{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2011-04-25", "page": 1, "text": "OF\nCity\nTERRA\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING\nOF THE\nPENSION BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA\nHELD 4:30 P.M., APRIL 25, 2011\nALAMEDA CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA\nCONFERENCE ROOM 391\n1.\nThe meeting was called to order by Chair Marie Gilmore at 4:31 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL:\nPresent: Chair Marie Gilmore Trustees: Robert Follrath, William Soderlund and\nKaren Willis.\nAbsent: Nancy Elzig\nStaff: Fred Marsh, Controller, Finance and Lelia Faapouli, Administrative\nTechnician III, Human Resources\n3.\nMINUTES:\nThe minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 25, 2010 were moved for\napproval by Member Follrath and seconded by Member Willis. Passed 3-0 with\none abstaining.\nThe minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 31, 2011 were moved for\napproval by Member Follrath and seconded by Member Willis. Passed 3-0 with\none abstaining.\n4.\nAGENDA ITEMS:\n4-A. Pension Payroll and Financial Reports - Quarter Ending March 31, 2011\nand City of Alameda Police & Fire Pension Funds Financial Reports For\nthe Period Ending March 31, 2011 from Fred Marsh, Controller, was\naccepted as presented by Member Soderlund and seconded by Member\nFollrath. Passed 4-0.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no oral communications.\n7.\nPENSION BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)\nMember Soderlund stated that he knew of a 1082 Pensioner who was planning\non marrying a widow of a 1082 Pensioner and that they were concerned about\nthe benefits. Member and Secretary to the Board Karen Willis told the Board that", "path": "PensionBoard/2011-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2011-04-25", "page": 2, "text": "City of Alameda\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nPension Board - Monday, April 25, 2011\nPage 2\nshe had met with these individuals and explained to them that the widow would\nlose her City paid retiree health benefits should she remarry and that the\nPensioner would not be able to add her to his City paid retiree health. Member\nSoderlund stated that both the Pensioner and the widow of the Pensioner\nunderstood that the widow would have to give up her medical benefits if they wed\nas this benefit is not transferable.\nMember and Secretary to the Board Willis also mentioned that the recent widow\nof a firefighter will not be receiving City paid retiree health benefits as the\nfirefighter was not retired from the City at the time of his death. The benefits for\nthe widow are being provided through a state program under a service related\ndeath which are similar to a full pension benefit and retiree health benefit.\nMember Follrath acknowledged the death of Phillip Bonadona (Retired Police\nSergeant) and requested a condolence letter be sent to his widow.\n8.\nADJOURNMENT:\nThere being no further business to come before the board, the meeting was\nadjourned at 4:39 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nKaren Willis, Human Resources Director\nand Secretary to the Pension Board", "path": "PensionBoard/2011-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-04-25", "page": 1, "text": "DRAFT MEETING MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, APRIL 25, 2011\n7:00 p.m.\n1. CONVENE:\n7:07 p.m.\n2. FLAG SALUTE:\nBoard member Wallis\n3. ROLL CALL:\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft, board members Ibsen, Kohlstrand, Wallis,\nand Zuppan (arrived later).\nAbsent: Vice-President Autorino and Board member Lynch\n4. MINUTES:\nMinutes from the Regular meeting of February 28, 2011\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft requested that the meeting minutes be amended to correct a\ntypographical error on page 5. Board member Wallis moved, seconded by board member\nKohlstrand, to approve the meeting minutes. Approved as amended (5-0).\nMinutes from the Regular meeting of March 14, 2011 (Pending)\nMinutes from the Special meeting of March 28, 2011 (Pending)\n5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None.\n6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nWritten Report\n6-A Future Agendas\nAndrew Thomas presented an overview of future projects.\nBoard member Kohlstrand asked that the transportation thresholds be placed back on the\nlist for board review.\n6-B Zoning Administrator Report\nMeeting of 4/5/2011-Canceled\nMeeting of 4/19/2011-Canceled\n7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n8. CONSENT CALENDAR:\nNone.\nDRAFT MEETING MINUTES\n1 of 5\nPLANNING BOARD 4/25/2011", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-04-25", "page": 2, "text": "9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A\nPLN11-0046 - Rezoning - 1348 Weber Street. A proposal to rezone a 2,738\nsquare foot parcel from C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-4 (Neighborhood\nResidential District). The current residential use of the site is nonconforming, which\nprohibits the rebuild of the structure if over 70% destroyed. The proposed change\nwill make the existing duplex residences a conforming use, thereby allowing the\napplicant to rebuild the dwelling if destroyed.\nBrian Stanke, staff planner, presented the project.\nBoard member Kohlstrand asked why the General Plan designation was not also changed\nto reflect the Zoning code change.