard Member Curtis believed that the number of units required was very dimensional\nand no thought had been given to infrastructure, impact on the quality of life, and the\nincrease in traffic. He wanted more planning to go into infrastructure before the units were\nbuilt, and he wanted to renegotiate the $100,000 fee.\nDirector Thomas said these were valid points but the state is saying the housing issue\ncould not be put off while these issues were addressed. He also clarified that the money\nwould be going to the US Navy and that this was very much a political process. The City\nof Alameda has to make housing a priority.\nBoard Member Hom wanted to know more about the rezoning process and if the higher\ndensities would be incorporated into the general plan.\nDirector Thomas said yes, the game plan was to get all the elements adopted by the\nPlanning board and the City Council this year.\nBoard Member Hom wanted clarification on the Resolution of Intent to rezone the\nmultifamily sites.\nDirector Thomas said this was an additional step that wasn't done in 2014 that was\nrecommended by the City Attorney. They are giving notice now that the City Council will\nbe rezoning down the road and if there are any issues now is the time to bring them up.\nCity Planning Counsel Celena Chen agreed with how Director Thomas explained the\nResolution of Intent.\nBoard Member Cisneros wanted clarification on the housing number presented by ABAG.\nDirector Thomas explained the new number due to ABAG making a final adjustment, but\nthat number is still not final. He explained more about ABAG's method.\nApprove Planning Board Minutes\nPage 5 of 9\nJanuary 25, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-01-25", "page": 6, "text": "Board Member Cisneros agreed that Category 2 sites that had been identified were a\nmajor priority. She also liked the idea of revisiting Alameda Point and maximizing the\npotential of that site. She wanted to push the need for equitable development and not have\neverything contracted on the West Side. She also wanted clarification on what was\nexpected in the time frame from 2023-2031, they would not see all the units go up during\nthis time but it's more of a good-faith effort.\nDirector Thomas said yes, the state knows cities don't build housing but cities need to\nhave the appropriate zoning.\nVice President Saheba wanted to know how the City of Alameda did in the last round of\nRHNA numbers against what was allocated.\nDirector Thomas said the city was doing well, they are in year 6 of 8 years. As of last year,\nthey were on track to build 1,700 units over the 8 years.\nVice President Saheba believes that the public process needs to be crystal clear that this\nis to create a roadmap that is most conducive to the master plan that would be beneficial\nto the city.\nBoard Member Ruiz wanted to know more about what qualified as multifamily housing,\nand if senior housing or age restrictive housing counted. She also questioned if ADUs\n(Accessory Dwelling Units) were added to staff's calculations.\nDirector Thomas said yes, senior housing and age restrictive housing counted and he was\nhoping that the ADU numbers would go up. He explained how they arrived at the ADU\ncalculations.\nBoard Member Ruiz also wanted more information on hotel conversions into emergency\nshelters, such as Project Home Key, and if these were also counted in the analysis.\nDirector Thomas said those had not been counted. If the housing became permanent then\nthey could count it.\nBoard Member Ruiz also wanted to voice her support of Board Member Cisneros's\ncomment about equitable zoning.\nBoard Member Rothenberg addressed Ms. Fletcher's concern about considering\ndemographic trends caused by the pandemic. She also wanted to echo the concerns\nabout equitable zoning and agreed with Vice President Saheba about doing a study. She\nalso gave her thoughts on Incentivized Adaptive Reuse and how to engage with property\nowners on this.\nApprove Planning Board Minutes\nPage 6 of 9\nJanuary 25, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-01-25", "page": 7, "text": "President Teague brought up the site law change and wanted to know how that would\naffect the sites in Alameda and the ability to build there.\nDirector Thomas explained that sites need to be available and zoned appropriately. If there\nis a constraint that prevents the site from being developed, it has to be disclosed. He\nexplained more about why the state changed this law and how this will make sure sites\nget developed promptly.\nPresident Teague suggested opting into the AB-352 Efficiency Unit Law. He also\ndiscussed ways to get Alameda's Affordable Housing units up.\nDirector Thomas discussed how difficult it is for a city to build affordable housing because\nAlameda relies on the private sector to build housing.\nBoard Member Curtis suggested that if older buildings did not have historical value then it\nwould make more economic sense to raze those buildings and build a new unit than to\nrehabilitate those older buildings for higher density. He of course wanted to protect\nhistorical homes but that could be an idea to explore.\n8. MINUTES\n8-A 2021-572\nDraft Meeting Minutes - October 26, 2020\nBoard Member Hom wanted to change the wording in his statement under Agenda item\n7-C, the wording should be improved instead of approved.\nBoard Member Hom made a motion to approve the minutes with this correction.\nBoard Member Rothenberg seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the\nmotion passed 7-0.\n8-B 2021-573\nDraft Meeting Minutes - November 9, 2020\nBoard Member Hom corrected Agenda item 7-A, his statement should have said phrasing.\nVice President Saheba said in the 5th paragraph on page 5, the acronym should be BCDC.\nBoard Member Curtis corrected his statement on page 5, it should just say \"what is the\neffect on homeowners\".\nBoard Member Hom made a motion to approve the minutes with these corrections.\nBoard Member Curtis seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the\nmotion passed 7-0.\nApprove Planning Board Minutes\nPage 7 of 9\nJanuary 25, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-01-25", "page": 8, "text": "8-C 2021-574\nDraft Meeting Minutes - November 23, 2020\nBoard Member Ruiz corrected page 5, it should say a \"stand-alone agreement\". Then on\npage 9, 3rd paragraph from the bottom, it should say trail.\nBoard Member Ruiz made a motion to approve the minutes with these corrections.\nBoard Member Curtis seconded. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed\n7-0.\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2021-575\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions\nPresident Teague asked when these actions were taken.\nDirector Thomas said that all of these actions were done on January 18th, except the\nNason Street project due to some late comments from the Alameda Architectural\nPreservation Society and that they would bring it back at the next meeting.\nPresident Teague asked about what the other dates meant.\nDirector Thomas said that was the notice date.\n9-B 2021-589\nOral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation\nDepartment Projects\n7-C 2021-599\nPlanning Board discussion of proposed amendments to parking and open space zoning\nordinances to support economic development and reduce barriers to housing\ndevelopment. No action will be taken at this meeting.\nDirector Thomas gave a breakdown of current open space zoning ordinances and what\nthe staff was hoping to achieve with these amendments.\nPresident Teague wanted this to come back quickly as a study session so that the board\nand the public can give comments and discussion.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nApprove Planning Board Minutes\nPage 8 of 9\nJanuary 25, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-01-25", "page": 9, "text": "President Teague wanted to see the efficiency unit ordinance come back as an Agenda\nItem.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident Teague adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m.\nApprove Planning Board Minutes\nPage 9 of 9\nJanuary 25, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-01-25.pdf"}