{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2016-04-25", "page": 1, "text": "OF\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING\nOF THE\nPENSION BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA\nHELD 4:30 P.M., APRIL 25, 2016\nALAMEDA CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA\nCONFERENCE ROOM 391\n1.\nThe meeting was called to order by Chair Trish Herrera Spencer at 4:30 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL:\nPresent: Chair: Trish Herrera Spencer, Trustees: Bruce Edwards, William\nSoderlund, Nancy Elzig, and Nancy Bronstein\nStaff:\nGeoffrey\nBuchheim,\nFinancial\nServices\nManager;\nSharlene\nShikhmuradova, Administrative Technician - Human Resources\n3.\nMINUTES:\nThe minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 25, 2016 was moved for approval\nby Member Edwards and seconded by Member Elzig. Passed 4-0.\nMember Soderlund followed up on his question from the previous Pension Board\nMeeting whether the two Pensioners on the 1082 Pension Plan get an increase\ndue to the rise in the cost of living. Financial Services Manager, Geoffrey\nBuchheim answered the two pensioners indeed received a 2% increase in the\nlast 3 years and noted if there is inflation, that amount may increase. He further\nmentioned the 1079 Pension Plan for Police and Fire are based on their MOUs.\n4.\nAGENDA ITEMS:\n4-A. Pension Payroll and Financial Reports - Quarter Ending March 31, 2016\nand City of Alameda Police & Fire Pension Funds Financial Reports for the\nPeriod Ending March 31, 2016.", "path": "PensionBoard/2016-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2016-04-25", "page": 2, "text": "City of Alameda\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nPension Board - Monday, April 25, 2016\nPage 2\nFinancial Services Manager, Geoffrey Buchheim summarized the quarterly, fiscal\nyear totals, as well as the general expenditures, City contributions, audit\nexpense, and actuarial valuations for the Pension Funds.\nMember Soderlund and Elzig inquired whether the City pays for the actuarial\nvaluations. Member Soderlund mentioned there was discussion that an actuarial\nvaluation may not need to be done for the Fire and Police Pension and that\nwould save approximately $10,000. Financial Services Manager, Geoffrey\nBuchheim responded that there was indeed a discussion in the June 2015\nPension Board meeting and the $10,000 was an unnecessary need to do a\nseparate financial report. He continued and said Finance Director, Elena Adair\ndid a presentation showing that a separate annual audit financial report is not\nnecessary for the Pension Funds and would save $10,000.\nMember Soderlund asked if the actuarial is for the 1079 Pension Fund. Financial\nServices Manager, Geoffrey Buchheim answered that the actuarial is for both the\n1079 and 1082 Pension Plans. He noted there are currently two members in the\n1082 Pension Plan and approximately twenty-three (23) members left in the 1079\nPension Plan.\nMember Soderlund commented that only three firemen are left in the Pension\nPlans. Member Edwards also mentioned one member recently turned ninety-one\nyears old and is the last member on the 1079 Pension Plan before the 1082\nPension Plan was introduced. Member Soderlund noted it is primarily surviving\nspouses left on the Pension Plans.\nMember Elzig moved to accept the financial statement. Member Soderlund\nseconded. 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 Soderlund asked if the 1079 Pension Plan had any increase such as the\n1082 Pension Plan's 2% increase due to the cost of living. Member Bronstein\nresponded that the spouse receive 50% of the current salary. Member Soderlund\nadded that the 1079 Pension Fund is paid out at 50% after 20 to 25 years. He\ngave an example that if someone retired as a sergeant, then they will continue to\nreceive 50% of the current sergeant pay.", "path": "PensionBoard/2016-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2016-04-25", "page": 3, "text": "City of Alameda\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nPension Board - Monday, April 25, 2016\nPage 3\nMember Elzig wanted to thank staff for the reminder calls for the Pension Board\nmeetings. She also noted how easy it is now to print documents via email where\nas in the past members had to go to the website to print separate documents in\npreparation for the Pension Board meetings.\nMember Edwards noted he will not attend the July 2016 meeting.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT:\nThere being no additional items to come before the board, the meeting was\nadjourned at 4:40 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nmm\nNancy Bronstein\nHuman Resources Director", "path": "PensionBoard/2016-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-04-25", "page": 1, "text": "DRAFT MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, APRIL 22, 2019\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Sullivan convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Rothenberg led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: President Sullivan, Board Members Cavanaugh, Curtis, Rothenberg, Saheba,\nTeague.\nAbsent: Mitchell.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\n*None*\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\n6-A 2019-6801\nAnnual Review: Alameda Point Site A Development Agreement - Applicant: Alameda\nPoint Partners, LLC (APP). Approve a Resolution Finding that APP has Demonstrated\nGood Faith Compliance with the Terms and Conditions of the Alameda Point Site A\nDevelopment Agreement from April 15, 2018 through April 15, 2019, based on the\nFindings contained in the Draft Resolution. This Compliance Review is not a project\nunder CEQA\nBoard Member Teague pulled the item from the Consent Calendar in order to allow the\nstaff update and board discussion.\nStaff Member Thomas said the item was continued from the previous meeting to add\nsome information about a pending application to amend the development agreement.