{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2021-10-25", "page": 1, "text": "any\nOF\nTERKA\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING\nOF THE\nPENSION BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA\nHELD 4:30 P.M., JULY 26, 2021\nALAMEDA CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA\nCONFERENCE ROOM 391\n1.\nThe meeting was called to order by Nancy Bronstein at 4:41 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL:\nPresent: Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft (joined at 4:45 p.m.), Secretary Nancy\nBronstein, Trustee Bill Soderlund via teleconference.\nAbsent: Trustee Nancy Elzig\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 Trustee Soderlund and seconded by Secretary Nancy Bronstein.\nPassed by roll call vote, 3-0.\n4.\nAGENDA ITEMS:\n4-A. Pension Payroll and Financial Reports - Quarters Ending June 30, 2021\nand City of Alameda Police & Fire Pension Funds Financial Reports for the\nPeriod Ending June, 2021.\nFinance Accountant Li presented the quarterly reports. The total pension\nexpenses for Plan 1079 remained the same in April and May. June's total\npension expenses included the quarterly uniform allowance payout. Expenses\nfor Plan 1082 remained the same in the fourth quarter.", "path": "PensionBoard/2021-10-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2021-10-25", "page": 2, "text": "City of Alameda\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nPension Board - Monday, July 26, 2021\nPage 2\nTrustee Soderlund moved to accept the financial statements as presented and\nSecretary Bronstein seconded. Passed by roll call vote, 3-0.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT):\nThere were no oral communications from the public.\n6.\nPENSION BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD):\nTrustee Soderlund asked for an update on finding a police representative for the\nboard. Secretary Bronstein stated Human Resources had identified current police\nemployees qualified to serve on the pension board, one being the Chief of Police.\nThat reach out is going on. Chair Aschaft said surely we will have one committed\nfor the next meeting.\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/2021-10-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-10-25", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2021\n1. CONVENE\nVice President Teresa Ruiz convened the meeting* at 7:00 p.m.\n*Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361, codified at Government Code Section 54953, Planning\nBoard members can attend the meeting via teleconference.\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Hanson Hom led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: Vice President Ruiz and Board Members Curtis, Hom, Rothenberg, Cisneros,\nand Teague.\nAbsent: President Asheshh Saheba\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nNone.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\nNone.\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2021-1418\nPublic Hearing to consider a Resolution Recommending that the City Council Approve\nAlameda General Plan 2040.\nDirector Thomas, Director of Planning, Building, and Transportation, introduced the item.\nThe staff report and attachments can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5187688&GUID=3C349A03-\n37F7-4F71-8A92-E9OF13DBB8AA&FullText=1.\nVice President Ruiz opened the board clarifying questions.\nBoard Member Hom asked for a summarization of the substantive changes to the General\nPlan that had happened since June.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 1 of 8\nOctober 25, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-10-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-10-25", "page": 2, "text": "Director Thomas discussed the number of revisions they had received and how they had\nintegrated those changes. He said most of the concerns and changes had revolved\naround housing. He discussed some of the biggest changes and the issues that were\nbeing addressed.\nBoard Member Rona Rothenberg thanked the staff for all their hard work. She suggested\nthat staff review the comments and suggestions from the Alameda Architecture\nPreservation Society (AAPS) and incorporate them if they were relevant.\nBoard Member Xiomara Cisneros also thanked the staff as well for their hard work. She\nwanted to confirm that the \"Housing Growth Opportunity Areas\" in the General Plan wasn't\nfinal.\nDirector Thomas explained how the Spotlights is the General Plan worked. In that\nSpotlight, they were trying to see where most of the growth in Alameda would be over 20\nyears. That map was not inclusive of all the sites they will need to consider for the Housing\nElement.\nBoard Member Cisneros asked for clarification on where information and plans for bicycle\nboulevards had gone.\nDirector Thomas discussed how the staff had thought about that term and how it should\nbe defined once it was adopted. They had backed away from ME-7 and focused on Slow\nStreets.\nBoard Member Alan Teague asked how changes they made would be presented to the\nCity Council. He suggested how the changes could be presented to the council.