\nMr. Stanke explained that the Planning division did not support spot zoning at this time. The\nexisting General Plan designation allows for more flexibility, should the property owner want\nto develop a commercial use on the ground floor in the future.\nBoard member Kohlstrand asked that staff review the potential to clean up all areas that\ncould benefit from rezoning and or general plan amendments.\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, agreed that staff would review the potential to\nclean up the zoning and general plan map as time permits.\nMotion made by Kohlstrand, seconded by board member Ibsen, to approve the project.\nApproved 5-0.\n9-B\nUse Permit - PLN11-0040 - 1408 A/B, 1410, 1412, 1414, 1418, 1420, and 1504\nEncinal Avenue - Jawad Jaber. Review of a Use Permit for the operation of a\nvariety of businesses in several retail spaces facing the public right or way, such as\n1) coffee shop, 2) office space, 3) retail and 4) restaurant and 5) additional uses in a\nC-1, Neighborhood Business District. Pursuant to AMC 30-4.8.c.2 and 30-4.8.c.4 a\nUse Permit is required for the operation of businesses that are not permitted by right\nin the C-1, Neighborhood Business District. Approved as amended 5-0.\nSimone Wolter, Staff Planner, presented the project.\nBoard member Kohlstrand appreciated the effort put forth to develop a mechanism to\nexpedite businesses to locate here, but she was concerned that the true impact of a new\nbusiness cannot be reviewed by the board. She asked what the benefit would be for a future\ntenant to go through this process, opposed to a tenant getting their own Use Permit.\nMs. Wolter explained the genesis of the project, and explained the Zoning Compliance\nDetermination process for the listed uses covered under this Master Use Permit. This\nmaster use permit allows for an expedited review.\nBoard member Ibsen supports the use permit and feels comfortable with the parameters set\nDRAFT MEETING MINUTES\n2 of 5\nPLANNING BOARD 4/25/2011", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-04-25", "page": 3, "text": "in the use permit.\nBoard member Wallis voiced his concerns about the mix of uses and how the mix of uses,\ntwo years from now, may become deleterious to the neighborhood.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is concerned that the mix would not be diverse and\nMorton Street would fill up with only one kind of use.\nMr. Thomas suggested altering the conditions of approval to return to the board for review\nwithin two years. He pointed out that the existing uses would be precluded from this review,\nto protect their right to exercise their business.\nBoard member Wallis supported this idea.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft would like to see that the board give more thought to finding three\nin regards to \"deleterious effects to other business districts and existing businesses. She\ndoes not support that zoning compliance determinations be completed over the counter.\nInstead, she recommends that any future tenant sit down with the planner and review the\nconditions of approval. She then asked whether this master use permit is similar to the\nproposed form-based code as proposed for the North of Lincoln area.\nBoard member Kohlstrand asked for clarification on condition number 9 and the expiration\ndate of the Use Permit.\nMs. Wolter explained that a Use Permit becomes null and void, pursuant to the development\ncode, if the uses covered in this use permit are not active for a duration of two years.\nMr. Thomas elaborated on the expiration date and suggested that the board may want to\nconsider a review period in two years to evaluate the efficiency of the use permit and\nestablish if the proposed uses under this use permit are still the right mix for Morton Street.\nBoard member Wallis asked for more clarification on the legal framework for extending the\nuse permit for two years again after the initial approval date.\nMs Wolter explained the difference between condition number 7 and 9 and explained the\nrevision process in two years.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft supported a two year review and written zoning compliance\ndetermination.\nBoard member Kohlstrand added that the planning division be called out as the division that\nwould issue the zoning compliance determination. She supported a review in two years.\nMr. Thomas suggested language revisions to condition number 9 to reflect the requested\nchanges by President Ezzy Ashcraft and board member Kohlstrand. He also explained that\nexisting uses established under the use permit, within the two year period, would not be\nsubject to review when the mandatory two year review comes before the board again.\nBoard member Zuppan asked how the suggested uses were assembled. She found the mix\nif uses to be not particularly synergistic.\nMs Wolter explained that the mix of uses was solely based on the archaic C-1 zoning code\nthat allows certain uses permitted with use permits.\nDRAFT MEETING MINUTES\n3 of 5\nPLANNING BOARD 4/25/2011", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-04-25", "page": 4, "text": "Motion made by board member Ibsen, seconded by board member Kohlstrand, to approve\nthe project as amended. Approved 5-0.\n9-C\nReview and Comment on Staff's Preliminary Responses to the Regional\nSustainable Communities Strategy - Initial Vision Scenario.