{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2015-04-27", "page": 1, "text": "00\nthe\nThe\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING\nOF THE\nPENSION BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA\nHELD 4:30 P.M., APRIL 27, 2015\nALAMEDA CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA\nCONFERENCE ROOM 391\n1.\nThe meeting was called to order by Chair Trish Herrera Spencer at 4:35 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL:\nPresent: Trustees: Trish Herrera Spencer, William Soderlund, Nancy Elzig, and\nJill Kovacs. Absent: Bruce Edwards\nStaff: Elena Adair, Finance Director; Brad Farmer, Acting Financial Services\nManager, and Lelia Faapouli, Human Resources.\n3.\nMINUTES:\nThe minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 26, 2015 was moved for approval\nby Member Soderlund and seconded by Member Elzig. Passed 4-0.\n4.\nAGENDA ITEMS:\n4-A. Pension Payroll and Financial Reports - Quarter Ending March 31, 2015\nand City of Alameda Police & Fire Pension Funds Financial Reports for the\nPeriod Ending March 31, 2015 were accepted as presented and moved for\napproval by Member Soderlund and seconded by Member Elzig. Passed 4-0.\nFinance Director Adair brought up a question from the auditors: Do we need to\nhave a separate annual financial report for the Pension Funds? The Pension\nOrdinance does not say we need to have separately audited financial statements\nfor 1079 and 1082 Pensioners. The Ordinance requires Finance to provide the\nBoard with a report as we are doing now, but does not ask for a separate annual\nfinancial report. This raises the question, should we continue to have auditors\nissue a separate report for these particular Pension plans or can we stop these\nreports, which cost the City $10,000. Acting Financial Services Manager Farmer", "path": "PensionBoard/2015-04-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2015-04-27", "page": 2, "text": "City of Alameda\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nPension Board - Monday, April 27, 2015\nPage 2\nsaid that this is redundant reporting since the same information is in the City's\nComprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and as such, is still subject to\nnormal full audit testing. This proposal is to eliminate the external audit and the\nseparate end of year financial report and save the City $10,000.\nChair Herrera Spencer would like this issue to be on the agenda for the next\nmeeting so the Board can review and give feedback before deciding and so the\npublic can be notified. Since we are talking about not having a separate external\naudit, it has to be reflected formally because it is a significant change.\nMember Kovacs asked the Finance Department to provide a report to the Board\nstating what the Ordinance says, what we have been doing and what we are\nproposing to do. Chair Herrera Spencer would like to see a copy of the last\nexternal audit attached to the report because that is what is being eliminated in\nthe future.\nMember Kovacs asked if the CAFR includes the required information as a\nseparate section so the Board could readily locate it. Acting Financial Services\nManager Farmer stated that it is under the \"Trust & Agency\" section. He said the\nCity is duplicating efforts. The City changed auditors and this new firm\nquestioned if the separate report is needed. The Pension Ordinance specifically\nsays there is a report due and that the report should be presented to Council at\nthe end of the fiscal year and we have been complying by providing a separate\nreport. The auditors are recommending that we comply with this requirement\nthrough the CAFR versus a separate report.\nChair Herrera Spencer asked if auditors are working now, and was informed that\nthey would be back in June and then in September for the final audit. Acting\nFinancial Services Manager Farmer replied that the next Pension Board meeting\nwill be in July, and the Board can make a decision at that time in time for the final\naudit. Member Kovacs asked Finance staff to provide the Board with both the\nlast Pension Plan audit report and the corresponding CAFR page, so the Board\ncan see what we are giving up and what we are getting.\nChair Herrera Spencer asked for the $10,000 cost reduction information to be\nprovided in writing. Member Soderlund asked if this had to go to Council. Acting\nFinancial Services Manager Farmer advised that Council needs to approve if\nfunding goes up but not when it goes down. However, the Board can make an\nofficial recommendation. Member Soderlund asked if recommendation to stop\nthe end of year separate report, is agreed on at the July meeting, if that is\nenough time to cancel $10,000 for this year. Finance Director Adair said it\nshould be enough time, that this is a part of the City's CAFR contract so the\nreport has to be done anyway. The $10,000 is to issue the separate report.", "path": "PensionBoard/2015-04-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2015-04-27", "page": 3, "text": "City of Alameda\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nPension Board - Monday, April 27, 2015\nPage 3\n4-B. Memo regarding the death of 1079 Pensioner - Consuelo Servente\n(Widow of Fire Chief Ernest Servente) deceased 10/26/14, was accepted with\nregret by Member Elzig and seconded by Member Soderlund. Passed 4-0.