{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2021-07-26", "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., APRIL 26, 2021\nALAMEDA CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA\nCONFERENCE ROOM 391\n1.\nThe meeting was called to order by Nancy Bronstein at 4:33 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL:\nPresent: Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Secretary Nancy Bronstein, Trustee Bill\nSoderlund, Trustee Nancy Elzig via teleconference.\nStaff: Annie To, Finance Director, Grace Li, Finance Accountant, Chad Barr,\nHuman Resources Technician.\n3.\nMINUTES:\nThe minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 25, 2021 were moved for\nacceptance by Secretary Nancy Bronstein and seconded by Trustee Soderlund.\nPassed by roll call vote, 4-0.\n4.\nAGENDA ITEMS:\n4-A. Pension Payroll and Financial Reports - Quarters Ending March 31, 2021\nand City of Alameda Police & Fire Pension Funds Financial Reports for the\nPeriod Ending March 31, 2021.\nFinance Accountant Li presented the quarterly reports. In February 2021 the\npension expenses for Plan 1079 increased from January 2021 due to an\nincrease in benefits paid out. The increase was effective January 2021 but paid\nin February 2021. March's total pension expenses included the quarterly uniform\nallowance payout.", "path": "PensionBoard/2021-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2021-07-26", "page": 2, "text": "City of Alameda\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nPension Board - Monday, April 26, 2021\nPage 2\nPlan 1082 expenses were $2736 per month for the third quarter. There was an\nincrease in benefits paid out from $2682 in the second quarter to $2736 in the\nthird quarter.\nAccountant Li clarified for Chair Ashcraft that January included the increase\nalready.\nTrustee Elzig moved to accept the financial statements as presented and Trustee\nSoderlund 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 ICOMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD):\nTrustee Soderlund asked about finding a police repr\u00e9sentative for the board.\nChair Aschraft stated she spoke to the City Attorney about the requirement for\nliving in the City and Secretary Bronstein stated she also spoke to the City\nAttorney. Secretary Bronstein stated the board member did not have to be\nretired, they could be currently serving, which provided another opportunity to\nreach out to police to serve on the board. Additionally another retiree was\nsuggested, providing another avenue to fill the position. Chair Ashcraft asked\nthat everyone keep an eye out for other potential members. Secretary Bronstein\nsaid we can look at current potential employees to serve.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT:\nThere being no additional items to come before the board, the meeting was\nadjourned at 4:48 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nme\nNancy Bronstein\nHuman Resources Director", "path": "PensionBoard/2021-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-26", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, JULY 26, 2021\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Alan Teague convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\nDue to Governor Executive Order N-29-20 and Urgency Ordinance No. 3271, Planning\nBoard members can attend the meeting via teleconference. The City will allow public\nparticipation via Zoom, for information please see the agenda\nat\nittps://alameda.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx under Planning Board.\nMembers of the public can watch the meeting via Livestream\n(http://alameda.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?camera_id=3) Comments submitted\nduring the meeting will be read into the record. Comments submitted prior to the meeting\nwill be included in the meeting record. City Hall will NOT be open to the public during the\nmeeting.\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Ron Curtis led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: President Teague, Vice President Saheba, and Board Members Curtis, Hom,\nRothenberg, Cisneros, and Ruiz.\nAbsent: None.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nAllen Tai, City Planner, requested that item 7:B Public hearing on the Alameda General\nPlan Update and item 7-C: Public hearing to review and comment on the Draft Vision\nZero Action Plan be continued to Monday, September 13th.\nPresident Teague thought this was a good idea and no one objected to this change.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\nPresident Teague pulled Consent item 6-B and added it to the Regular Agenda Items.\n6-A 2021-1156\nA public hearing to consider a Final Development Plan Amendment (PLN 21-0299) to\nreduce the front yard setback for a two-story R&D office building located at 1310 Harbor\nBay Parkway from 50 feet to 49 feet. The project is located in the C-M-PD (Commercial\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 21\nJuly 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-26", "page": 2, "text": "Manufacturing, Planned Development) Zoning District. A Final Environmental Impact\nReport for Harbor Bay Isle, including the Harbor Bay Business Park, was certified in 1974\nand the 1988 Addendum to the EIR was prepared in 1989 in accordance with the California\nEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no new\nsignificant impacts have been identified and no additional CEQA review is required.\nAttachments and the staff report can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5031885&GUID=A74DOBAO-\n9E68-44C5-BCA9-3C7084DE49A0&FullText=1.\nBoard Member Rona Rothenberg made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar\nand Board Member Curtis seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the\nmotion passed 7-0.\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n6-B 2021-1169\n1435 Webster Street - Temporary Use Permit for Use of Parking Lot for Outdoor\nCommercial Entertainment Events - Applicants: West Alameda Business Association,\nWest End Arts District, and the Fireside Lounge. Consideration of a Temporary Use Permit\nto allow outdoor use of an existing parking lot at 1435 Webster Street for outdoor\ncommercial entertainment activities. The project is located within the C-C-T (Community\nCommercial, Theater Combining) Zoning District. The project is exempt from the California\nEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 - Existing\nFacilities and 15183 - Projects consistent with General Plan and Zoning.\nAndrew Thomas, Director of Planning Building and Transportation, was joined by Rochelle\nWheeler, Senior Transportation Coordinator, and Commercial Streets Planner, and\ntogether they introduced this item. Attachments and the staff report can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5031895&GUID=2B4DC733-\n244E-468D-910E-FBE75989A417&FullText=1.\nPresident Teague opened the board's clarifying questions.