{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2017-04-24", "page": 1, "text": "the any or\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING\nOF THE\nPENSION BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA\nHELD 4:30 P.M., JANUARY 30, 2017\nALAMEDA CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA\nCONFERENCE ROOM 160\n1.\nThe meeting was called to order by Nancy Bronstein at 4:30 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL:\nPresent: Nancy Bronstein, Bruce Edwards, Nancy Elzig, William Soderlund,\nAbsent: Chair Mayor Trish Herrera Spencer\nStaff: Elena Adair, Finance Director; Edwin Gato, Financial Services Manager;\nChad Barr, Administrative Technician - Human Resources\nNancy Bronstein introduced Edwin Gato, new Financial Services Manager.\n3.\nMINUTES:\nNancy Bronstein asked if there were any questions regarding the minutes. No\nquestions from members.\nThe minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 31, 2016 were moved for\napproval by Member Soderlund and seconded by Member Elzig. Passed 3-0.\n4.\nAGENDA ITEMS:\n4-A. Pension Payroll and Financial Reports - Quarter Ending December 31,\n2016 and City of Alameda Police & Fire Pension Funds Financial Reports for the\nPeriod Ending December 31, 2016.\nFinance Director, Elena Adair summarized the quarterly and fiscal year totals.", "path": "PensionBoard/2017-04-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2017-04-24", "page": 2, "text": "City of Alameda\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nPension Board - Monday, January 30, 2017\nPage 2\nDirector Adair noted the usual uniform allowance paid in December. Adair also\nexplained there would be adjustment due to late notification of death of 1082\nPensioner, James Isom and his wife. Police Officer Isom passed March 30,\n2016, followed by his wife Kathryn on April 27, 2016. Their son is trustee and\nthought he took care of everything but noticed payments into account. Finance\ndrafted letter to recoup overpayment and working with son has been smooth.\nMember Elzig expressed sympathy and believed it was easy to overlook things\nduring the circumstances.\nMember Soderlund asked if uniform allowance is paid every 3 months and\nDirector Adair confirmed it is. Director Bronstein said that in March, the Cost of\nLiving Adjustment will go up which will increase the uniform allowance.\nMember Soderlund moved to accept the financial statement as presented.\nMember Elzig seconded. Passed 3-0.\n4-B. Copy of Resolution No. 15193 - Determination of Industrial Disability\nRetirements (IDR).\nDirector Bronstein explained the Pension Board's role for IDR's when questioned\nor appealed. PERS used to determine IDRs, but in 1999 it went to City Manager\nwho delegated it to Human Resources Director. Human Resources determines\ndecision based on medical information. In case of dispute, employee has options\ndepending on situation.\n1. Can go to Workers' Compensation Appeals Board.\n2. Appeal hearing through the Administrative Procedures Act with Administrative\nLaw Judge.\nMember Soderlund asked how Administrative Law Judge is involved in process.\nDirector Bronstein explained that the Administrative Law Judge issues finding\nand a proposed decision. The Pension Board can then adopt the decision, reject\nit and decide the matter, or refer it back to the Administrative Law Judge for more\ninformation. Member Edwards stated his understanding with this information that\nit is the Pension Board's role to ratify the decision.\nMember Edwards remembered Mike Chamberland, Police Officer, who claimed\nhe was \"designated shooter\" and applied for Industrial Disability, which the City\nrightly rejected.\nDirector Bronstein said if City had an appeal in future, she would seek legal\nadvice during process.\nMembers Edwards and Soderlund remembered the William Doan case was\nhandled by Pension Board.", "path": "PensionBoard/2017-04-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2017-04-24", "page": 3, "text": "City of Alameda\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nPension Board - Monday, January 30, 2017\nPage 3\nMember Soderlund asked if the Pension Board could sit in on an Administrative\nLaw Judge's hearing. Director Bronstein replied it would depend if it was an\nopen or closed session.\nDirector Bronstein explained City of Alameda resolutions were previously signed\nby the City Clerk. In June 2016, PERS decided to no longer accept resolutions\nnot signed by elected officials. This was delaying pending IDR's until the change\nin authority went to Council.\nMember Soderlund moved to accept and Member Edwards seconded. Passed 3-\n0.\n4-C. Copy of Condolence Letter sent to Survivor's of Robert Follrath.\nMember Elzig stated appreciation for seeing the condolence letter for Robert\nFollrath.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT):\nThere was no communication from the public.\n6.\nPENSION BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD):\nNo communications from Pension Board.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT:\nThere being no additional items to come before the board, the meeting was\nadjourned at 4:48 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nmi\nNancy Bronstein\nHuman Resources Director", "path": "PensionBoard/2017-04-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-04-24", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, APRIL 24, 2017\n1. CONVENE\nPresident K\u00f6ster convened the meeting at 7:03pm\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Sullivan led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: President K\u00f6ster, Board Members Curtis, Knox White, Sullivan. Board Members\nMitchell and Zuppan arrived at 7:07pm. Absent: Board Member Burton.