{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2005-07-25", "page": 1, "text": "OF\nof\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING\nOF THE\nPENSION BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA\nHELD 4:30 P.M., MONDAY, JULY 25, 2005\nALAMEDA CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA\nCONFERENCE ROOM 391\n1.\nThe meeting was called to order by Chair Beverly Johnson at 4:35 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL: Present: Trustees Beverly Johnson, William Soderlund and Karen\nWillis. Staff: Juelle-Ann Boyer, Chief Financial Officer and Lelia Faapouli,\nAdministrative Technician, Human Resources. Absent: Trustees: Nancy Elzig\nand Robert Follrath.\n3.\nMINUTES: The minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 25, 2005 were\nreviewed. Member Soderlund motioned to accept the minutes as presented,\nmember Willis seconded; all were in favor and passed with a 3-0 vote.\n4.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n4-A.\nPENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL 2005:\na.\nIn the amount of $ 256,786.23 for the members under\nPension Ordinance No. 1079, N.S.\nb.\nIn the amount of $ 3,323.61 for the members under\nPension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S.\n4-B.\nPENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF MAY 2005:\na.\nIn the amount of $ 250,698.99 for the members under\nPension Ordinance No. 1067, N.S.\nb.\nIn the amount of $ 3,323.61 for the members under\nPension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S.\n4-C.\nPENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 2005:\na.\nIn the amount of $ 258,135.52 for the members under\nPension Ordinance No. 1079, N.S.\nb.\nIn the amount of $ 3,323.61 for the members under\nPension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S.\n\"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service\"", "path": "PensionBoard/2005-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2005-07-25", "page": 2, "text": "City of Alameda\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nPension Board - Monday, July 25, 2005\nPage 2\nMember Willis motioned to adopt the consent calendar as presented, Member\nSoderlund seconded; all were in favor and passed with a 3-0 vote.\n5.\nAGENDA ITEMS:\n5-A. The Chief Financial Officer noted the first run on the Financial Report for\nCity of Alameda Police and Fire Pension Funds for period ending June 30,\n2005 is a preliminary first closing and that second closing report will be\npresented at next meeting. In a motion by Member Soderlund and\nseconded by Member Willis, the Chief Financial Officer's Financial Report\nfor City of Alameda Police and Fire Pension Funds for the period ending\nJune 30, 2005 was accepted as presented; all were in favor and passed\nwith a 3-0 vote.\n5-B.\nContinuation of discussion on purchasing and erecting new flagpoles at\nCity Hall was not discussed due to absence of trustees. This issue will be\non agenda for next meeting in October 2005.\n5-C. Member Soderlund motioned to accept, with regrets, the memo from\nHuman Resources notifying of the death of 1079 Pensioner, Lee Perry,\nwidow of Eugene Perry, Fire Apparatus Operator. Member Willis\nseconded; all were in favor and passed with a 3-0 vote.\n5-D.\nJuelle-Ann Boyer, Chief Financial Officer, brought the finalized Report of\nResults of Actuarial Valuations of the Police and Fire Retirement System\n(Plan 1079 and 1082) and the Retiree Health Care Plan to be distributed\nto board members, copies to be mailed to absent members.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no oral communications.\n7.\nPENSION BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)\nThere were no communications from the board.\n\"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service\"", "path": "PensionBoard/2005-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2005-07-25", "page": 3, "text": "City of Alameda\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nPension Board - Monday, July 25, 2005\nPage 3\n8.\nADJOURNMENT:\nThere being no further business to come before the board, the meeting was\nadjourned at 4:40 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nKaren Willis, Human Resources Director\nand Secretary to the Pension Board\n\"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service\"", "path": "PensionBoard/2005-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-07-25", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, July 25, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:07 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMs. McNamara\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch,\nMcNamara and Piziali.\nBoard Member Mariani was absent.\nAlso present were Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Assistant City Manager Paul Benoit,\nSupervising Planner Cynthia Eliason, Planner II Dennis Brighton, and Executive Assistant Latisha\nJackson.\n4.\nMINUTES:\na.