\nBoard Member Teresa Ruiz asked about a public comment asking that the events end in\nOctober. Why was October requested and why was it extended to December?\nStaff Member Wheeler explained how the original Special Events Permit went through\nOctober and maybe through November, it was a little vague. Then when the applicants\ncame before them they had been interested in doing some events in December. Since\nthere were already holiday events that happened a long Webster they wanted to have\nthose at this space. There were only 3 events scheduled for December.\nBoard Member Ruiz clarified that the Special Events Permit was supposed to end in\nOctober or November.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 21\nJuly 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-26", "page": 3, "text": "Staff Member Wheeler said that was right.\nBoard Member Ruiz stated there was some ambiguity there. This Temporary Use Permit\nwas requested just to add the 3 events in December and this was for the whole WABA\n(West Alameda Business District) not just for the Fireside.\nStaff Member Wheeler said this was a group effort with the programming and doing events\non the lot. The West End Arts District, WABA, and the Fireside Lounge, all are working\ntogether and it was a joint effort to program the space, technically the applicant was\nWABA.\nDirector Thomas clarified that this was a Use Permit for the use of a particular piece of\nland, the parking lot at Taylor and Webster Street. It would apply to whoever used the\nland. If someone else were to take over programming they would have to comply with this\nUse Permit.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked about maximum occupancy and wanted to know how the\napplicant had arrived at the occupancy load.\nStaff Member Wheeler said the original occupancy level in the original Special Event\nPermit was 220. That was calculated then by the applicant for the Special Event Permit.\nShe explained how the applicant had used social distancing rules to generate that number\nbut then as restrictions lifted in June that number went up to 350. She added that the\napplicant was available to explain more.\nVice President Asheshh Saheba wanted to know if the applicant had shown any desire to\nhave events at the location post-December.\nStaff Member Wheeler said at this time their understanding was no. The lease they have\nwith the owner goes until the end of the year.\nDirector Thomas added that the property owner had a permit to build a project on that\nsite.\nBoard Member Curtis said he had gone to the space when an event was happening and\nsaid the noise level coming off was a bit much. He wanted to know who profited from the\nticket sales. He thought the venue had drifted from its original mission.\nDirector Thomas said that staff did not know where the money went. He said that was\nsomething the applicant could address.\nBoard Member Curtis stated if this was a for-profit venue that unconvinced a high degree\nof the immediate neighborhood then he had a problem with that.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 3 of 21\nJuly 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-26", "page": 4, "text": "Staff Member Wheeler added that there was a mix of events that would involve amplified\nsound. Some were ticketed events and some were more cultural/community events, such\nas record swaps or Rhythmix Cultural Events. It was also a mix of people programing the\narea.\nBoard Member Rothenberg did not take exception to the changes in the conditions. She\nasked about the popularity and high use of community centers in Alameda in general. She\nwanted to know if this type of feedback and activity over one Conditional Use Permit\ninformed planning on the types of spaces people utilized for both private and public events.\nDirector Thomas said that this originally came in as a Covid Special Event Permit due to\nCovid restrictions. The staff's first reaction was that this was a great idea but did not realize\nhow popular this would be. It did show there was a real demand in Alameda for this type\nof event and opportunities for the community to come together. This site itself might not\nbe the perfect spot but there was an absolute need for something like this. He also\ndiscussed the importance of people working together to make the programming and event\nschedule work.\nBoard Member Rothenberg said as a Planning Board and when they look at locations for\nuses and future uses they need to make sure they are appropriate for the use.\nBoard Member Hanson Hom thanked WABA for clarifying the actual number of scheduled\nevents, a question he had asked from a previous meeting. He then asked how city staff or\ncode enforcement had responded to complaints and how are they planning on handling\nfuture complaints.\nDirector Thomas said as the site became more popular and the events grew they started\nto get complaints. City Staff first talked to the applicant telling them they had to get things\nunder control and that was when the applicant made a number of changes. However,\ndespite their effort, the complaints continued to come into the Planning Department. At\nfirst, this was approved at the staff level without a public hearing but staff quickly realized\nthat was not the right process for this. This really needed to be handled through the Use\nPermit process where the neighbors would have an opportunity to express their concerns\nand the applicant could express their situation and then a judgment call would need to be\nmade by the Planning Board.\nLinda Asbury, an applicant and an Executive Director of WABA, said no profit was being\nmade. The ticket cost, whatever it was, did not cover the cost of the event. They had\nsecured grants and sponsorships to even breakeven because the goal has always been\nto create community events. She also discussed who was on the payroll to make this site\nsuccessful, there was no money to be made here.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 4 of 21\nJuly 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-26", "page": 5, "text": "Board Member Hom asked again about complaints and how those would be handled in\nthe future.\nMs. Asbury said they had always tried to reach out to people and to be available so\ncomplaints would not have to go through the Planning Department. She said they had\nhired a Sound Technician and now had the appropriate draping to mitigate the sound.\nThey also had someone on-site with a decimal reader and it never went above 80-90\ndecimals which from her understanding was the same as what a vacuum cleaner put out.\nThe music stopped at 8 pm and there was a Sound Technician on-site during events. She\nwanted to make this work for the neighborhood and was not sure what else they could do\nto mitigate the sound.\nBoard Member Hom asked if the canopies and curtains to mitigate the sound had already\nbeen installed and if the fire department had confirmed those items had met fire safety\nrequirements.