{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2021-04-26", "page": 1, "text": "of\nof\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING\nOF THE\nPENSION BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA\nHELD 4:30 P.M., JANUARY 25, 2021\nALAMEDA CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA\nCONFERENCE ROOM 391\n1.\nThe meeting was called to order by Nancy Bronstein at 4:39 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL:\nPresent: Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Secretary Nancy Bronstein, Trustee Bill\nSoderlund via teleconference. Absent: Trustee Nancy Elzig\nStaff: Annie To, Finance Director, Tran Nguyen, Financial Services Manager,\nGrace Li, Finance Accountant, Chad Barr, Human Resources Technician.\n3.\nMINUTES:\nTrustee Soderlund asked if individuals have one plan or if there are individual\nplans for members and Director Bronstein answered the City has Kaiser\nMedicare supplemental plans for a handful of pensioners and some 1079\nmembers receive reimbursements as well.\nThe minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 26, 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 December 31,\n2020 and City of Alameda Police & Fire Pension Funds Financial Reports for the\nPeriod Ending December 31, 2020.\nFinance Accountant Li presented the quarterly reports. In October 2020 the\npension charges for 1079 were $77,263 which included the health insurance", "path": "PensionBoard/2021-04-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2021-04-26", "page": 2, "text": "City of Alameda\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nPension Board - Monday, January 25, 2021\nPage 2\nretro pay from January to September. November's charge decreased to $62,137\ndue to passing of pensioner in November. December's charges increased to\n$69,207 from November due to the quarterly payment of uniform allowance and\nretro pay for the deceased pensioner's spouse.\nPlan 1082 remained at $2682 for each month in the quarter.\nTrustee Soderlund asked if the member of 1082 gets an increase every year.\nFinancial Services Manager Nguyen said she would confirm that information.\nChair Ashcraft asked if that amount remains the same every year. Financial\nServices Manager Nguyen stated there was no adjustment and answered Chair\nAshcraft's question affirmatively.\nTrustee Soderlund moved to accept the financial statements as presented and\nDirector Bronstein seconded. Passed by roll call vote, 3-0.\nNotification of passing of pensioner was accepted with regret. Trustee Soderlund\nmoved to accept and Director 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):\nChair Ashcraft stated she had asked the City Attorney about the possibility of\nchanging the requirement that trustees for this board live in Alameda and said\nshe would share the City Attorney's answer with Director Bronstein. Director\nBronstein said she could follow up as well.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT:\nThere being no additional items to come before the board, the meeting was\nadjourned at 4:53 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nme\nNancy Bronstein\nHuman Resources Director", "path": "PensionBoard/2021-04-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-04-26", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, APRIL 26, 2021\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Alan Teague convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\nThis meeting was via Zoom.\n2. FLAG SALUTE\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: Board Members Curtis, Hom, Rothenberg, Cisneros, Ruiz, Saheba, and Teague.\nAbsent: None.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nPresident Teague consulted with Allen Tai, City Planner, and then clarified that the agenda\norder would be 7-B, 7-C, and then 7-A.\nPresident Teague also clarified that 7-A would be a discussion on the scope of the EIR\n(Environmental Impact Report) and not a discussion on the General Plan.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\nNone.\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-B 2021-860\nPublic Hearing to Consider: 1) a Draft Resolution Recommending Council adopt a\nResolution Containing Findings of Local Climatic, Geological, Topographical, and\nEnvironmental Conditions as Required to Adopt Alameda Local Amendments to the 2019\nCalifornia Energy Code; 2) A Draft Resolution Recommending that Council introduce an\nOrdinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending 13-11 (Alameda Energy\nCode) of Chapter XIII, Article / (Uniform Codes Relating to Building, Housing, and\nTechnical Codes) to Make Local Amendments to the 2019 California Energy Code; and a\nRecommendation that the Council rescinds Resolution 15607 Limiting Natural Gas\nInfrastructure for New Residential Construction on City-Owned Property.\nDanielle Mieler, Sustainability and Resilience Manager, introduced the item and gave the\npresentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 18\nApril 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-04-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-04-26", "page": 2, "text": " https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4913556&GUID=D03018E1-\nB78C-4DAE-8B76-1862FE538D8A&FullText=1.\nPresident Teague opened the board's clarifying questions.\nBoard Member Rona Rothenberg wanted to know why air conditioning was called out as\n\"baseline\" as opposed to other common applications in this climate which was not as\nintensive in air conditioning as a particular application.