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT):\nThere was no communication from the public.\n6.\nPENSION BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD):\nMember Kovacs shared with the Board that this is the last meeting for Acting\nFinancial Services Manager, Brad Farmer, as he will be heading off to Pittsburg\nto be their Finance Director. The Board thanked him for his reports and wished\nhim well.\nMember Soderlund asked about the thank-you letter to former Pension Board\nmember Robert Follrath. Member Kovacs shared a copy of what was sent to Mr.\nFollrath by the City Clerk, a certificate and thank you letter with her personal note\non letter. Member Kovacs provided a thank you letter on the Mayor's letterhead\nfrom the Pension Board for all Pension Board members to sign and to be mailed\nto Mr. Follrath.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT:\nThere being no further business to come before the board, the meeting was\nadjourned at 4:55 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\ntifk\nJill Koyacs\nSecr\u00e9tary to the Pension Board", "path": "PensionBoard/2015-04-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-04-27", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MEETING MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, APRIL 27, 2015\n1. CONVENE:\n7:04 P.M.\n2. FLAG SALUTE:\nBoard member Knox White led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL:\nPresent: Vice President Alvarez and Board Members Burton,\nKnox White, Koster, Tang and Zuppan. Absent: President\nHenneberry.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR:\n6-A. 2015-1610\nApprove a Resolution Finding that the Harbor Bay Entities have\ndemonstrated good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of\nDevelopment Agreement DA-89-1, through April 4, 2015, Based on\nthe Findings Contained in the Draft Resolution. This Compliance\nReview is not a project under CEQA.\nBoard Member Burton motioned to approve the Annual Report. Board Member Knox White\nseconded the motion. The motion carried, 6-0.\n6-B. 2015-1611\nPLN15-0078- 801 Marina Village Parkway- Applicant: Arrow Sign\nCompany for Westwood Financial Corporation. The applicant is\nrequesting an amendment to the previously approved Sign Program\nfor the Marina Village Shopping Center to allow for two (2)\nfreestanding signs along the shopping center frontage on Marina\nVillage Parkway. This project is exempt from the California\nEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines\nSection 15311-Accessory Structures.\nBoard Member Knox White asked for the item to be pulled from the Consent Calendar.\nMr. David Sablan, Planner I, , explained that there was an additional condition of\napproval added to require energy-efficient lighting for all fixtures.\nBoard Member Knox White motioned approval with the added condition. Board Member\nZuppan seconded the motion. The motion carried, 6-0.\nApproved Regular Meeting\nPage 1 of 6\nMinutes April 27, 2015", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-04-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-04-27", "page": 2, "text": "7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n7-A. 2015-1606\nPublic Workshop on Alameda Point Site A Development, including an\nUpdated Draft Development Plan and Density Bonus Waiver,\nConditions of Approval, and a Draft Transportation Demand\nManagement Plan Compliance Strategy, and a Draft Development\nAgreement.\nMr. Andrew Thomas, City Planner, gave the presentation.\nMr. Thomas introduced Mr. David Israel of BAR Architects. Mr. Israel gave the\npresentation.\nThere were no public speakers.\nBoard Comments:\nMr. Thomas reminded the public that tonight's meeting was the last opportunity for the\npublic to give their input on the Site A plan to the development team, City staff, and the\nBoard. The final version of the plan would be brought to the Board at the meeting on May\n11th\nBoard Member Koster asked about potential commercial and civic uses that could be\nincluded in Site A. Mr. Thomas replied that Alameda Point would have various community\nand recreational services for its residents, but they will not all be located in Site A. Board\nmember Koster asked whether it would be permitted to develop a church in the site. Mr.\nThomas responded that it would be permitted, but there are no current plans for any\nspecific development at this time.\nBoard Member Burton said he was happy to see a change to the parallel parking proposal.