\nMs. Asbury said they reached out to neighbors and had mitigated everything they could.\nThe fire department had come out and had approved what they had done. The only thing\nthey were not able to do was close Taylor St which they wanted to do for sound mitigation.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked a follow-up question to Ms. Asbury. She asked since due to\nthe uptick in Covid and the Delta variant would she consider lowering the maximum\noccupancy load of the site to 220.\nMs. Asbury said the 220 was based on a 5000 square foot lot and how many people could\nbe accommodated according to the guidelines last year and 350 was based on the\nsuccess and the lifting of restrictions. She said they would be happy to mitigate the\noccupancy as well and did not want all the good work to go aside.\nBoard Member Xiomara Cisneros was still confused on the matter of how many amplified\nsound events were scheduled per weekend. She was thrown off by the dates in the staff\nreport. She was concerned they were having more than 2 loud events per weekend as\nwere outlined in the mitigation.\nStaff Member Wheeler explained how listing the events in the Use Permit was a way of\ngiving everyone a head's up of when neighbors could expect amplified sound. She was\nnot sure where Board Member Cisneros was seeing the two events. She pointed out that\nunder item 3 they had the events allowed per week and it varied by month.\nBoard Member Cisneros said it was under Exhibit 1, it stated: \"live music concerts would\nbe restricted to a maximum of 2 events per weekend or possibly 1 per weekend\".\nStaff Member Wheeler said that was something developed on June 29th by the applicant\nbut after going back and forth with them since then and working out dates that was no\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 5 of 21\nJuly 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-26", "page": 6, "text": "longer a condition. It was an offer they had made, they had instead focused their efforts\non the live events that were already scheduled.\nBoard Member Cisneros said she thought that had been a good offer, it sounded like a\ncompromise.\nDirector Thomas added that Exhibit 3 was the resolution of approval, which would be the\nguiding and regulating document. If there was a conflict between Exhibit 3, the Planning\nBoard resolution, and any other document it would be Exhibit 3 that would rule.\nBoard Member Cisneros said, in that case, she wanted to respect the offer that was made\nby the applicant to the community where they said they would do their best to have it\nlimited to two events per week.\nPresident Teague said she could propose that as an amendment to the resolution at that\nstage if that was something she wanted to do.\nStaff Wheeler proposed that might already be the case.\nBoard Member Cisneros said exactly, she wanted it to be consistent and for the resolution\nto reflect that.\nStaff Member Wheeler said they were all trying to work with the feedback from the\napplicant on things they had already scheduled and committed to. There might be some\nvariance of that then they would have to cancel that event and possibly lose money and\nthe staff tried to be aware of that as well. That was her only concern if that was added in.\nPresident Teague asked if all of the events on the list, provided by the applicant, were\nthings they had committed to prior to the start of this whole process and wanted to finish\nout.\nStaff Member Wheeler said not all of them, but some of them. They would have fit under\nthe Special Event Permit so they were already scheduling things.\nPresident Teague asked how many of the events had been scheduled in the last two\nweeks.\nStaff Member Wheeler probably none in the last two weeks since they had started working\non this two weeks ago.\nMs. Asbury answered that anything on the list had been scheduled probably around when\nthey were doing the Use Permit or before. They had booked some talent with a contract\nand they owed them money but that had all been done on Good Faith since the Special\nEvents Permit had been approved by the city. Since the start of this mitigation and the\nconversation with the city and the neighbors, they had not added any additional events.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 6 of 21\nJuly 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-26", "page": 7, "text": "President Teague said in looking between number 5 and the list, the dates where there\nwere events and the list did not match up.\nStaff Member Wheeler said there were more events on the list because that included both\nthe amplified events and the ones with no amplified sound. The list was just a restriction\non the amplified sound events since that was what they saw as the most important issue\nto regulate.\nPresident Teague pointed out that the Use Permit listed August 29th as a sound event\ndate and yet there was nothing scheduled.\nDirector Thomas and Staff Member Wheeler both agreed that should be dropped. Staff\nMember Wheeler stated that as they take public comment she could go through the list\nand check dates.\nPresident Teague also pointed out that there was an event scheduled for October 10th\nthat was not on the Use Permit. He wanted to know what types of properties border this\nsite since the Noise Ordinance covered decimal ratings. Were there residential\nimmediately adjacent to the parking lot?\nDirector Thomas said there was.\nPresident Teague asked wouldn't the Noise Ordinance restrict the decimals to 70? 80 if it\nwere commercial and 70 if it's residential.\nDirector Thomas asked if he wanted to make that a condition of approval.\nPresident Teague said they would have to be in compliance with the Noise Ordinance.\nDirector Thomas agreed.\nPresident Teague said they could potentially clarify exactly what they were talking about\nin terms of the decimal ratings which were significantly less than the 80-90 that had been\nmentioned earlier.\nDirector Thomas said they could certainly add that clarification.\nPresident Teague stated that would be a significant change in volume.\nBoard Member Hom wanted to know if the noise was measured from the edge of the\nproperty.\nDirector Thomas said that was correct they measured from the property line.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 7 of 21\nJuly 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-26", "page": 8, "text": "Board Member Curtis said he had looked up what the decimals ratings were for a vacuum\ncleaner and it was 65-80 tops. However, 85 caused irreparable damage to hearing. He\ndiscussed how this could still cause an inconvenience to the neighbors.\nPresident Teague opened public comments and reminded everyone not to make any\nderogatory comments against staff, staff's actions, or any other people involved in this\nitem.