\nMinutes for the meeting of June 13, 2005 (continued from the meeting of June 27,\n2005).\nM/S Cook/Piziali to approve the minutes for the meeting of June 13, 2005, as presented.\nAYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Cunningham)\nb.\nMinutes for the meeting of July 11, 2005.\nM/S Kohlstrand/McNamara to approve the minutes for the meeting of July 11, 2005, as presented.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Cook)\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nItem seven (7) was moved to the end of the agenda as Board Member Mariani was not in attendance\nat the start of the meeting.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n7.\n2005-2006 ELECTION OF PLANNING BOARD OFFICERS:\nThis item was continued to the next meeting when a full board is present\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nJuly 25, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-07-25", "page": 2, "text": "8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n8-A.\nPDA05-0003 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates (DG). The applicant proposes a\nPlanned Development Amendment to amend the Harbor Bay Business Park landscaping and\nlot coverage provisions as established in Resolution 1203. This Amendment would affect Lots\n1-6, 8 and 12 of Tentative Parcel Map 8574. These lots are fronting on or southerly of 1900\nand 2000 North Loop Road. The proposed Planned Development Amendment would allow a\nfive percent (5%) increase in building coverage for parcels larger than 5.5 acres. Currently,\nmaximum allowed building coverage is thirty five percent (35%) for lots larger than 5.5 acres\nand forty percent (40%) on lots smaller than 5.5 acres. The maximum lot coverage allowed on\nlots smaller than 5.5 acres would not be affected. The proposed Planned Development\nAmendment would also decrease the minimum landscape coverage by five to ten percent (5 to\n10%), depending on lot size. Currently, 30% landscaping coverage is required on lots smaller\nthan 5.5 acres and 25% landscaping coverage is required for parcels larger than 5.5 acres. The\nproposed Planned Development Amendment would decrease the landscaping requirement to\ntwenty percent (20%) for these lots regardless of size. The property is zoned C-M - PD\n(Commercial-Manufacturing - Planned Development.) (Applicant requests a continuance\nto the meeting of August 22, 2005.)\nM/S Cook/McNamara to continue this item to the meeting of August 22, 2005.\nAYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nJuly 25, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-07-25", "page": 3, "text": "8-B.\nFDP05-0002/DR05-0057 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates (DG). The applicant\nrequests a Final Development Plan and Design Review for four (4) new flex warehouse, office\nand light manufacturing facilities ranging in size from 13,900 to 33,272 square feet on 6.41\nacres adjacent to and southerly of 2000 North Loop Road (Parcels 8-12 on Tentative Parcel\nMap No. 8574). These facilities will be on one lot of approximately 11.53 acres until the final\nmap is approved. The property is zoned C-M - PD (Commercial-Manufacturing - Planned\nDevelopment.) (Applicant requests a continuance to the meeting of August 22, 2005.)\nM/S Cook/McNamara to continue this item to the meeting of August 22, 2005.\nAYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nJuly 25, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-07-25", "page": 4, "text": "9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n9-A.\nVariance, V04-0002, and Major Design Review, DR03-0146 - Alvin Wong - 2708\nLincoln Avenue (DB). The applicant requests a Major Design Review approval for the\npartial demolition of an approximately 842-square foot, two-bedroom, single-story cottage\nand reconstruction to provide approximately 1, 114-square feet, four-bedroom, two-story,\nsingle-family residence, which includes partially covered off-street parking for two-tandem\nvehicles. Variances are required to permit the following: 1) The structure would be built to\nwithin 3-feet from the northwesterly side property line, where a minimum 5-foot setback is\nrequired; 2) The structure would cover approximately 51-percent of the site, where the\nmaximum permitted main building coverage is 48-percent for residences with attached\ngarages; and 3) The front porch would be relocated and covered and would be setback\napproximately 7-feet from the front property line, where 20-feet is the minimum required\nfront yard setback. The site is located within an R-1 (Single-Family Residence) Zoning\nDistrict.\nStaff member Dennis Brighton summarized the staff report and recommended approval of this item.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nThere being no speaker's slips for this item the public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board Member Kohlstrand regarding a discrepancy in the square footage\nstated on the public notice, Mr. Brighton responded that staff used the initial application which\nrequested an addition of roughly 1100 square feet of space. He explained that the proper wording\nshould have been a total of roughly 1800 square feet. The acting Planning & Building Director,\nGregory J. McFann, was aware of the discrepancy and determined that the item should be able to go\nforward with the minor alteration.