\nHe asked for clarification on the affordable-housing units, which consist of both single-and\nmulti-story housing. He praised the development team's effort on the massing of the\nbuildings and for integrating new buildings with existing ones. Board Member Burton asked\nfor clarification on the widths of the streets, in order to make sure that they were wide\nenough for the fire department but narrow for everyday traffic. He said that it is critical for\nbicycle access to all of the park areas.\nBoard Member Tang asked for clarification on the size of the trees on Ralph Apezzato\nMemorial Parkway.\nApproved Regular Meeting\nPage 2 of 6\nMinutes April 27, 2015", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-04-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-04-27", "page": 3, "text": "Board Member Koster said he appreciated the architects' massing models. He said he\nnoticed the site's waterfront edge, and how it could be a space to transition from one part\nof the site to another. He said that he agreed with Board Member Burton that there should\nbe a reminder of the naval history in the area.\nBoard Member Zuppan echoed Board Member Koster's comments about the massing.\nShe said that the plans are moving in the right direction. She asked if modifications to\nexisting buildings would be brought back to the Board for review. Mr. Thomas explained\nthat none of the existing buildings are not technically historic, but some of the new\nbuildings will need certification from the Historical Advisory Board and Design Review\napproval from the Planning Board.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked if there is a set budget for this project. Ms. Jennifer Ott,\nChief Operating Officer for Alameda Point, said that the City Council will be presented with\na Fiscal Impact Report on Site A at their meeting on May 19th. The numbers presented to\nthe Council are meant to be conservative in order to have some flexibility. Currently, the\nprice for park development and maintenance in Site A is budgeted at about $20,000 per\nacre per year, which is about 1/3 of the infrastructure budget for the area. Ms. Ott\nintroduced Mr. Joe Ernst, of Alameda Point Partners. Mr.\nErnst explained that there will be an open dialogue about where, to place parks, and how to\nuse the available money wisely.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked Mr. Thomas whether or not buildings would have to be\napproved according to future ordinances. Mr. Thomas explained that, once the City\nCouncil approves the Development Plan, the current ordinances are frozen for the site. If\nthe State of California updates the building code or other laws, the project would be subject\nthose updates and changes.\nBoard Member Burton added that the senior housing on the site would be subject to State\naccessibility rules, which would be of a higher standard than municipal Design Review\nguidelines.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she was pleased with the work of the design team. She said it\nis a great plan to mix the historic nature of the site with opportunities for future growth. She\nsaid she is glad that there is a plan to bring real economic viability and character to\nAlameda Point. She praised staff and the team for their efforts.\nBoard Member Knox White echoed the comments of the other Board Members. He said he\nagreed with Board Member Burton about the issues regarding universal design. He said\nthat he still had issues about parking in front of some of the houses, but said that these\nissues could be dealt in the Design Review stage. Mr. Thomas explained that the plans\nwould be brought before the Historical Advisory Board on May 7th for their input. Board\nApproved Regular Meeting\nPage 3 of 6\nMinutes April 27, 2015", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-04-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-04-27", "page": 4, "text": "Member Knox White said he agreed with Board Members Koster and Burton, and said that\nthere should be public spaces wherever possible. Mr. Thomas explained that these issues\nwould be discussed during the Design Review stage.\nVice President Alvarez asked Mr. Thomas to make sure that all references are consistent\nthroughout the drawings. She thanked the development team for their work. She said that\nthere was an issue with universal design for the new buildings.\nBoard Member Burton asked about the architectural design in the illustrative plan, and said\nthat some of the housing blocks shouldp look different from each other. He said he would\nlike to see different architects design different blocks in the interest of diversity.\nBoard Member Knox White asked about the Transportation plan. Mr. Phil Olmsted of\nNelson Nygaard said that the exact routing of the shuttle is currently undefined, but he said\nhe hoped that there could be a connection to AC Transit or BART in the future. Ms. Ott\nsaid that her preference was for AC Transit to provide this service, but she was not\nopposed to having fast and convenient transit run by a private company.