\nBoard member Zuppan pointed out that the study did not take into account the changes in\nthe population age mix, nor the change in business operations, i.e. people telecommute\nmore frequently now. She found the study to be inadequate.\nBoard member Kohlstrand thought that the study did encompass major shifts in education,\nbusiness operations, and population trends. She stated that the purpose of the ABAG plan\nwas to establish competitive housing in-fill rates in the Bay Area so that work-related\ncommuting distances were reduced from the valley areas. She supported this effort.\nBoard member Wallis pointed out that the study lacks an evaluation of public health impacts\nand intergenerational behavioral shifts in the general population.\nBoard member Kohlstrand stated that transportation constitutes about 40 percent of our\ngreenhouse gas emissions in the State. She reasoned that compacter development is\nimportant to counter that transportation impact. She supported the comments suggested by\nPlanning Staff. In addition, she requested that the letter point out the things that Alameda is\nalready doing to counter greenhouse gas emissions and develop housing units. She\nbelieves that establishing housing values to concentrate development in the existing bay\nregion is important as oppose to seeing development out in the valley areas which the bay\narea then has to serve. She also emphasized that the Regional Transportation Plan needs\nto include the efforts that will occur at Alameda Point.\nBoard member Zuppan seconded comments made and stated that Alameda Municipal\nPower operations should be included in the comments on the Initial Vision Scenario.\nNo action taken on this item.\n9-D\nReview and Comment on Summary Report for the Community Planning\nProcess for Alameda Point.\nMr. Thomas, Planning Services Manager, provided an overview of the planning process and\nsummarized the findings made in the summary report.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft opened the public comment period.\nMs. Karen Bey, Alameda resident, spoke in favor of keeping the ferry terminal in the\nseaplane lagoon in the future plans. She believes that the ferry terminal location would be a\npivotal instrument to counteract transportation impacts on Alameda. A ferry terminal would\nbe essential to making Alameda Point a world-class development. She recommended that\nthe planning process not cap the housing numbers too early, because housing generally can\nsupport the backbone infrastructure needed within a development.\nMs. Pryor, Alameda resident, urged the board to include affordable housing so that all\ndemographic groups would be able to afford living at the Alameda Point development.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft closed the public comment period.\nDRAFT MEETING MINUTES\n4 of 5\nPLANNING BOARD 4/25/2011", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-04-25", "page": 5, "text": "Board member Kohlstrand was supportive of the upcoming community forums on economic\nconstraints and traffic impacts. She would like to see the cost assumptions that would be\nrequired to replace the infrastructure, see which components will be preserved.\nBoard member Zuppan stressed that the jobs and housing balance is paramount for any\ndevelopment plan for Alameda Point.\nBoard member Wallis cautioned to look city-wide for spill-over impacts when developing\nplans for Alameda Point.\nBoard member Ibsen seconded previous comments. He stressed that presenting the pro-\nforma to the public, to present the economic numbers, will be key in moving this project\nforward. He cautioned not to frame the discussion in terms of more housing VS less housing\nor similar contrasts.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft pointed out that the forums had a lot of repeat visitors and as such\nthinks that the summary may be a bit skewed one way or the other. She urged that planning\nstaff, which does this as a profession, provide the backbone of the analysis and policy\nrecommendations. She also strongly supports the location of a ferry at the seaplane lagoon\nto anchor the transit-oriented development at Alameda Point. She considers a joint auction\nbetween the Navy and the City to auction off parts of Alameda Point hugely regrettable.\nMr. Thomas explained that staff is considering keeping the ferry terminal in its current\nlocation because the cost of relocation would be significant and would take away funding\nopportunities for others, also important, infrastructure components.\nBoard member Kohlstrand pointed out that the ferry is not the key feature that will make a\ntransportation oriented development work or not, since more people need to get to the east\nbay and not that many people need to take the ferry.\nMr. Thomas explained the next steps, timeline, and the involvement with the City Council.\nNo action taken on this item.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nCity Council Report - Update on the City's Green Initiatives\nThe Board received this item. President Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that staff should work\nwith CASA on this issue. No action was taken on this item.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft recommended that Board member Zuppan be an alternate on the\nWebster Street Vision Implementation Committee.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT: 10:15 pm\nDRAFT MEETING MINUTES\n5 of 5\nPLANNING BOARD 4/25/2011", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-04-25.pdf"}