\nDirector Thomas answered that they would like to bring the board's recommendations to\nthe council and have the council adopt the General Plan with those additional changes\nbut he was open to Board Member Teague's suggestion.\nVice President Ruiz asked for clarification between The General Plan and the Housing\nElement, for the board's and the public's benefit. These are two living documents and she\nwanted to assure the public that the General Plan could move forward while the Housing\nElement was still being considered.\nDirector Thomas agreed and discussed the differences between The General Plan and\nthe Housing Element and the unique work that went into both of them. He also discussed\nthe difficult and important work that would be needed for the Housing Element, under state\nlaw it needed to be completed by this time next year.\nVice President Ruiz opened public comment.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 8\nOctober 25, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-10-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-10-25", "page": 3, "text": "Zac Bowling was very happy with the General Plan as it exists now. However, he\ndisagreed with some of AAPS's suggestions on language changes and the Alameda\nCitizens Task Force (ACT) request to change the langue around Article 26. He fully\nsupported the staff's recommendation to approve the General Plan and send it to the City\nCouncil.\nWilliam Smith, a resident, appreciated how the General Plan addressed equity in housing\nneeds. He gave his thoughts on what was making affordable housing difficult in some\nareas. He also gave his thought on SB-9 and how Alameda should address those needs.\nChristopher Buckley, AAPS, discussed a letter they had sent and commented on LU-15B.\nHe thought a clause should have been deleted and called that to staff's attention. He also\ncalled out some typos and errors and questioned the use of the word \"native\" for tree\nremoval. He discussed better wording for the tree removal section.\nBetsy Mathieson, a resident, thanked Director Thomas for explaining the differences\nbetween the General Plan and the Housing Element. She thought having a spotlight on\nhousing growth areas was premature.\nVice President Ruiz closed public comment and opened board discussion.\nBoard Member Curtis said this plan showed great work and was well laid out. He\nsuggested changing or toning down the language about Article 26 on the Spotlight on\npage 49. He thought as it was written now it distracted from the plan.\nBoard Member Hom agreed that this was an excellent document. He was very impressed\nwith the public review period that took place during the pandemic. He agreed with the\nminor amendment from AAPS to remove the word \"native\" in regards to tree preservation.\nOther than that he was fine with how the document currently stood.\nBoard Member Rothenberg concurred with her fellow board members and also agreed\nwith Board Member Hom about the comments from AAPS about the trees. She also\nsuggested that staff consider Board Member Curtis's comment about the Spotlight on\npage 49 and Board Member Cisneros's comment about the Spotlight on page 50. These\nwere only suggestions and she was ready to support the plan in its current draft.\nBoard Member Cisneros thanked the public for their comments and participation. She\ndiscussed the Spotlight on page 50 and that she was tying it to closing to the Housing\nElement and was fine with keeping it as it was. She was also amenable to editing the\nSpotlight on page 49 but that it needed to be factual. She then discussed the use of the\nword \"character\" as one of the four themes. She considered it a provocative word with a\ncertain connotation to it and could be used against some of the other goals.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 3 of 8\nOctober 25, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-10-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-10-25", "page": 4, "text": "Board Member Teague thanked everyone who participated in this and he was proud to\nhave his name on it. He suggested to drop \"by maximizing\" on page 30, he believed it\ngave it a larger scope. His other idea was to just change the word \"constructed\" to\n\"allowed\" and that would include existing property. He called out LU-17 Action A, it was\nan amazing action and critical to how they would move forward. He also appreciated that\na Main Street at Alameda Point was included. He also appreciated the updates to Historic\nPreservation. He then gave suggestions for rewording the Spotlight on page 49. He also\ngave wording suggestions for the Housing Growth Opportunities section and agreed with\nthe word changing for the tree preservation. He then discussed low-stress bikeways and\nfelt that ME-21 Ferry Parking Management needed some adjustment. He wanted City\nCouncil to receive an updated version and not a red-line version.