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board Member McNamara regarding the second variance for lot\ncoverage, Mr. Brighton stated that the difference in lot coverage related to the provision of covered\nparking which allowed for a higher lot coverage. He explained that the proposed parking is partially\ncovered and the building forms somewhat of a carport over the parking area. Board Member\nMcNamara then asked whether a carport constituted covered parking. Mr. Brighton responded in the\naffirmative.\nIn response to second inquiry by Board Member McNamara regarding the proposed height of this\nbuilding relative to surrounding buildings, Mr. Brighton responded that the garages on both sides are\none story structures. The surrounding structures are two stories and one on Pearl Street has a two\nstory high gable, so they're compatible in story height. The maximum height allowed in the R-1 zone\nin 30 ft.\nBoard Member Piziali advised that the window schedule called for wood and the plans indicated a\nfiberglass frame window by integrity, Mr. Brighton responded that either window type is allowed.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nJuly 25, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-07-25", "page": 5, "text": "Staff does not make a design distinction between the two materials. Clad wood is preferred, but vinyl\nis permissible and only aluminum windows are prohibited.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice-President Cook regarding garage requirements, Mr. Brighton\nresponded that there is no distinction between covered parking, carports and garages. They are all\ntypes of covered parking. Ms. Eliason further explained that there is no City requirement to have\ncovered parking, as parking can all be unenclosed.\nIn response to a concern by Vice-President Cook regarding use of parking for storage, Mr. Brighton\nresponded that in some multiple family homes it has been required that carports or garage doors be\nremoved in order to restrict the ability to utilize their garage for storage. He explained that\nunenclosed parking tends to be used more for parking rather than storage.\nVice President Cook noted that it seems like a really big house for such a small lot. She understands\nthe constraints of the site, but was concerned there was a potential third story and this addition may\noverdevelop such a small lot. She noted the fact that she could see continuing the pre-existing\nsubstandard set backs, but she still didn't see where that requires you to have 51% coverage; you\ncould make the back of the house smaller and still come in under the required building coverage.\nBoard Member Lynch requested clarification on the third story item addressed by Vice President\nCook and her concern that the applicant would exceed 30 ft. Vice President Cook responded she\nrecalled the story requirements had been removed.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board Member Piziali regarding parking in the front yard, Ms. Eliason\nnoted that the parking in the front yard was a pre-existing condition.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board Member Kohlstrand regarding reduction of the front yard, Mr.\nBrighton stated the front yard is not being reduced and the front of the house is not being changed.\nThe actual parking configuration is not being changed except it's being partially covered now.\nIn response to Vice-President Cook regarding the location of the porch, Ms. Eliason stated that the\nporch is in a new location, but the parking situation is an existing parking situation. We are simply\nallowing them to partially cover the parking with the carport.\nBoard Member Kohlstrand informed the Board that after visiting the site, she feels that although the\nhouse is big for this lot, given the circumstances of the setting, this proposal is not an unreasonable\nrequest.\nBoard Member Piziali commented that the front of the building, where the porch is, goes straight up\nwith flat windows. He would prefer if there was some sort of cutback from the porch or the roof\ncould be set back to reduce massing visible from the street.\nBoard Member Lynch agreed that the drawings on the paper don't give it any depth; he noted that\nbecause it's a narrow lot you must go up. He feels that once it is built, it will actually look better than\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nJuly 25, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-07-25", "page": 6, "text": "the way it's drawn. Secondly, if the landing can continue across the front of the building it might\nbreak up some of the massing.