\nBoard Member Knox White asked for clarification about the different between time limits\nand pricing for parking. Mr. Olmsted explained the differences between the two categories.\nBoard Member Knox White said that if the Board was going to look at the TOM strategies\nthen there should be other issues that should be made as well, including penalties for non-\ncompliance. Mr. Ernst said that the development team tried to minimize the townhome units\nin order to achieve the access to transit, but said that townhomes are needed in order to\nachieve the financial viability of the project as a whole.\nMr. Olmsted said that a key to achieving a reduction in automobile trip reductions in the\nTOM plan is to unbundle parking for the project. Board Member Knox White said that\ncurrently, the Town Center Development Plan calls for unbundled parking.\nBoard Member Zuppan said that there are several strategies for success, but that they are\ndependent on what might happen in the area over the next 20 years. She said that the\nevidence is correlative and not causative. As such, it would be better to allow for the\nparking plans to change over time as long as it conforms to certain criteria.\nBoard Member Koster said he has seen various car-sharing programs that are available\nfor visitors, or other programs that allow for residents to share their cars for visitors. He\nurged such programs to be implemented in Alameda Point.\nApproved Regular Meeting\nPage 4 of 6\nMinutes April 27, 2015", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-04-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-04-27", "page": 5, "text": "Board Member Tang said that there should be programs to encourage carpooling among\nemployees in order to save parking spaces. He said that there could be other programs to\nlink a customer's parking fees with their shopping at local stores.\nBoard Member Burton said he agreed with many of Board Member Knox White's\ncomments. He thanked Mr. Olmsted for his work. He suggested that the developer should\nkeep the parking unbundled for now, but to have the option to change that in the Design\nReview stage.\nMr. Thomas thanked the Planning Board for their work on this issue.\n7-B 2015-1586\nPLN14-0701- 2100 Clement Street (Clement, Willow, Eagle\nProject), Design Review, Development Plan, Density Bonus and\nVesting Tentative Map- A Public hearing to consider applications to\npermit construction of 58 attached townhomes on a 2.78 acre site\nlocated at 2100 Clement Street. Continued to a date to be\ndetermined.\n7-C.2015-1587\nPLN15-0092- Final Development Plan and Major Design Review\nfor an amendment to previously approved Final Development Plan\nand Design Review No. PLN07-0061 to construct one approximately\n22,868 square foot two story building instead of two 10,400 square\nfoot two story office buildings proposed on a 2.05 acre site at 2810\nHarbbor Bay Parkway. The Proposed Project is Categorically Exempt\nPursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15332 In-Fill Development Projects.\nContinued to the meeting of May 11, 2015.\n8. MINUTES:\n8-A. 2015-1607\nDraft Meeting Minutes-March 9, 2015\nBoard Member Knox White motioned to approve the minutes with edits. Board Member\nKoster seconded the motion.\nThe motion carried, 5-0-1 (Board Member Zuppan abstained).\n8-B. 2015-1608\nDraft Meeting Minutes-March 23, 2015\nBoard Member Burton motioned to approve the minutes with edits. Board Member Zuppan\nseconded the motion.\nThe motion carried, 6-0.\nApproved Regular Meeting\nPage 5 of 6\nMinutes April 27, 2015", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-04-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-04-27", "page": 6, "text": "9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nMr. Thomas explained about recent decisions made by the Zoning Administrator. He also\nexplained that Councilmember Daysog and Mayor Spencer called both cell towers for\nreview at the Council level.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked Mr. Thomas to provide some context about the new rules\nregarding the Density Bonus application. Mr. Thomas said he would do so.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nBoard Member Zuppan said that Alameda has the second-least amount of affordable\nhousing in the Bay Area.\n11-A 2015-1588\nReport from the Alameda Point Site A Ad-Hoc Subcommittee\nVice President Alvarez said that the Subcommittee has not met recently.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None\n13. ADJOURNMENT: Vice President Alvarez adjourned the meeting at 8:57 P.M.\nApproved Regular Meeting\nPage 6 of 6\nMinutes April 27, 2015", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-04-27.pdf"}