\nTara Pilbrow addressed the future and vision plan for this event space. She discussed\nother similar things in Alameda and why they hadn't worked and why this was so unique\nbecause it was successful. Even with that success, they knew this was not the future of\nthis type of programming and their ambition was to find a suitable place at The Point. For\nsound, she said that average decimal readings at the edge of the site were 65-74 and\nnever more than 80 at the stage limit.\nTina Blaine, Executive Director of Rhythmix Cultural Works, discussed the work they had\ndone with West End Arts District and WABA to provide free events at this site. She added\nthat all of this elevated Alameda as a whole to have these high-profile art events\nhappening. She had worked with neighbors on many occasions, saying that sometimes\nno matter what you do people just don't like music. She felt that everyone involved had\nworked extremely hard to keep the sound down and did not want to upset any of the\nneighbors.\nMelissa Milam discussed a list of concerts that Linda Asbury had sent out on May 28th,\nthere were 14 concerts scheduled and 12 had already been done which left 2 events. The\nnew schedule still had 15 concerts, when they found out people were upset and had\ncomplained they added more events. If this was a vacuum she would not be complaining,\nthis was more than that. She said she loved music and went to concerts at appropriate\nplaces. She said she could not escape the music and the neighbors had to hear the music\nwhether they liked it or not.\nConstance Garcia, the owner of the Menagerie Oddities Market and manager of the West\nEnd Mercantile, pointed out that this space was not just being used for the Tlny Town\nConcert Series and asked that the board consider it in its entirety. She ticketed her events\nto make it easier to track people coming and going, and you could find free tickets on\nEventbrite. She also discussed her future plans which were to help the West End Arts\nDistrict find a permanent location.\nStacy Marino, who lived on the far end of 600 Taylor on the lot, said she supported the\nHealing Garden but was against approving extending the permit for events until the end\nof the year. She said if this was all about the community then why didn't they allow local\nbands to play for free instead of the ones that charge artist's fees. She also believed that\nneighbors shouldn't have to plan their days around events that were scheduled, which\nseemed unacceptable for nearby families. She pointed out there was smoking in the lot\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 8 of 21\nJuly 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-26", "page": 9, "text": "and that was against the City-Wide Second Hand Smoking Ordinance. She said she had\ntalked to local businesses and they said this event space was not helping their businesses.\nMarie Milam discussed how difficult this had all been. She had been bombarded with too\nmany load events and on top of that trying to find out how City Hall Works. She felt like\nshe was not being heard. She said she was very disappointed in WABA, The Fireside,\nand West End Arts District; all they had to do was lower the sound. They had 3 months to\ndo just that and that she was would never forget how many people could be so\ninconsiderate and not care. She begged the board not to renew and extend the permit,\nend this in October.\nSandy Russell, an applicant, thanked the board for hearing this item again and clarified\nthat no event with amplified sound had been booked in over a month. The only events that\nwere listed were ones that they were bound by contract for. She discussed all the things\nthey had done to mitigate the sound and stated they were not without concerns for the\nneighbors. She had herself walked the sidewalk with the decimal reader and it was always\nbelow 74 at most outside of the property line and 80 at the stage. She apologized that this\nwas a discomfort that was never the intention of this group. She discussed her role as the\nPresident of WABA, to bring people to the street and to support the businesses. She also\nhad quotes from businesses that were in the provided packet, that said how good and\nhelpful this had been for businesses. She also discussed all the money that had gone into\nmaking this work and that a portion of the proceeds had gone back to support the West\nEnd Arts District.\nZac Bowling supported this project. This was not in the middle of a neighborhood, it was\non one of the main streets of Alameda, this is where you would put something like this. He\nthought it was a great use of a parking lot, a parking lot that had never been very full. He\nwas very much in support of this type of event to bring people to the streets and to\nencourage more business in the commercial corridors.\nJanet Koike, Rhythmix Cultural Works, discussed that they were using this space as a\nfundraising location that supported their performance art and learning program. This\nprogram brought arts to schools not only in Alameda but also to 7 different cities in\nAlameda County. Due to Covid a lot of their funders had had to move their funding to\nCovid related issues so without this location to raise funds they would be unable to provide\ntheir program to school children. She said how grateful she was to WABA and the West\nEnd Arts District for creating a beautiful gathering space for people to have a shared\ncommunity experience during such a difficult time.\nStaci Lewis, a vendor at these events and a resident of the West End area, said this was\nan opportunity for the high tide rising a lot of boats here. She had been supported as an\narts and craft vendor by the West End Arts District and had supported the parklets. She\nbelieved it was an important street that continued to develop. This was an opportunity to\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 9 of 21\nJuly 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-26", "page": 10, "text": "develop this area and to bring businesses to the area. She added that WABA and the\nFireside had done so much work with the community to accommodate everyone's needs.\nMike Van Dine discussed a better location for these types of events, the historic Merchant\nMarine Building at McKay Ave*. He said these buildings would be made available for the\ncommunity if the homeless cannot use them.\nPresident Teague closed public comment and opened board discussion and potential\naction.\nBoard Member Ruiz thanked the community members for coming out and for speaking so\npassionately about this item. She appreciated the efforts all the stakeholders had taken to\nmitigate the situation. She discussed that since this use was on Webster which was\ndedicated as a Main street and the ambiguity around the Special Use Permit, she was in\nsupport of the Temporary Use Permit with conditions. First, that the permit was\nnonrenewable, and secondly that they limit the maximum occupancy to 220 from 350 as\nan added effort to reduce noise and potential exposure to the covid (Delta) variant.