\nStaff Member Mieler said that calling out the air conditioning was standard practice in new\ndevelopment. She also introduced Farhad Farahmand, a consultant, who had been\nadvising the staff on this ordinance.\nFarhad Farahmand, TRC Energy Consultant, explained the underlining reasons for the air\nconditioning assumption.\nBoard Member Hanson Hom asked for clarification that this ordinance would only apply to\nnew structures and would not apply to ADU's if the main structure was already gas. Also,\nif a person were to completely remodel their kitchen (complete tear-out) he assumed this\nordinance would not apply as well.\nStaff Member Mieler said that was correct, this would be for completely new construction.\nBoard Member Ron Curtis was concerned about low-cost housing and wanted to know\nthe total difference in utility cost from a completely electric house vs a gas-powered house.\nMr. Farahmand said unfortunately he did not have a complete answer right now. He said\nthey were currently working on that analysis for the utilities. They were seeing it as being\naround seven dollars a month, couple hundred dollars a year based on surrounding\nutilities.\nBoard Member Curtis referred to the table in the presentation that showed that the electric\ndryer was six dollars more than a gas dryer, and the electric stove was a few more dollars\na month than the gas stove.\nMr. Farahmand explained how these appliances do add increases but several other\nfactors decrease. There was a balancing act between everything.\nBoard Member Curtis asked if a heat pump was more energy efficient than a furnace.\nMr. Farahmand said yes absolutely.\nBoard Member Curtis said good, he then reiterated his concerns about the monthly\nexpenses for families in low-cost housing.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 18\nApril 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-04-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-04-26", "page": 3, "text": "Staff Member Mieler added that with the addition of solar generation on the rooftops they\neliminate the utility infill increase and even create some savings.\nVice President Asheshh Saheba had no questions at this time.\nBoard Member Xiomara Cisneros wanted to know more about how many of Alameda's\ncitizens took advantage of the option of 100% clean energy.\nStaff Member Mieler said that as of last year Alameda was providing 100% clean energy\nto all residents, you no longer have to opt into the clean energy program.\nBoard Member Cisneros asked about the outreach to developers and wanted to know\nwhat the response had been.\nStaff Member Mieler said that they had two workshops with developers and there were no\nsignificant concerns. This was something that was happening in other cities already.\nAndrew Thomas, Director of Planning Building and Transportation, added that the basic\nmessage from the developer's community was that they had seen this coming. They were\nmainly concerned about projects that were already approved or were in the middle of\nbuilding permit review, many of these projects were already all-electric. He discussed how\nin the business community all the changes in Life Science and the exceptions granted if\nthey need natural gas. He also discussed recent residential projects they were already all-\nelectric.\nBoard Member Cisneros agreed that preparation was key. She was also interested and\nwanted to know more about electric transit.\nPresident Teague asked if the calculation included both a heat pump for heating and\ncooling and a heat pump for hot water.\nMr. Farahmand said that was correct.\nPresident Teague stated that the cost of heat pumps for hot water was significantly higher.\nMr. Farahmand said yes there were some cost increases depending on what model you\nget.\nPresident Teague said he wanted someone to explain Exception 3 with the vegetated roof.\nMr. Farahmand said that the idea was to support a reduction in the Urban Heat Island\nEffect if the architect was to do so. Adding a vegetated roof was a significant consideration\nthat needed a lot of structural work. This was about finding a balance with architectural\nflexibility.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 3 of 18\nApril 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-04-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-04-26", "page": 4, "text": "President Teague asked if this would allow a reduction in the amount of solar they would\nhave to do.\nMr. Farahmand said yes. In theory, you could install solar panels over a vegetated roof\nthat would be up to the architect.\nBoard Member Teresa Ruiz wanted to know if AMP (Alameda Municipal Power) had\nreviewed the ordinance and if the infrastructure would be able to supply the future\nanticipated demand.\nStaff Member Mieler said this ordinance was on a Public Utility Board Agenda for May\n17th, before it goes to council. The General Manager had reviewed the ordinance and her\nunderstanding was that the utility could handle the increased demand.\nPresident Teague opened public comment.\nRuth Abbe, from Community Action for Sustainable Alameda, wanted to give her full\nsupport for the adoption of the all-electric ordinance. The group had been giving its support\nto the city in its investigation of alternatives to natural gas. This plan makes sense for new\nbuildings and new construction and the group was in full support of this measure.