\nBoard Member McNamara stated on the proposed north elevation drawing, there are two sets of\nrecessed elevations that the drawing doesn't do justice.\nPresident Cunningham advised the Board that he received a speaker's slip to speak on the item.\nM/S (McNamara/Piziali) and unanimous to re-open the public hearing.\nMs. Dian McPherson, 1539 Versailles Ave., spoke in favor of this item. She stated that Mr. Wong\nand his family were wonderful neighbors and strongly suggested that the Board approve the Variance\nfor their home.\nThe public hearing was closed.\nJulie Harryman addressed two questions the Board had. The first one she wanted to clarify with staff\nin reference to the parking and if there were two existing legal non-conforming parking spaces already\nat the property, so no variances would be needed on those parking spaces to which Mr. Brighton\nresponded in the affirmative. The second was the discrepancy in the noticing question posed by the\nBoard, where Ms. Harryman suggested that Board would vote to continue this item until the next\nmeeting, and have staff re-notice the item with the correct square footage and it would come back to\nthe next meeting as a consent calendar item.\nM/S (McNamara/Kohlstrand) and unanimous to have staff re-notice this item with the correct square\nfootage and continue it to the next meeting as a consent calendar item.\nAYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC (Vice\nPresident Cook).\nVice President Cook advised that this item could be removed from the agenda, as the APAC no\nlonger exists. Staff noted her request.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice President Cook).\nVice President Cook advised that there was nothing to report at this time.\nc.\nOral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nJuly 25, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-07-25", "page": 7, "text": "Board member Piziali advised that there was nothing to report at this time.\nd.\nOral Status Report regarding Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board\nmember Mariani).\nBoard member Mariani was not in attendance to present this item.\n12.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\na.\nTransportation Sub-Committee Member Appointment.\nMs. Eliason informed the Board that even though the APAC will be taken off the agenda, there would\nbe a need for a Board member for the transportation committee to which Board Member Kohlstrand\nvolunteered to be the representative.\nb.\nDiscussion of rolling stores.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board Member Lynch on what the definition of a rolling store is, Ms.\nEliason read the Alameda Municipal Code definition and description and stated that at the last City\nCouncil meeting, the Council directed that the Planning Board look at the City's rolling store\nprovisions even though they are not in the Development Code.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board Member Lynch regarding why this was an issue, Assistant City\nManager Paul Benoit responded that there is a citizen of Alameda who owns a business where he\nmakes espresso and coffee drinks in a van/truck. The owner approached the city with an interest in\nparking the vehicle on city property at the dog park by Washington Park. There was an issue on\nwhether the vehicle was allowed to use a city park while vending goods. He explained that the owner\nfiled for a business license and the Finance Department referred to the Municipal Code and explained\nto the applicant that this use was considered a \"rolling store\" and the City of Alameda does not allow\nthis type of business. The matter was further researched and it was discovered that one could obtain\na Use Permit for a \"concession\" in parks and this business could be considered a concession on\nwheels. The matter was then referred to the Parks Commission which is now in the process of\ndeveloping park rules and regulations for use. They are not considering this item until the rules and\nregulations have been established which won't be until approximately 2006.\nMr. Benoit continued that the only other way the citizen could operate this type of business is if the\nsection of the Municipal Code regarding rolling stores be amended. He also explained that this section\nof the code is dated decades ago. The Council referred this item to the Planning Board for their input\non how the City of Alameda should go about amending this section of the Municipal Code and what\nitems may be of concern if the amendment goes forward. He explained that the applicant has worked\non this issue for a number of months and would like resolution on the matter, but the City has to look\nat the bigger picture. He acknowledged that there are businesses that currently operate in this manner\nsuch as catering trucks that operate routinely around the City. Although people appreciate the goods\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nJuly 25, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-07-25", "page": 8, "text": "that they vend, technically, these types of businesses are not allowed.