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\n*None*\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nLiz Taylor said the economic analysis provided by the Alameda Marina developer's\nconsultant is not a complete representation of the economic benefits of the maritime\nbusinesses the marina supports.\nGabrielle Dolphin said the city needs to take bolder steps to combat climate change,\nspecifically citing solar policies and including AMP in plans.\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\n6-A 2017-4207\nMake a Determination that the Proposed Fiscal Year 2017-2019 Capital\nBudget is Consistent with the General Plan\nBoard Member Knox White made a motion to approve the consent calendar. Board\nMember Curtis seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.\n7. REGULAR\nAGENDA\nITEMS\n7-A 2017-4205\nPublic Hearing on the Scope of the Alameda Shipways Residential Project\nEnvironmental Impact Report\nStaff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found\nat: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3021222&GUID=5BB563F0-\n29-4BFB-BFD7-89258060B9E4&FullText=1\nBoard Member Knox White asked if we were still going to have a multi-modal level of\nservice analysis in the EIR.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 1 of 6\nApril 24, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-04-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-04-24", "page": 2, "text": "Staff Member Thomas said it would still be included.\nBoard Member Curtis asked how the traffic impacts are extrapolated in the analysis.\nStaff Member Thomas said they use a baseline and model impacts of all projects that\ncontribute to growth in the city and region on traffic impacts.\nDennis Cavallari, applicant, gave a presentation on the proposed project.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked what changes BCDC requested.\nMr. Cavallari said BCDC wanted to see fewer large plantings, to preserve view corridors,\nand more active lawn space.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked about the changes to the shape of the park.\nMr. Cavallari said they made a business decision to change the shape to avoid having to\ngo through a process that involved the Army Corps of Engineers.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked how long the building is.\nMr. Cavallari said he did not have that information at this time.\nBoard Member Curtis asked if they have solved the load bearing problems with the site.\nMr. Cavallari said he believes they have the best geotechnical engineer in the area and\nwill be able to have a successful building plan.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked if they have studied the soil and whether it would create\nproblems for building.\nMr. Cavallari said they do not plan to disturb any contaminated soil, which is where the\nproblems would arise.\nPresident K\u00f6ster asked if there were Tidelands on this project site.\nStaff Member Thomas said the Tidelands are north of the property line.\nPresident K\u00f6ster asked why there was no marina facility planned for the site.\nMr. Cavallari said they are surrounded by Marinas and felt that re-creating a shoreline\nmight be the highest and best use.\nPresident K\u00f6ster opened the public hearing.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 2 of 6\nApril 24, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-04-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-04-24", "page": 3, "text": "Liz Taylor suggested using the ramps for rowing launches. She said the ramps could be\nused by amphibious vehicles for emergency egress and we should preserve one or two\nof them.\nNancy Hird said that if we keep taking away commercial spaces with jobs and replacing\nthem with housing Alameda would become a bedroom community for Oakland.\nAngela Hockabout asked for a show of hands from the board members that are under 40\nyears old (one). She said young people are desperate for housing. She said worrying\nabout views prioritizes people who already have stable housing. She said she would like\nto see the project go higher in order to get more low income housing.\nKaren Bey said she is happy we are adding much needed housing to the site. She said\nwe should plan for a potential 4th ferry terminal at this site. She said she was disappointed\nto not see any amenities in the project. She said the business park needs more restaurants\nand cafes.\nPresident K\u00f6ster closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Knox White suggested we also look at the impacts of not building housing\nat the site to highlight not just the negative impacts of housing.\nBoard Member Zuppan said we need to make sure we have adequate observations to\nbase our conclusions on. She asked that a confidence interval accompany the traffic\nestimates.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked to include an analysis of how freeway congestion impacts\ncongestion in Alameda, rather than stopping the study at the tube. He suggested including\nan energy analysis in the EIR.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked if the report would take into account the impacts of other\napproved projects.\nStaff Member Thomas said they would study impacts from two future dates to capture\nimpacts from future development at various stages.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked if the report would study the impact on the mix of owners\nvs. renters and the cultural impact on the city.