\nAshley Rybarczyk, an Alameda resident, an employee of KTGY Architecture, and\nPresident of the Board of Director for AIA East Bay discussed the recent climate summit\nwith President Biden and other world leaders and how this ordinance was very\nserendipitous and now was the time to take action against climate change. She\nencouraged Alameda to join all the other California communities that were already all-\nelectric and to do its part.\nChristy Cannon was very excited about this proposal. She was curious to know if there\nwere any plans to incentivize solar panels on rooftops on commercial buildings.\nScott Shell thanked everyone for their work on this and was impressed with Alameda\nhaving 100% clean energy. He said paired with all electric buildings you will have carbon-\nneutral buildings, he congratulated the staff on that accomplishment. He added that he\nwas an architect, a principal of EHDD Architecture, and had been designing all-electric\nbuildings for 20 years and found it a very reliable, robust, and cost-effective solution for\ntheir clients. He was in full support of this ordinance.\nPresident Teague closed public comments and opened board discussions and actions.\nBoard Member Rothenberg had two clarifications. On page 1 of the second resolution,\nshe pointed out that the date should be April 26th, not the 27th. She then confirmed that\nthey don't have to make a resolution just a recommendation.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 4 of 18\nApril 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-04-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-04-26", "page": 5, "text": "Director Thomas concurred that they didn't need to adopt a resolution but rather just make\na recommendation to the City Council.\nBoard Member Rothenberg said all of this work merits support and approval pending City\nCouncil consideration.\nBoard Member Hom said he strongly supported all three actions, he saw this as a step in\nthe right direction. He felt that the staff report had done a great job in their analysis.\nBoard Member Curtis said he highly supported all three actions.\nVice President Saheba said all three actions were worthy of support and he was glad they\nwere moving in this direction. He added that there were still some things with the Energy\nCode that needed to be coordinated.\nBoard Member Cisneros thanked everyone for their comments and was in strong support.\nBoard Member Ruiz said she was in support of all three recommendations but wanted to\nsee this more refined and pushed even further. She suggested adding some incentives\nfor future electrifying of existing homes and businesses. She also wanted to see a specific\ndelegation for remodeled homes and flexibility around the 15% roof square footage\nrequirement for PV systems.\nPresident Teague thanked the staff and everyone who worked on this. He asked why the\nPV system was limited to 15%, why couldn't they do more?\nStaff Member Mieler said the intent was not to limit it to 15%.\nMr. Farahmand said that was correct, it was a minimum of 15%.\nPresident Teague also asked about the wording and the intent for the vegetated roof.\nMr. Farahmand agreed on a modification to the language.\nPresident Teague asked about Ultra Pure White (reflective coating) and painting the roof\nwith this. He wanted to know if this could be factored in.\nMr. Farahmand said that was a Cool Roof Measure, and they would need to look at the\neconomic benefits.\nPresident Teague asked if a vegetated roof was a Cool Roof Measure or a carbon-\nsequestering type method.\nMr. Farahmand said it wasn't an efficiency measure but it had benefits.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 5 of 18\nApril 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-04-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-04-26", "page": 6, "text": "Board Member Rothenberg made a motion to recommend that the City Council\nadopt the resolution containing findings of Local Climatic, Geological,\nTopographical, and Environmental Conditions as required to adopt Alameda Local\nAmendments to the 2019 California Energy Code. Board Member Curtis seconded\nthe motion and a roll call vote was taken, the motion passed 7-0.\nBoard Member Curtis made a motion to recommend that the City Council approve\nthe all-electric ordinance with the amendments of altering the 15% for rooftop PV\nsystems, clarifying the vegetated roof, remodeled homes would be completely\nexcluded, and building footprints have some equivalency for compliance. Board\nMember Hom seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion\npassed 7-0.\n7-C 2021-861\nProposed Citywide Text Amendments to the City of Alameda Zoning Ordinance (AMC\nChapter 30) to Modify Public Art Requirements. Applicant: City of Alameda. Public hearing\nto consider proposed amendments to Alameda Municipal Code Chapter 30. The proposed\namendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant\nto CEQA Guidelines sections 15061(b)(3) and 15303.\nAmanda Gehrke, Development Manager with the Community Development Department,\nintroduced this item and gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be\nfound at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4913557&GUID=D73EB5AD-\n77DB-4592-9002-664B3AE8EB5B&FullText=1.