\nVice President Ruiz thanked everyone for their heroic effort on this. She discussed the\nSpotlight on page 49 and agreed with Board Member Cisneros that they needed to state\nthe facts regarding Article 26. She also echoed Board Member Curtis about the wording\nbeing divisive. She discussed the trend of people living in multi-family housing by choice\nand not economic reasons, so they need to remove the stigma against multi-family\nhousing. She wanted the language to be more inclusive. For tree preservation, she\nsuggested \"non-invasive\" plants. She then discussed the use of the word \"character\" and\nasked Board Member Cisneros if she had any other suggestions.\nBoard Member Cisneros suggested balance. She also discussed her issues with the word\ncharacter in depth.\nDirector Thomas explained how they had broadened the theme of the word character in\nthe General Plan and that many of the comments discussed Alameda's unique character.\nThere was a discussion on the use of the word \"character\", its pros and cons, and if there\nwas another word that worked. Board Member Curtis felt that character worked well and\nBoard Member Teague did not like the word balance. Board Member Rothenberg agreed\nwith Board Member Teague and Curtis.\nDirector Thomas then clarified the notes and comments that he was hearing from the\nboard. He wanted to make sure he understood what the board wanted to see changed.\nBoard Member Teague made a motion to approve the General Plan with the\nfollowing changes: In LU-15-B, change the word \"constructed\" to \"allowed\" and\nchange the word \"maximizing\" to \"optimizing\". In regards to the Spotlight on Article\n26, the \"therefore section\" be deleted and instead be changed to \"the city must\neither repeal this article or mitigate its impact through mechanisms like the multi-\nfamily overlay and density bonus to gain the ability to eliminate disparities and\nburdens provide affordable and fair access to housing and social-economic\nopportunities to historically underserved and underrepresented populations\". On\npage 50, change the word \"these\" to \"some\". On page 71, change the word \"native\"\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 4 of 8\nOctober 25, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-10-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-10-25", "page": 5, "text": "to \"non-invasive\". On page 97 about the ferry terminal, strike from the documents\n\"such as rebates on needs-based parking passes\". Board Member Hom seconded\nthe motion and a roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.\n7-B 2021-1419\nA Public Workshop to Review and Comment on the Draft Housing Element Update to\naccommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the Period 2023-2031 in\nCompliance with State Law.\nVice President Ruiz recused herself from this agenda item and yielded the chair to Board\nMember Rothenberg.\nDirector Thomas introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report and\nattachments can be found\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5187690&GUID=5F160E3A\n308F-4586-AC17-656E73493D12&FullText=1.\nBoard Member Rothenberg opened public comments.\nZac Bowling gave his thoughts on upzoning residential areas. He believed the Regional\nHousing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers were too high not to do that. He also\ndiscussed that they had to get the Navy Cap removed from Alameda Point.\nBetsy Mathieson, a resident, discussed Alameda's history and how past decisions were\naffecting us now. Certain neighborhoods had become denser and transportation needs\nhad affected housing needs. She spoke strongly about protecting historic neighborhoods.\nWilliam Smith urged the board to make the Housing Element more equitable. He\ndiscussed past issues that Alameda had faced and how important public engagement\nwould be. He added that there needed to be concrete provisions to further Fair Housing.\nDolores Kelleher discussed the proposals that had been given by AAPS to prevent\nupzoning and density increases to reach our RHNA numbers. She wanted to see more\naction on these proposals and wanted to know what had been to contact the Federal\nGovernment about removing the Navy Cap at Alameda Point.\nChristopher Buckley, AAPS, discussed a 7-page letter the society had sent and said they\nwere still reviewing this document. The society had major concerns mainly with upzoning\nthe R-2 & 6 zones. He discussed ideas that AAPS had, such as looking at shopping\ncenters for housing.\nJosh Geyer discussed the importance of housing and how Alameda needed to do more.\nHe was very much in favor of putting housing in parking lots but they still needed to put\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 5 of 8\nOctober 25, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-10-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-10-25", "page": 6, "text": "housing in other places, such as the Gold Coast. He said the only way to address\nAlameda's past is to reverse those policies that had stopped housing.\nBoard Member Rothenberg closed public comment and opened board discussion.\nBoard Member Curtis asked about the number of units Alameda was responsible for.