\nThe staff report and attachments can be found at:\nttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3917147&GUID=D7327310\nF3C6-4117-98F2-85261E2A01A2&Options=&Search=&FullText=1\nBoard Member Curtis asked if the 80 units being requested by developer exceeds the\noriginal amount included in their development agreement.\nDraft Planning Board minutes\nPage 1 of 6\nApril 22, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-04-25", "page": 2, "text": "Staff Member Thomas said that the 80 units are in addition to the 800 units in the\noriginal development agreement. He said approving the annual review does not\nprejudice a future Planning Board decision on the pending application.\nPresident Sullivan asked how the additional requested units impact the 1,425 unit cap\nfor Alameda Point.\nStaff Member Thomas said the 1,425 units have already been allocated, which means\nthe request for 80 additional units would require a change to the General Plan to\nincrease the cap for Alameda Point from 1,425 to 1,505.\nBoard Member Teague made a motion to approve the staff recommendation.\nBoard Member Curtis seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2019-6802\nPLN19-0018 - Lot Line Adjustment - 2130/2140 South Shore Center - Applicant:\nRebecca Wiener on behalf of Jamestown South Shore Center LP. Consideration of a Lot\nLine Adjustment application to reconfigure the western property line of the Alameda\nSouth Shore shopping center. The project site is located in the C-2-PD (Central\nBusiness Planned Development) Zoning District. The project is exempt from the\nCalifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section\n15305 - Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations\nStaff Member Sablan gave the staff report. The report and attachments can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3917148&GUID=FED15EBA-\n2EBB-4B39-A3C2-OF455329DB9F&FullText=1\nPresident Sullivan asked if the buildings included on the proposed lot were the old Bank\nof Marin, laundromat, caf\u00e9 and dental office.\nStaff Member Sablan confirmed that the buildings President Sullivan listed would now be\ntheir own parcel at the northwest corner of the site.\nBoard Member Teague asked if the new lot would have the required amount of parking\nfrom when it was built.\nStaff Member Sablan said there would be no changes to the parking arrangements and\ncross access easements between the parcels.\nThere was a discussion clarifying parcel lines while examining an aerial view of the site.\nBoard Member Saheba asked if there is anything the board should be considering.\nDraft Planning Board minutes\nPage 2 of 6\nApril 22, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-04-25", "page": 3, "text": "Staff Member Thomas said there is very little discretion on this action. He said that these\ndecisions are typically handled at a staff level, but Alameda has an older code that gives\nthe Planning Board authority to approve these applications.\nBoard Member Saheba made a motion to approve the staff recommendation.\nBoard Member Rothenberg seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.\n7-B 2019-6803\nPlanning Board Review of General Plan Chapter 1 Settings, and Organization of the\nGeneral Plan Update. The review of the General Plan Chapters are exempt from the\nCalifornia Environmental Quality Act\nStaff Member Thomas gave a report. The staff report and attachments can be found at:\n https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3917182&GUID=06EE828B-\nA7AF-43FB-A714-7D25CEF7DA98&FullText=1\nBoard Member Curtis said he liked the way staff presented a single section for the board\nto consider in depth at a given point in time. He said he found the new section easy to\nread.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh said he liked the new layout. He said it would be helpful to\nhave explanations of things like Measure A or the state's influence on policy embedded\nin the document, including via hyperlink. He said this would help the public understand\nhow things work in the city.\nBoard Member Teague said that a sentence needs to be added about resolving conflicts\nbetween policy guidance and regulation, and which takes precedence. He said he liked\nthe new format. He suggested certain edits for clarity. He said we should include\ninformation on housing production from 1990 to 2019 and the Density Bonus law. He\nsaid there should be a paragraph about the land conveyance by the Navy and\nassociated constraints on the land. He said the paragraph from the original discussing\nthe completion of Harbor Bay should come back into the new version, and there should\nbe a paragraph about RHNA and the 2014 Housing Element amendments.\nBoard Member Saheba said the layout and graphics were quite good. He asked if there\nis an outline of modifications being proposed from the existing to the new General Plan.\nHe said that global view would help improve the input that the board could provide as\nthey give feedback on each section.\nStaff Member Thomas gave some background on his feelings towards the 1990 General\nPlan and where he anticipated making changes. He said the Climate Action Plan update\nhas led to some rethinking of how the land use and design chapters of the General Plan\nshould be structured. He said he would outline the changes in the next staff report.\nDraft Planning Board minutes\nPage 3 of 6\nApril 22, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-04-25", "page": 4, "text": "Board Member Rothenberg asked if the whole timeline of changes would be laid out.\nShe asked about the process for amending the General Plan.\nStaff Member Thomas said any final changes would involve public notice and\nadvertising. He outlined the process that he envisions for public input before moving\nforward with recommendations to the City Council.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked if bringing pieces back in chunks would be a\ntransparent process for the public.