\nVice President Saheba appreciated all the commentary and the notes that had been\ndistributed. He addressed that this was a challenging situation and that Covid had created\nnew opportunities, some that might be kept and others that would not be kept beyond the\ntime of the pandemic. He agreed that tying things like this to the Noise Ordinance was\ncritical and he brought up a similar situation on Park St and how that was mitigated. He\nsaid with where this situation was now, with bookings already scheduled and the desire to\nkeep this temporary space open he was in support of how this was moving forward. He\nadded that it needed to be continuously monitored to ensure that the Noise Ordinance\nwas maintained and if not changes would need to occur. He was in support of allowing\nthis to go through December; it just needed to be managed to ensure that the situation did\nnot continue to be an issue for the neighbors.\nBoard Member Curtis addressed the good that this project had done for the community\nand had brought a lot of things together with regard to its original mission. However, he\nbelieved that when it expanded into a venue with amplified events it had created a real\ninconvenience to the neighbors to the point that it affected some neighbors emotionally.\nHe also agreed with Board Member Ruiz about keeping the occupancy down due to Covid.\nHe also suggested no more amplified events after October. He believed that the weekend\nevents during the holiday season would cause a real imposition to the neighbors coming\nhome from work and with daylight savings ending soon the value of the park would\ndiminish substantially for daylight events. He didn't think this was something the neighbors\nshould have to put up with through the end of the year and supported ending things in\nOctober. He would not approve this going through to the end of the year.\nBoard Member Rothenberg thanked the public speakers and her fellow board members\nfor their thoughtful discussions and comments. She concurred that this was a meritorious\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 10 of 21\nJuly 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-26", "page": 11, "text": "temporary use of the site, consistent with the General Plan and the appropriate zoning of\na mixed-use commercial district. She saw that the charged ticketed events were a direct\nconsequence of paying musicians and they had only continued with contracts that were\nalready executed. She pointed out the suggestions about lowering occupancy and no\nmore amplified events after October, these might be contractually very difficult for the\nbusiness associate who had signed contracts and wanted to take that under consideration.\nShe agreed with the comments about conformance by the staff on the exact dates so that\ndates in the Use Permit match. She also agreed on the strict compliance with the Noise\nOrdinance and should be added to the terms of the Resolution. She was pleased to\nsupport this and added that people who lived around urban areas (she herself had lived\naround Golden Gate Park for many years) did organize their lives around public venues.\nShe thanked the neighbors for accommodating an important venue like this during these\ntimes and said she would work to make sure they had more events like this in appropriate\nplaces in the future.\nBoard Member Hom thanked WABA and the West End Arts District for organizing this\nevent, the origin and the purpose behind it was all very positive but at the same time, he\nrecognized the concerns expressed, fairly loudly, by residents. He also believed the key\nwas the enforcement of the noise ordinance, he was not opposed to adding that as a\ncondition. He was supportive of limiting the number of tickets for the events. He wanted to\nknow if there were contractual events made after the Use Permit was changed to allow\n350. Unless there was a contractual obligation he was in support of keeping the occupancy\nto 220. He thought this would not only help with potential exposure to Covid but would\nalso help with the limited parking concerns that had been brought up.\nPresident Teague asked Ms. Asbury if their contracts specify ticket sales over 220 as a\nrequirement.\nMs. Asbsury said they do not.\nBoard Member Hom asked if there was no contractual obligation that they had with the\nmusicians they had booked with an offer of tickets sales up to 350.\nMs. Asbury said that was correct, the contract was based on their fees for the performance\nnot how many people came.\nBoard Member Cisneros thanked everyone and said she appreciated the public for sharing\ntheir sentiments, she recognized that this was very contentious and emotional for people\non both sides. She was still in support and was consistent with her comments from the\nlast meeting. She wanted to see this move forward and agreed with some of the\nsuggestions laid out. She agreed with limiting the occupancy to 220 both for public health\nreasons and to help with noise issues. She also wanted to make sure that the Resolution\nwas consistent with what had been committed to by the applicant in their mitigation efforts,\nsuch as limiting the number of concerts to two events per weekend.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 11 of 21\nJuly 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-26", "page": 12, "text": "President Teague asked Ms. Russell about the issue of reducing the occupancy.\nStaff Member Wheeler said that he could accept Ms. Asbury's answer on that issue.\nPresident Teague thanked everyone for their feedback, thoughts, and work on this. He\nstated that this was an absolutely appropriate use with the Use Permit for this location, it\nwas the sound that wasn't appropriate. He discussed what the Noise Ordinance allowed\nand said the applicant would need to bring the noise down according to that ordinance.\nHe was concerned they would need more grant money to make up the difference in ticket\nsales if they lowered the occupancy to 220, so he could support either number. He was\ninsistent though that the applicant had to monitor the property line to keep the decimals\ncompliant with the Noise Ordinance.\nStaff Member Tai made a suggestion in accordance with the Noise Ordinance.\nBoard Member Hom asked for clarification on what a quiet street was.\nPresident Teague said a quiet street was 60. He explained more about how the police\nhandle noise complaints.\nThere was further discussion about scheduled events.\nPresident Teague made a motion to approve the amended resolution with the\ncorrect dates, with the specification from the mitigation list regarding the number\nof events per weekend to be limited to two, to require the applicant to monitor sound\nat the property line to comply with the 50 decimals at the residential side and 60\ndecimals otherwise. Also to reduce the 350 tickets to 220 tickets. Board Member\nRuiz seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 6-1 with\nBoard Member Curtis voting against.