\nStaff Member Tai also discussed the upcoming Housing Element Update and how state\nlaw required they look at any local requirements that present governmental constraints or\nbarriers to housing. That would be part B of this exercise.\nPresident Teague opened the board's clarifying questions.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked about the mixing of operating and capital funds and\nhow that was being managed. She then asked about equity and the exception of\nestablishing a lower public art requirement for affordable housing, she thought there\nshould be equally accessible art regardless of the income of the residents.\nStaff Member Gehrke said the maintenance costs that were being proposed, that fund\nwould only be for artwork owned by the city and on city property. She explained how art\nwas managed on public and private property.\nLois Butler, Economic Development Manager with Community Development, also\ncommented that City departments are committed to the maintenance of the art pieces but\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 6 of 18\nApril 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-04-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-04-26", "page": 7, "text": "in extreme cases, with art that hadn't been maintained, they were asking that maintenance\nfunds be available.\nBoard Member Rothenberg said that answered her question in some way but not\ncompletely.\nStaff Member Butler added that regarding capital and operational, the public art fund\ncurrently was just operational, it is not considered capital monies with the City of Alameda.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked if it was consistent with the General Plan to make sure\nart was commissioned to be available to diverse populations regardless of income.\nStaff Member Butler said she understood the question. Currently, the staff and Community\nDevelopment recommended they continue with the 1% in public art, down the line they\nmay have a different recommendation for those fees.\nBoard Member Rothenberg pointed at page 2 of the staff report under Further Evaluation\n- she wanted to state for the record that they should not establish a lower public art\nrequirement for affordable housing. Art should be equitably and commensurately available\nfor all types of applications and should not intentionally penalize lower-cost housing or\nlower-income populations.\nBoard Member Hom asked about the maintenance and that if it was mainly for art on public\nproperty and that the ordinance was not clear about. He wanted to know more about the\nintent.\nStaff Member Gehrke answered that the intent was that it would be used for public art on\npublic property.\nBoard Member Hom said to him the language was unclear on the use of the maintenance\nfunds. He also asked for further explanation on how different departments would be\nresponsible for maintaining the public art.\nStaff Member Butler explained that before art would be placed on public property within\nthe city it must have a sponsor. She explained past pieces of art and how certain\ndepartments had agreed to maintain the art before it was installed.\nBoard Member Hom asked about a process question in the ordinance. It said that the\ndeveloper needed to identify if they planned to do art or pay the in-lieu fee and show the\nlocation of the public art. It then goes on to say that the Community Development Director\ncould change the location of the art piece but he wanted to know what would happen if\nthe Arts Commission wants the art to stay in the original location of the Planning Approval.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 7 of 18\nApril 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-04-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-04-26", "page": 8, "text": "Staff Member Butler said the process was they wanted the developer to decide before\nthey get approval for their entitlements for planning. The developers can present to the\nArts Commission where they want the piece to go but once it goes to the Planning\nCommission they cannot just arbitrarily move it. The Director of Community Development\ncould also not arbitrarily approve a move, it would have to go back to the Arts Commission.\nBoard Member Hom said the language was not quite clear to him. He then asked about\nthe requirement of having public art provided by Non-Profits and wanted to know if there\nwere any issues around that.\nStaff Member Gehrke explained the difference between physical art and cultural art. The\nrequirements Non-Profits only applied to the cultural arts. Physical artists are not required\nto be Non-Profit.\nBoard Member Hom asked if for Affordable Housing Projects could one of the waivers be\nto the 1% Public Art Requirement, could it be eligible for a State Density Bonus waiver.\nDirector Thomas said that someone could request that waiver today as part of their\nwaivers or concessions under state law. They would have to revisit this conversation about\nthe costs of building houses in Alameda.\nBoard Member Hom said it sounded like a topic for a broader discussion.\nDirector Thomas continued by saying this issue had come up before. He discussed current\nprojects and what the public art portion was for those projects.\nStaff Member Butler added that the Public Arts Commission had voted on this twice, first\nto remove the cap and then recently to keep the cap removed. She said if they were going\nto reconsider that cap it would be great to have the Public Arts Commission and the\nPlanning Board meet together jointly.