\nPresident K\u00f6ster said he would like to study what increasing the intensity of use to the site\nwould do. He also said studying the historical aspects of the site would be interesting,\nincluding densifying the rest of the site while saving one of the ramps.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 3 of 6\nApril 24, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-04-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-04-24", "page": 4, "text": "Board Member Knox White asked that one alternative study a low parking alternative on\ntransportation impacts.\n7-B 2017-4206\nStudy Session to Provide Comments and Direction on Collaborating\nPartners Main Street Neighborhood Site Plan\nStaff Member Giles introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found\nat: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3021223&GUID=FB464FE4-\n673-4FB8-B393-524FFE47A1BB&FullText=1\nDoug Biggs, Executive Director of the Alameda Point Collaborative, gave a presentation\non their plan.\nAbby Goldware, Mid-Pen Housing, continued the presentation.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked who would be responsible for the infrastructure costs of the\nproject.\nMs. Goldware said the master developer for the Main St. neighborhood would likely be\nresponsible for the infrastructure.\nPresident K\u00f6ster asked what the phasing of the project would work.\nMs. Goldware said they will have to work with the Main St. master developer to plan the\ninfrastructure through existing units.\nPresident K\u00f6ster asked if they feel like they have enough space on the site.\nMr. Biggs said they do feel they have enough space on the site.\nBoard Member Curtis asked if the 79 to 1 parking ratio is sufficient.\nMr. Biggs said their residents have less than a 30% car ownership rate. He said they also\nrecently worked with the city to provide bus passes to all residents.\nPresident K\u00f6ster opened the public hearing.\nAngela Hockabout said the people in the video are the same type of people that are\ncurrently living under freeways and need this type of housing. She said we need more of\nthis type of supportive housing.\nKaren Bey said she wanted to support this community. She said she loves the idea of the\nexpanded farm. She suggested an arts center for children to work and perform in which\ncan be helpful for children who have been traumatized.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 4 of 6\nApril 24, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-04-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-04-24", "page": 5, "text": "President K\u00f6ster closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked if there would be any animals at the farm.\nDoug Biggs said they have some chickens, pigeons, and doves currently. He said he does\nnot see larger livestock as part of the current plan due to land use regulations.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked how we are trying to move this project along.\nStaff Member Giles said they are working on an RFQ to take to City Council next month.\nBoard Member Mitchell said he loved the community involvement in the design. He said it\nlooks like a well rounded project.\nBoard Member Zuppan questioned if the layout of the townhomes would be thoughtful\nenough in case they need to grow in the future. She said she would like to see more indoor\ncommunity spaces.\nBoard Member Curtis said this is a project that the community needs and we need to move\nit forward.\nBoard Member Knox White said the community here makes Alameda a better place. He\nsaid we need to make sure we do not create dead spaces. He said the new street near\nthe public park is ill placed and might create cut through traffic.\nPresident K\u00f6ster said he loves the urban agriculture imagery. He suggested considering\nlimiting automobile access on the interior streets.\n8. MINUTES\n8-A 2017-4204\nDraft Meeting Minutes-February 27, 2017\nBoard Member Zuppan asked for a correction to her comment on the mix of housing and\ncommercial on a development site.\nBoard Member Mitchell made a motion to approve the minutes with the correction. Board\nMember Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2017-4208\nZoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions\nStaff Member Thomas summarized recent decisions made by staff.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 5 of 6\nApril 24, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-04-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-04-24", "page": 6, "text": "9-B 2017-4209\nFuture Public Meetings and Upcoming Community Development\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Thomas gave an update on agenda items for the upcoming meetings. He\nshared an article on ABAG housing plans. He explained the dynamics around local control\nVS. state interest in housing production.\nBoard Member Curtis said the speakers tonight do not reflect the views of the silent\nmajority of Alamedans. He said we might be trying to solve one problem in the short term\nand creating other problems of blight and decreased property values in the long term.\nBoard Member Knox White asked for updates on 2nd unit and Universal Design\nordinances.\nStaff Member Thomas said the 2nd unit ordinance would be back in May and the Universal\nDesign ordinance should be back in June.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\n11-A 2017-4210\nSubcommittee for Alameda Marina\n*Did not meet*\n11-B 2017-4211\nSubcommittee with Commission on Disability Issues regarding Universal\nDesign Ordinance\n*Did not meet*\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident K\u00f6ster adjourned the meeting at 9:39pm.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 6 of 6\nApril 24, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-04-24.pdf"}