\n7-A 2021-1165\nPLN21-0077 - 1245 McKay Avenue - Design Review - Applicant: Alameda Point\nCollaborative. Public hearing to consider Design Review for an approximately 29,810-\nsquare-foot, two-story medical respite facility in a contemporary architectural design.\nGeneral Plan designation: Office. Zoning: A-P, Administrative Professional District. CEQA\nDetermination: Design Review approval for a permitted use is not subject to CEQA.\nMcCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group V. City of St. Helena (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 80,\nPublic Resources Code Section 21080. As a separate and independent basis, the City of\nAlameda adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration and an Addendum thereto in\ncompliance with CEQA and no further environmental review is required.\nHenry Dong, Planner III, introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report and\nattachments can be found at\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 12 of 21\nJuly 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-26", "page": 13, "text": " https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5031891&GUID=164AODE7-\nA13A-41FF-9A71-993AE1305D2A&FullText=1.\nDoug Biggs, the applicant, discussed a few things then introduced the architect for the\nproject, Chris Ebert of Ankrom Moisan and Sarita Govani of Mantle Landscape\nArchitecture.\nMr. Ebert presented where he discussed the design intent and goals.\nMs. Govani also presented where she discussed how the landscaping would support the\nbuilding design and programming at the facility.\nPresident Teague opened the board clarifying questions.\nBoard Member Ruiz thanked everyone for their presentations. She asked how users and\nvisitors would arrive. She wanted more elaboration on why they turned the front door away\nfrom the street.\nMr. Biggs discussed the 3 major uses of the center, a respite center for patients requiring\naftercare, and those patients would be picked up from the hospital and brought to the site\nby staff. There would be no walk-in opportunities. The downstairs will be a clinic that would\nserve the patients in the respite center but also serve residents of the senior living facility.\nThose patients will get to the clinic by a little walkway. The front area will be a resource\ncenter for residents of Alameda only who are at risk of becoming homeless or recently\nhomeless and will be by appointment only. They normally would have an opening at the\nfront but one of the concerns by neighbors was that people would loiter at the front or lines\nforming on the street. This is why all entrances will be off the street.\nBoard Member Ruiz then wanted clarification on the materiality of the building.\nMr. Ebert said the plan was for it to be an Exterior Insulation Finishing System (EIFS) and\nthey were thinking of a standard smooth texture.\nBoard Member Ruiz also asked about the visibility of the vents on the roof.\nMr. Ebert said you would be able to see them a bit but this was the least visible he had\never used.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked about the vents and roof design. She also asked if he had\nthought about using a concrete tile roof instead of a shingle roof.\nMr. Ebert explained what type of vents they would use and how it would work with the\nroof. He said that they had not looked at concrete tiles but had looked at asphalt and\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 13 of 21\nJuly 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-26", "page": 14, "text": "standing seam. Concrete tended to be too heavy and would add enough weight to be a\nstructural consideration.\nVice President Saheba asked if and where would the staff parking be.\nMr. Biggs said it would be adjacent to the East Bay Regional Park area. He added that\nsome staff would also be taking public transit.\nVice President Saheba asked when the decision for the roof would be made.\nMr. Ebert said the asphalt shingles was the one they were confident they could afford, the\nstanding seam were the ones they wanted if they could get there.\nVice President Saheba asked about the wood-look siding.\nMr. Ebert explained the properties of the product and what made it an excellent choice.\nVice President Saheba asked about the exterior lighting plan.\nMr. Ebert said it should have been in the full Design Review Package.\nVice President Saheba asked about the gable roof and how that space was being used.\nMr. Ebert said they were getting double use out of that area that was where they would\nstore mechanical equipment. It was not really a usable space for programming.\nPresident Teague informed Vice President Sahaba that the exterior lighting design was\non page 53.\nBoard Member Curtis stated that he had met with Mr. Biggs prior to this meeting and had\nanswered a lot of his questions. He had no other questions at this time.\nBoard Member Rothenberg thanked the staff and applicant for the presentation. She\nasked about how they had chosen the occupancy class. She also asked about how the\nbuilding would be powered.\nMr. Ebert explained how his background had helped with this design and how the clinical\nuse of the buildings also dedicated what it needed to be classified as.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked if the clinic would be open 24/7.\nMr. Biggs said the clinic would be open during the daytime hours and there will be staff on\nduty all night as well.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 14 of 21\nJuly 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-26", "page": 15, "text": "Mr. Ebert added there would not be licensed medical care 24 hours a day, licensed\nmedical care would only be available in the clinic. He then discussed that they would be\nall-electric. They had been looking at all the code requirements and would meet all the\nTitle 24 California Code Requirements and the City of Alameda's requirements.\nBoard Member Hom thanked the applicants for the presentation and had no further\nquestions at this time.\nBoard Member Cisneros stated that she too had previously met with the applicant and had\nno further questions.\nPresident Teague asked how the trash would be handled on-site for this building.\nMr. Ebert explained how trash would work.\nPresident Teague opened public comments. He reminded everyone that this was an\nopportunity to speak on the proposed design only. He stated if anyone deviated from this\nhe would ask that they hold their comments until the Oral Comments section of the\nmeeting.\nZac Bowling thought this was a great addition to Alameda and fit in well with the other\nbuildings on McKay Ave. He thought it would well serve the people who needed a facility\nlike this. He was in strong support and asked that the board support this as well.\nJay Garfinkle was unsure of what fell under \"Design Review\" and wanted to discuss the\nuses as well. He wanted to discuss the function of the building*.\n*President Teague clarified again what fell under the Design Review and cut off Mr.