\nDirector Thomas added that the plan was not to isolate public art.\nBoard Member Curtis clarified that the fund would be used for the acquisition (capital) or\nmaintenance (operational).\nStaff Member Gehrke said that was correct, that staff is proposing that the fund could be\nallowed for maintenance. She added that part of it could also go to Cultural Grants. It was\nused to fund or implement public art in Alameda which could have a broad range of items.\nBoard Member Curtis asked if Low-Cost Housing could ask for a waiver for the art fee.\nStaff Member Gehrke said that right now 100% affordable housing project was exempt\nfrom the Public Art Ordinance.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 8 of 18\nApril 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-04-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-04-26", "page": 9, "text": "Board Member Curtis gave an example of a developer who was unable to pay the public\nart fee and the project was in danger of not happening. What options did the developer\nhave?\nStaff Member Butler said for that example you could do a Development Agreement with\nthe Planning Board.\nBoard Member Curtis asked if the Planning Board had the authority to recommend a\nwaiver.\nDirector Thomas said this was a great question but this was something they would like to\nhold off on. He wanted to bring this conversation back at a later date to look at everything\nholistically.\nPresident Teague reminded everyone to focus on the proposed changes as opposed to\nother areas of the ordinance.\nVice President Saheba wanted to know the percentages of projects that pay the in-lieu\nfee vs. on-site art.\nStaff Member Gehrke said they did have that data but she did not have it at the moment.\nShe would get him that information.\nVice President Saheba asked if this allowed for a split in allocation.\nStaff Member Gehrke said they were.\nVice President Saheba asked how this fund was doing overall. Did it have enough to do\nthe maintenance that staff believed was required?\nStaff Member Gehrke said the ordinance was adopted in 2003 and in the first 12-13 years\nthere was about $65,000 in the fund. In the last five years, it had grown and they had been\nable to give out about $350,000 a few years ago. As of now, there were $270,000 dollars\nin the fund.\nDirector Thomas commented that it was about a 50/50 split with big projects doing on-site\nare and the smaller projects tend to pay the in-lieu fee.\nStaff Member Gehrke was able to confirm that Director Thomas was right on with the\n50/50. She added that 75% of the money goes to on-site artwork.\nBoard Member Cisneros wanted more clarification on the recommendation for\nexpenditures under $75,000 dollars.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 9 of 18\nApril 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-04-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-04-26", "page": 10, "text": "Staff Member Butler answered that the City Manager's signing authority only goes up to\n$75,000. That was why any expenditures over that amount must go to City Council. She\ngave examples of projects that were over and said this was just asking for a standard\npractice that currently happens in the city.\nBoard Member Ruiz wanted clarification that whatever they agreed on today it would\npotentially come back again for more changes as part of the Housing Element Review.\nDirector Thomas said no and explained they have an existing ordinance in place and the\nchanges that were being recommended were meant to improve the implementation of that\nordinance. It does not affect the amount of money they received or charge or the amount\nof art required of developers. He didn't see them coming back and undoing what they did\ntonight but instead coming back and tackling a different aspect of this ordinance.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked about the list of definitions and pointed out that \"Art\nProgramming\" was mentioned but not defined.\nPresident Teague pointed out where that could be found.\nBoard Member Ruiz then asked if green walls were considered public art.\nStaff Member Butler said that was a good question. It could be, it depended on how the\ngreen wall was constructed and if there was a bona fide artist that was integrating the\ngreen wall into a piece of art.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked for clarification on the definition they had on artists.\nStaff Member Butler said as long as they were bona fide artists and can show they were\nartists and not operating as architects or engineers, as long as they were functioning as\nartists.\nBoard Member Ruiz suggested clarifying this definition since it sounded to her that the\nopposite could be true.\nStaff Member Butler said that even if this ordinance was amended the commission still\nwouldn't have the authority to give out money but they could approve it. The City Manager\nwould still have to sign an agreement.\nPresident Teague said the goal then was to get the approval for small amounts of funds\nto be approved by someone other than the City Council to improve the turnaround time.\nStaff Member Butler said that was correct.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 10 of 18\nApril 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-04-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-04-26", "page": 11, "text": "Alameda's community of artists and hoped the Planning Board supported these\namendments to the Public Art Ordinance.