\nStaff Member Thomas said he could envision a process where the Board works through\nthe entire document and has a public comment process on the entire document.\nPresident Sullivan said she likes the new layout. She said she would like some of the\nlonger sentences to be broken up and for someone to review the document with a style\nguide for things like punctuation. She said our future is heading toward an urban city of\nrenters and not a small, suburban city. She said the balance is shifting.\nStaff Member Thomas said that Alameda has always been fairly evenly split between\nrentals and owner occupied units. He said the short term trends change and is not\nconvinced that future development will absolutely be mostly rentals.\nBoard Member Teague said that when we get to a complete product that the old plan\nshould have references identifying where the policies exist in the new document. He\nasked if the Housing Element can come ahead of the Land Use Element. He said the\nspecial rules for Webster, Park, and Harbor Bay should be called out specifically.\nPresident Sullivan said that there will be so much change coming in Alameda that the\nGeneral Plan should be updated in 15 years instead of the current 30 year gap.\nBoard Member Cavanaugh asked for more information about the Climate Change\nEmergency Declaration.\nStaff Member Thomas explained that the declaration's intent and what will be required in\nthe immediate response to climate change and sea level rise. He said the Council has\ngiven a sense of urgency and asked for transportation projects and the public process\naround them to be greatly sped up.\nBoard Member Rothenberg suggested adding climate change and resiliency to the open\nspace and preservation chapter.\nStaff Member Thomas said that the Board, if it so chooses, can identify specific\nmembers to work with staff on the drafting of specific chapters.\nDraft Planning Board minutes\nPage 4 of 6\nApril 22, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-04-25", "page": 5, "text": "8. MINUTES\n*None*\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2019-6798\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Department Recent Actions and Decisions\nThe staff report can be found at:\n ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3917005&GUID=29FAE29C-\n4E9F-4C6B-B66A-315782C3A9E8&FullText=1\n9-B 2019-6799\nOral Report - Status Report on Design Review and Development Plan for an\napproximately 113,000-square-foot hotel with 172 guest rooms, and an approximately\n7,000-square-foot restaurant with coffee shop at 2900 Harbor Bay Parkway\nStaff Member Thomas said staff is evaluating revised elevations and waiting for more\ninformation from the applicant. He said they also received an updated landscape plan.\nHe said the new elevations were sent out to the list of interested parties and the limited\nfeedback thus far was not positive.\nPresident Sullivan said that some of the parties have been told not to respond so they\ncan respond as a group.\nBoard Member Saheba asked if there was a game plan for how to engage the public on\nthe revised designs that is not ad hoc.\nPresident Sullivan said the community was promised a meeting and they need to have it\nbefore it comes back to the Planning Board.\nStaff Member Thomas said he feels like staff needs to review the drawings and make a\nrecommendation before anything happens. He asked if the neighborhood meeting\nshould happen before it comes to Planning Board and what should happen after the\nneighborhood meeting.\nBoard Member Saheba said the applicant needs to go back and present their changes to\nthe neighborhood before staff takes that feedback and incorporates it into their\nrecommendation to the Board.\nStaff Member Thomas said he is comfortable with that process. He said he just needed\nto emphasize that the neighborhood meeting does not approve or deny the project, citing\nsome interactions with residents that seemed to misunderstand that point.\n9-C 2019-6800\nOral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and\nTransportation Department Projects\nDraft Planning Board minutes\nPage 5 of 6\nApril 22, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-04-25", "page": 6, "text": "Staff Member Thomas said the Park St. hotel is aiming for the second meeting in May to\nreturn to the Planning Board. He said May 13th meeting will include more General Plan\nwork. He said May 28th currently has the Climate Action Plan, Capital Improvement Plan,\nand the Park St. hotel.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nBoard Member Teague asked that, as a response to the Climate Emergency\nDeclaration, the ferry add carpool parking spaces at the Main St. terminal. He said\ncharging for parking would be a regressive tax given the lack of alternatives.\nStaff Member Thomas said staff is not interested in adding parking at Main St. because\nthey do not want to become the park and ride location for Bay Area commuters, and also\nnoted the upcoming opening of Seaplane Lagoon and the changes that will have on\nparking demands.\nBoard Member Teague said the net-metering policy by AMP is not encouraging solar\ngeneration.\nPresident Sullivan asked if the City has studied providing a shuttle to the Main St. ferry\nterminal.\nStaff Member Thomas said the Alameda Shuttle discussions studied a shuttle for the\nferry that would cost five million dollars per year, which did not make sense while there is\nfree parking at the terminal.\nBoard Member Saheba seconded the notion of carpooling being a quick and easy way\nto change behavior. He said that policy would work at all three ferry terminals.\nBoard Member Rothenberg said she hopes the parking consultants do actual\nobservations of the existing conditions at the corners and in the neighborhoods to better\nunderstand the situation on the ground before suggesting policies.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident Sullivan adjourned the meeting at 8:46 p.m.\nDraft Planning Board minutes\nPage 6 of 6\nApril 22, 2019", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-04-25.pdf"}