\nDirector Thomas said it was somewhere between 1-2%, Alameda's RHNA was 5,353\nunits. He then explained the failed appeal of that number, all the appeals from Alameda\nCounty had been denied.\nBoard Member Curtis asked about the removal of the Navy Market rate Cap and said\ngetting that removed should be a top priority. He wanted to know what it would take to\nmake that happen. His point was that removing that cap would buy flexibility for the city.\nDirector Thomas said that staff had heard that request from the community and the council\nloud and clear and that process had already begun. The Community Development and\nBase Reuse Department had started that conversation with the Navy. He discussed the\nother agencies that staff had reached out to for help on getting the cap removed. He made\nit very clear though that as great a housing opportunity as Alameda Point was they could\nnot put all 5,000 units on the point, they have to spread it out over the whole city. He said\nthat getting the Navy to respond was going to take work from their state and federal\nrepresentatives, regional partners, and all levels of government from California to\nWashington D.C.\nBoard Member Hom discussed the goals for sections one and two. He highlighted the goal\nto end homelessness and wanted prevention to be added to the actions. He also gave his\nthoughts on the Fair Housing analysis, the need to upzone residential districts, and ways\nto utilize shopping centers for housing. He also gave his thoughts on negotiating with the\nNavy about the cap and agreed it would take political pressure to get the Navy to respond.\nBoard Member Cisneros asked about SB-9 if the Housing Element complied with that.\nShe also brought up SB-10 and how to get some of ADUs to count toward lower income.\nDirector Thomas explained that was something they were still working on and discussed\nhow SB-9 would affect Alameda and what was already allowed in Alameda. He then\ndiscussed ways to incentivize homeowners to deed restrict their ADUs for lower-income.\nAllen Tai, City Planner, discussed how other cities were encouraging homeowners to build\nADUs by making the permit process easier and even waiving fees. Some cities required\nthe units to be deed restricted for affordable housing for 3-5 years.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 6 of 8\nOctober 25, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-10-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-10-25", "page": 7, "text": "Board Member Teague discussed how Alameda's RHNA should be in the first paragraph\non page 5. He then asked questions about table 2 and why low and very low were rolled\ntogether.\nDirector Thomas explained the table and that it was a Housing and Community\nDevelopment (HCD) choice. He then further explained what state law allowed for very low\nand low income.\nBoard Member Teague asked about fees and the list of developers. He then asked for an\nupdate about HCD's response to Article 26 and wanted to know if the Housing Element\nSubcommittee was still needed. He also recommended having a list of alternative sites for\nsites that were not approved. He then discussed existing buildings and how important it\nwas to know what they currently had and that they needed a section on removing barriers\nto development.\nDirector Thomas broke down how fees had changed and what to expect by the end of the\ncycle and explained the list was a list of developers who were ready to develop Alameda\nPoint once allowed. He then gave an update from HCD, he said they were swamped but\nhe was continuing to reach out to them. He was also very much in support of keeping the\nHousing Element Subcommittee. He pointed out sections that highlighted ways to remove\nbarriers to development.\nBoard Member Rothenberg wanted it to be well laid out for the public and suggested some\nrewording and how to make the tables more clear. She also suggested making more\nreferences to the Spotlight sections so people knew what tied together. She thought this\nwas a great start.\nVice President Ruiz rejoined the meeting.\n8. MINUTES\nNone.\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2021-1416\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions\nRecent action and decisions can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5187683&GUID=7A9F9F72-\n1813-4B97-BE2C-71B0289C3DOF&FullText=1.\nNo items were called for review.\n9-B 2021-1417\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 7 of 8\nOctober 25, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-10-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-10-25", "page": 8, "text": "Oral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Tai announced that there were 3 more meetings scheduled for the calendar\nyear. He quickly polled the board members about their availability around the upcoming\nholidays.\nDirector Thomas said the November 22nd meeting would mostly be zoning issues and\ncould be moved to the December meeting.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nVice President Ruiz adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 8 of 8\nOctober 25, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-10-25.pdf"}