\nPresident Teague closed the public comments and opened board discussions.\nBoard Member Rothenberg agreed with President Teague that while the staff report was\ngood it didn't tell the whole story of what they were trying to achieve. The intent had merit\nand she believed the changes as explained should have an overall benefit to the city. She\nalso believed that the staff report belied that the ordinance revisions as indicated by the\nunderlining text did something she didn't read in the report. She said there should be\nanother bullet since there were two delegations of authority to the Community\nDevelopment Director. She pointed out these examples and added that with delegations\nit needed to be as clear as possible. She believed that the proposals appeared to have\nmerit subject to subsequent comments.\nBoard Member Hom thought the amendments were good. He had only one suggestion,\nhe thought it would be good to clarify in section 30-98.10 that the Alameda Public Art Fund\nwas only to be used for public art located on public property. He understood there could\nbe exceptions.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 11 of 18\nApril 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-04-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-04-26", "page": 12, "text": "Board Member Curtis said he could support 90% of this amendment. The part that gave\nhim trouble was the first part that required the developer to declare their intentions to install\nthe artwork and where they will install it onsite. He thought the rest of the amendments\nprovided fiscal responsibility and flexibility on where the funding was going. He was\nconcerned from the developer's standpoint and saw this as a distraction for the developer\nduring the planning stage. He discussed how the developers had to juggle many things\nincluding overall costs. He said he would not support the part of the amendment about\nhaving developers declare at the onset but the rest he thought was great.\nVice President Saheba discussed the philosophical importance of art in the community\nand how it should enhance the environment it was in. He addressed Board Member\nCurtis's concern about declaring early and said it needed to be integral and shouldn't be\nan afterthought. He said there should be flexibility created for Affordable Housing and\nLandscape Art, they should be open to different ways of enhancing the environment. He\nsaid overall he supported these amendments but as they got closer to the Housing\nElement some other creative ideas needed to come about to reach the ultimate intent.\nBoard Member Cisneros also had concerns with making developers declare early when\nthey were unsure of the future of their project. She was curious to know what the response\nand feedback had been from the developer community. She agreed there needed to be\nmore flexibility added that other than that reservation she was generally supportive.\nBoard Member Ruiz said in general she supported the proposed amendments. While she\ndid appreciate Board Member Curtis's comments and concerns for the Development\nCommunity, if you want a thoughtful and well-designed community in projects you would\nwant to think about public art from the get-go and incorporate it as part of the overall\nproject. She echoed Board Member Cisneros's comment about building in more flexibility\nthat would allow the developers to change course later on if budget becomes an issue.\nShe recommended adding green walls or living walls as part of classified public art. She\nspoke candidly about landscape architects who specialize in living walls who would do a\nbetter job than someone considered an artist. She did not want anything to limit the ability\nto create a better environment for the community. She wanted allocation to be clarified so\na developer could do some onsite art and then the rest could go to the general fund. She\nalso wanted the Art Commission to revisit the definitions for both the art and the artist.\nPresident Teague thanked everyone for their work on this. He brought up section 30-98.6\nwhich discussed findings, he wanted to know what stage was the Final Approval of the\nDevelopment Project Application.\nDirector Thomas said he interpreted that as part of the Planning Entitlement, for most\nprojects end with the Planning Board. He added that a Development Agreement never\ngoes alone. He went on to say that the board had raised some very interesting\nconsiderations but that his experience with developers was that it was a good idea to force\ndevelopers to think about the art early on.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 12 of 18\nApril 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-04-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-04-26", "page": 13, "text": "President Teague said he could support a plan that where deciding early would not be a\npermanent decision. Before the design stage have developers issue a statement of what\nthey plan to do and then as part of the Design Review Approval they must make the\nbinding commitment. He would support something like this over the 30-98.6A clause. He\nalso gave his thoughts on the grant program, maintenance fund, and the authorization of\nexpenses.