\nGarfinkle when he kept discussing the use of the building.\nBronwyn Harris was very excited about this addition to the neighborhood. She thought it\nlooked beautiful and went really well with the setting. She hoped the board would approve\nthe design.\nCarmen Reid wanted to discuss the preservation of the building and wanted to make the\napplicant use adaptive reuse*.\n*President Teague reminded her that this was a Design Review and when she continued\nto speak off-topic she was cut off. He reminded her that her comment would be best at\nthe Oral Communication portion.\nJohn Healy discussed the application and how this was the first they had heard of it. He\nalso thought the EIR was wrong*.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 15 of 21\nJuly 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-26", "page": 16, "text": "*Prescient Teague reminded him to stay on topic and told him to bring up these issues in\nthe Oral Communication section.\nMike Van Dine thought it was a beautiful design but felt that the designer had wasted an\nopportunity to embrace the history of the building.\nLis Cox wanted to know what area of the building the homeless would be welcomed into\nthe building to use the resource center on an appointment basis. She also wanted to know\nif there would be a screening area for the public who did not have an appointment.\nHarvey Rosenthal, a neighbor, said he had received no notification of this Design Review\nmeeting and thought that was unfortunate. He then discussed how the nature of the\nprogram had changed over time. He wanted to know more about how the homeless would\nbe homed.\nScott Hamilton thought it was a beautiful building but it did not match the neighborhood or\nthe history of Alameda. He also thought that the designer could have done more to honor\nthe original history of the building and the Merchant Marines.\nPresident Teague, before closing public comments, asked Celena Chen, City Attorney's\nOffice, and Staff Counsel, if public notice for this Design Review had been sent out and\nhow far was it noticed.\nCounsel Chen deferred to the staff for comment on the public noticing of this item.\nStaff Member Dong answered that public notice was sent out to all properties within 300\nfeet of the project site.\nPresident Teague made a last call for public speakers and asked if the board wanted to\nhear from Ms. Reid a second time.\nBoard Member Curtis said why not since it was a public hearing and others agreed.\nCarmen Reid thanked the board for the opportunity to talk. She addressed that there was\na\nviolation of public access, the Zoom link for tonight's meeting was broken. She wanted\nthe board to know that the public had not been able to fully access this meeting. In regards\nto the Design Review, she discussed the goals for the 2040 General Plan, CC-18 \"Building\nRenovation and Reuse\" talked about reusing existing buildings.\nPresident Teague thanked her for only discussing the design. He then closed the public\ncomments and opened board discussion and potential action. He also asked the staff to\nconfirm that the meeting ID that was published matched the meeting ID. He wanted to\nensure that this was a properly accessible meeting.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 16 of 21\nJuly 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-26", "page": 17, "text": "Board Member Ruiz thanked the staff, the applicant, and the designers for their\npresentation. She expressed her appreciation for the public's passionate comments. She\nthen stated that yes the General Plan did encourage the reuse and preservation of existing\nbuildings however that was not the purview of this meeting and this agenda item. The\ndemolition of the building had already been approved by the City Council and now as\nPlanning Board members, their duty was to act upon the agenda item which was a Design\nReview of the building. She appreciated the designer's fresh approach and to actually\nmake a statement. She did however want to see more street presence. She made other\ncomments and suggestions about the materials and how they would work with the design\noverall. She said she was not ready to approve the Resolution yet and wanted to see\nanother iteration of the design.\nVice President Saheba appreciated all the work and effort put into the design. He thought\nthe design concept was clear. He did however want to see more sustainability features\nand questioned if this was the elevation of McKay. He explained more about what he\nwanted to see for the elevation. He also wanted to know if this was a phased Design\nReview.\nMr. Ebert said yes the senior housing portion that was originally going to be reused but it\ndid not work out so they are relooking at that design. That was not his project but there\nwould be another Design Review for that portion.\nMr. Biggs added that at that review they would include the landscaping for the remainder\nof the campus.\nBoard Member Curtis stated that the use of this facility had already been determined so it\nwas a non-issue. Also, he had examined the plans and had gone over the flow with Mr.\nBiggs. He believed it was a good-looking building, had a great flow, and would be an asset\nand a benefit to the community. He cautioned that the biggest enemy of this project was\ntime, material costs were going up and every time they had to go back to the drawing\nboard that was adding costs. He stated he would approve the project because he thought\nit was a good-looking project and it suited the purpose for which it was voted on originally.\nHe said it was well thought out and they had done a good job.\nBoard Member Rothenberg concurred with Board Member Ruiz and Vice President\nSaheba on the overall design concept; it still needed more work. She discussed items that\nwould improve the design and what was missing overall. She also discussed how they\ncould incorporate more sustainability features and challenged them to do so.\nBoard Member Hom thanked everyone for their comments and reiterated that this was a\nDesign Review. He commented that he understood why there was a more private entrance\nand he agreed that the East elevation could use some more work. He believed the design\nwould be an upgrade for the area and was compatible with the area.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 17 of 21\nJuly 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-26", "page": 18, "text": "Board Member Cisneros believed this was a beautiful project, thoughtfully designed, and\nwould be a beautiful addition to the community. She was also anxious about moving the\nproject forward and hoped there was an opportunity to approve this with some of the\nthoughtful suggestions and modifications since time was the enemy. She understood the\ndesire to activate the street but privacy was something to keep in mind. She was in favor\nof moving this forward.