\nIn response to a point of clarification by Board Member Piziali about a vending booth or mobile\nbuilding that used to operate in Washington Park that sold different types of consumable items, Ms.\nEliason responded that such a facility would be considered a concession stand which requires a use\npermit and is allowed. She explained that rolling stores are allowed on private property with the\nproperty owner's permission and are not allowed to sell goods on city streets. These trucks are\ncommon at Alameda Point, off of the street. The other way these rolling stores are allowed are with\nuse permits at the parks. She explained that staff is researching how other communities handle these\ntypes of businesses. The City wants to be careful on how these types of uses are permitted, where\nthese businesses may be permitted to sell their goods. This is a delicate issue, so the City wants to be\nclear on what kinds of merchandise can be sold and how this will be approached.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding whether or not there is a time limit on\nhow long one of these businesses could stay in one location, Ms. Eliason responded not at this time.\nMr. Benoit added that at this point, at least for rolling stores, they would have to respect the\nregulations that are posted on the right of way. Beyond that, there aren't any special rules.\nMs. Susan Potter, 1717 5th Street, distributed copies of the proposal that was submitted to the City\nfor her \"rolling store\" business and pictures of the competition. She explained these types of business\nare not all on private property, they are all over Alameda Point and the entire City. She explained\nthat she was the mother of the gentlemen who wished to open a rolling store. She would like an\nanswer as to why they could not find a way of changing the ordinance to allow people to legally do\nbusiness in the city. She explained that there were numerous trucks coming to the Island to do\nbusiness and not contribute any monies to the City. She explained that she was told the mistake her\nson made was asking permission to run his business, where other vendors have not been granted\npermission, but still does business in the City. She feels the other vendors don't care about the city\nand they don't contribute any finances except for purchasing gasoline. She hopes that the ordinance\ncan change so the people who already have these types of businesses can blatantly stop ignoring the\nordinances and the people who want to run legal businesses in the City won't be told no.\nIn response to Board Member McNamara's inquiry regarding whether the photo's submitted to the\nBoard are current examples of these types of businesses, Ms. Potter responded in the affirmative. Ms.\nPotter also explained that these businesses are not solely operating at the base, but also on different\nstreets throughout the City.\nBoard Member Piziali acknowledged that he has seen these types of businesses on the base.\nIn response to President Cunningham's inquiry about whether these types of businesses are at\nconstruction sites as well, Ms. Potter responded in the affirmative.\nThe public hearing was closed.\nBoard Member Lynch expressed his concerns on this type of use. He explained that while he\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nJuly 25, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-07-25", "page": 9, "text": "appreciated the comments made by the speaker, he first must focus on the need to enforce the existing\nordinance. This is not a Planning & Building or Code Enforcement Department issue, but a Police\nDepartment issue. He did agree that two wrongs don't make it right. He explained he worked in a\njurisdiction where these types of business are an issue and you have to involve law enforcement to\nenforce the ordinance. Secondly he stated that this is a complex issue, in that not all vehicles are\nmade the same in terms of their waste and water regulations. He felt this was a slippery slope and\nurged staff to gather more information to address the current issue but to be sure, if the ordinance is\namended, it must be place specific and time specific.\nPresident Cunningham noted that there are a number of issues related to this item that need to be\naddressed and staff should look closely at this ordinance before any changes are proposed.\nAfter much Board discussion Ms. Eliason informed the board that this item would come back to the\nPlanning Board when all of the research has been addressed and a new ordinance has been drafted.\nAt that point, the item would be advertised for public comment.\n13.\nADJOURNMENT:\n7:57 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nPaul Benoit, Interim Secretary\nPlanning Board\nThese minutes were approved at the August 22, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was\naudio and video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nJuly 25, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-07-25.pdf"}