\nBoard Member Curtis wanted to be clear on how the ordinance is now, the developer was\non the hook for paying the funds or doing the art themselves. He also liked the point about\nflexibility. He was concerned that the more inflexible it was in regards to what developers\nhad to do early the more it would cost the developer to change the plans. He saw their job\nwas to make things easier for developers while also protecting the citizens of Alameda.\nVice President Saheba noted the Del Monte project and how the City's process had been\nflexible to accommodate all the changes to that project over time. He believes the\namendments should maintain flexibility.\nDirector Thomas said that does happen a lot with projects. His question was if a developer\nchanges their mind in the building permit process, would it need to go back to the Planning\nBoard to approve that change or could it just go back to the Art Commission.\nStaff Member Butler interjected that it would go to the Director.\nDirector Thomas asked did the Planning Board want that authority or are they comfortable\nletting the Art Commission make the final decision.\nVice President Saheba noted that that would be similar to past projects where developer\ninitiated changes required that they had to come back to the Planning Board.\nStaff Member Butler said for those examples it would be part of the Conditions of Approval\nthat it would have to come back because the PAC (Public Art Commission) wouldn't know\nabout that.\nDirector Thomas said they would have to handle it on a case-by-case basis as with all\nother projects.\nBoard Member Curtis wanted to about the Right of Appeal.\nDirector Thomas broke down the different scenarios and why they would need to be\nhandled differently.\nStaff Member Butler added that currently if the developers don't agree with PAC they can\nappeal to the City Council.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 13 of 18\nApril 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-04-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-04-26", "page": 14, "text": "Director Thomas said he had completely rethought this issue. He discussed how changes\nto plans are handled and they do come back to the Planning Board in some way.\nStaff Member Butler described that the intent was not to delegate the authority of the PAC\nto the Planning Board but to have thoughtful planning of art. She suggested revisiting this\npart of the ordinance.\nPresident Teague concurred that this did sound like it was part of the Design Review of a\nproject.\nBoard Member Ruiz suggested striking out a sentence that would better define the intent.\nShe thought that since it was the Director's discretion it would show up under Recent\nActions and Decisions for Planning Board Meetings.\nDirector Thomas clarified that he was not the Director this would come back to, it would\nbe the Director of the Community Development Department which is where the art\nprogram sits. He added what makes this awkward is that you have the Planning Board\napproving something and then a different group with the power to amend it.\nBoard Member Hom said it would be the minimum to have the developer say if they were\ndoing onsite art or to pay the in-lieu fee. He also thought the PAC should be delegated the\nprimary responsibility for reviewing and approving the art, not the Planning Board. He then\ndiscussed when exceptions should be allowed and where they can still have the flexibility\nfor the developer.\nBoard Member Cisneros wondered if the developer had to declare the location of the art,\nshe thought that having a general declaration of either providing onsite art or paying the\nin-lieu fee should be enough.\nPresident Teague agreed that the planning stage was the appropriate time to identify an\nappropriate location for public art since they had not broken ground and it was early in the\nprocess.\nPresident Teague asked the staff if they should modify these amendments now or did they\nwant to bring this item back.\nVice President Saheba commented that the Planning Board would review everything from\nplant species being planted to every aspect of the design during the entitlement period so\nwhy not also be specific around the art. He still wanted the PAC to weigh in and that way\nwhatever was recommended to the Planning Board would be through their lens.\nBoard Member Curtis thought they had reached a reasonable compromise by having the\nspecificity be done at the Final Design Review and Approval. He thought this would give\ndevelopers and boards enough time to resolve any outstanding issues. He also agreed\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 14 of 18\nApril 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-04-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-04-26", "page": 15, "text": "with Vice President Saheba that developers had to be specific about everything else and\nthat they can also be specific about the proposed art.\nDirector Thomas said it would be part of the Design Review Approval for the project. He\nthen discussed the process and when the staff could bring something back to the Planning\nBoard. They would not be approving the art because that would still be with the PAC.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked if the Community Development Director's role would be struck\nout in this iteration.\nDirector Thomas said it would.\nStaff Member Butler said if they were talking about location then the PAC was fine with\nthat. She then said they could add that it be the Planning Director who it would go back\nto.