\nPresident Teague thanked everyone for working through this over a long period of time,\nincluding the staff, project developers, and speakers on both sides. He also wanted to\nmove this forward and agreed that time was critical, especially since they would be\nrecessed for all of August. He discussed the importance of how public art could be used\nto acknowledge the history of this site. He was in favor of moving this forward with the\ncondition that staff would assist in improving the East facade.\nStaff Member Tai made a comment about the public art, the ordinance stated that it was\nthe applicant's choice if they wanted to produce on-site art or pay the in-lieu fees. Then\nthe public art has to be approved by the Public Art Commission.\nBoard Member Ruiz discussed their due diligence of this highly controversial project. She\ndid not feel comfortable leaving these changes at the staff level and wanted this project to\ncome back after the applicant had made changes for another Design Review.\nStaff Member Tai added that staff had done a check on the Zoom ID. The agenda had the\ncorrect Meeting ID but an old one was accidentally left on. The link for the meeting was\ncorrect though.\nStaff Counsel Chen concurred that this meeting had been properly noticed.\nThere was a discussion on the Design Review process and how much time it would take\nif this item needed to come back. Also, there was a discussion about their due diligence\nfor the community.\nBoard Member Cisneros made a motion to approve the Design Review with the\nfollowing conditions: more details on the roof materials, the EIFs material would\nhave a smooth texture, more sustainability features that were specifically\nmentioned, more refinement and activation on the McKay Ave elevation and that art\nthat honors the history of the site would be considered. Board Member Curtis\nseconded the motion and a roll call vote was taken. The motion passed 4-3 with\nVice President Saheba and Board Members Rothenberg and Ruiz voting against it.\n7-D 2021-1168\nBoard Elections\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 18 of 21\nJuly 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-26", "page": 19, "text": "President Teague stated how much he had appreciated being President of the board and\nwas glad to pass the gavel on to someone else.\nPresident Teague then nominated Vice President Saheba for President, Board\nMember Curtis seconded the nomination. A roll call vote was taken and the\nnomination passed 7-0.\nBoard Member Hom said it was his pleasure and honor to nominate Board Member\nRuiz as Vice President, Board Member Rothenberg seconded the nomination. A roll\ncall vote was taken and the nomination passed 7-0.\nVice President Saheba and Board Member Ruiz both said how honored they were for their\nnominations and this opportunity.\n8. MINUTES\n8-A 2021-1155\nDraft Meeting Minutes - June 14, 2021\nPresident Teague clarified his remarks on historic vs. historical. He meant to say, they\ndon't protect their historical homes, not the historic homes. In general, whenever you see\nthe word historic, think about what events or person made it historic not its age or\narchitecture.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked about a call for review that she no longer needed and wanted\nto know how the minutes would reflect that.\nStaff Member Tai said there was a note made during the last meeting, she had been\nabsent.\nBoard Member Ruiz made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Board\nMember Hom seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion\npassed 5-0 with Vice President Teague and Board Member Curtis abstaining due to\ntheir absence at the meeting.\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2021-1153\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions\nRecent actions and decisions can be found at\nittps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5031882&GUID=26A81772-\nC1E-4212-8EC9-B13D9FC42B91&FullTex\nNo board members wished to pull an item for review.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 19 of 21\nJuly 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-26", "page": 20, "text": "9-B 2021-1154\nOral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Tai announced they would be recessed for the month of August, their next\nmeeting would be Monday, September 13. At that meeting, there would be a General Plan\nUpdate, a parking code update, a review and comment on the Commercial Street\nProgram, and a review and comment on the City Council's Street and Facility Naming\nPolicy.\nDirector Thomas added they would also bring back the update on the Vision Zero Action\nPlan.\n9-C 2021-1171\nStaff Communication Regarding Building Permits for Block 11 at Alameda Point.\nInformation and attachment can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5035695&GUID=47F8B149-\n7237-4C26-9272-342F02CB06BO.\nNo one had any objections.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\n10-A 2021-1170\nWritten Communication from Bike Walk Alameda July 15, 2021\nThe letter can be found at\nttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5035694&GUID=AFBDD155-\nB95C-4F4C-A417-DFE393C0589D.\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nPresident Teague said it had been an honor presiding as President of the board and\nthanked everyone for their help and assistance. The other board members together\nthanked President Teague for his hard work.\nBoard Member Hom mentioned California's APA Conference was coming up and that it\nhad a lot of timely issues that might be of interest.\nDirector Thomas let everyone know how to register.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 20 of 21\nJuly 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-26", "page": 21, "text": "Carmen Reid stated again that the Zoom link was broken and was very disappointed that\npublic commenters were cut off while talking. She also did not believe that people had\ntried to discuss the use of the building and brought up 17 letters that had argued for reuse.\nLesa Ross pointed out that it was really hard to find the Zoom link.\nJay Garfinkle discussed that the design for the respite center needed to support the\nfunction of the building. He did not believe that any board member knew what was planned\nfor the facility. He thought that the Planning Staff was very politically influenced and had\nbeen trying to push this through.\nPresident Teague reminded him and everyone not to say disparaging comments about\nthe Planning Staff. They do a very difficult job and they should be appreciated.\nJohn Healy was dismayed that he had been cut off. He thought that the law was not being\napplied correctly and he was concerned about the homeless. He discussed the many\nchanges in this project. He also believed he should be able to speak freely on his opinions\nabout the staff.\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident Teague adjourned the meeting at 10:51 p.m.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 21 of 21\nJuly 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-26.pdf"}