\nBoard Member Hom and Director Thomas said it depended on the conditions.\nStaff Member Butler and Director Thomas discussed the language in the provision about\nmoving the location of the on-site art and what wording was unnecessary and what the\nrole of the Director needed to be.\nPresident Teague suggested striking a part to cause the process to fall in line with how\nother changes are handled.\nBoard Member Hom agreed and said letting the regular process to govern made sense.\nHe was in favor of simplifying and deleting parts of the wording.\nStaff Member Butler was concerned that with the new iteration it would not come back to\nthe PAC at all.\nAfter much discussion, it was decided to continue this item to the next meeting to revise\nthe language.\nBoard Member Curtis wanted the language to give the most flexibility to the board to get\nthings done quickly.\nBoard Member Hom wanted language that made it clear that money in the in-lieu fund\nwas meant for maintenance for public art on public property.\nStaff Member Butler also said they would clarify the language around the City Manager's\nexpense limit.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 15 of 18\nApril 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-04-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-04-26", "page": 16, "text": "Board Member Hom made a motion to continue this item until the next meeting.\nBoard Member Ruiz seconded and a roll call vote was taken. The motion passed 7-\n0.\n7-A 2021-859\nPublic Hearing on the Alameda General Plan Update and the Scope of Environmental\nImpact Report.\nDirector Thomas introduced this item. The staff report and attachments can be found at\n ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4913555&GUID=CA000393-\n667A-4AB4-9EDD-FC4CDD807FD7&FullText=1.\nPresident Teague opened the board's clarifying questions and public comments.\nThere were no public speakers.\nPresident Teague closed public comments and opened board discussions.\nDirector Thomas said that the staff report that they were preparing for May 10th would\nhave a lot of the same information.\n8. MINUTES\n8-A 2021-858\nDraft Meeting Minutes - March 8, 2021\nBoard Member Curtis wanted to change his statement on page 6, it should say \"stated\"\nand not \"addressed\" and then on page 10 in his comment there should be a \"not\" in front\nof not having a master plan should \"not\" affect the city.\nBoard Member Hom said for item 7-B he clarified that his question should be \"for\nproperties with potential Density Bonus Units, could these units be counted in the RHNA\".\nThen in the response from Director Thomas, it should be HCD. He also clarified his\nquestions about lighting and that it had questions about Marina parking.\nBoard Member Hom made a motion to approve the minutes with these corrections.\nBoard Member Cisneros seconded the motion and a roll call vote was taken. The\nminutes passed 7-0.\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2021-856\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions\nRecent actions and decisions can be found at\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 16 of 18\nApril 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-04-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-04-26", "page": 17, "text": "ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4913552&GUID=B1FF7DA4-\n9168-4AE7-A7B2-AA34EF75F603&FullText=1.\nBoard Member Rothenberg wanted to pull for a review item PLN20-0541\n-\nVariance/Design Review - 910 Centennial Avenue.\nStaff Member Tai said that would be scheduled for a later meeting.\n9-B 2021-857\nOral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Tai said that the next meeting on May 10, 2021 would be a joint meeting\nwith the Transportation Commission, with a few items just for the Planning Board including\nthe Public Art Ordinance. Then the following meeting on May 24, 2021 would include the\nstudy session on the Parking Ordinance Update.\nStaff Member Gehrke asked that the Public Art Ordinance be pushed to the May 24th\nmeeting due to both herself and Staff Member Butler being on vacation during the May\n10th meeting.\nPresident Teague said at the May 10th meeting they would ask to continue the item to\nMay 24, 2021.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nPresident Teague said he would be absent the second half of May so Vice President\nSaheba would be leading that meeting.\nBoard Member Cisneros wanted to if the next meeting would be an appropriate time to\naddress her questions for the General Plan since she was coming in as a board member\nafter previous meetings.\nStaff Member Tai said the next meeting would be a workshop for the second draft of the\nGeneral Plan and that it would be an appropriate time. He also said she was welcome to\nemail staff any questions or comments.\nPresident Teague asked Board Members Hom and Cisneros about providing dates and\ntimes for the subcommittee to meet.\nBoard Members Hom and Cisneros responded they had communicated with the staff.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 17 of 18\nApril 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-04-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-04-26", "page": 18, "text": "12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident Teague adjourned the meeting at 10:08 p.m.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 18 of 18\nApril 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-04-26.pdf"}