{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-10-01", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, October 1, 2008\nThe meeting convened at 7:36 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-B\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Doug deHaan\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Lena Tam\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Authorize Execution of a No-Cost Sublease for Alameda Development Corporation at\nAlameda Point.\nMember Gilmore motioned approval of the Consent Calendar, seconded by Member Tam,\nand passed by the following voice votes: Ayes - 5, Noes - 0, Abstentions - O.\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Approve the Executive Director's Recommendation Regarding Disposition of the\nNotices of Interest for the Homeless Accommodation/Public Benefit Conveyances for\nthe North Housing Parcel and Authorize the Executive Director to Negotiate the\nRequired Legally Binding Agreement\nDebbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, gave a brief overview of the\nitem, stating that in November 2007, the Navy declared the North Housing Parcel, an additional\n42 acre parcel, as surplus. The ARRA, as the Local Reuse Authority (LRA) is charged with\nconducting the federal screening process, a mandated step before the Navy can dispose of\nproperty. Three Notice of Interests (NOIs) and two requests for Public Benefit Conveyances\n(PBC's) were reviewed in early September. The NOIs were analyzed against a number of criteria\nincluding what project was being proposed, how well the project met unidentified needs of\nhomeless needs assessment, financial feasibility, and the organization's capacity to carry out the\nproject. One NOI from the East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation (EBALDC), didn't\nmeet the threshold requirement and was notified that they did not meet screening process. Of the\nremaining two NOIs, the evaluation committee does not recommend moving forward with the\nNOI received form Alameda Point Collaborative (APC) and Building Futures with Women and\nChildren (BFWC), to provide location for the Midway Shelter, in the event it loses it's lease\nwhere currently located. There is a path forward to working with Navy on the existing location\nof the shelter, which the Navy has committed to in writing to retain midway shelter in current\nlocation. Also, the 42-acre site was not an appropriate location for a multi-service center, which\nshould be in central location accessible by public transit.\nThe committee is recommending the NOI received from the City Housing Authority, APC, and\nBFWC for 120 units of permanent supportive housing for formerly homeless people, with the\nrecommendation to move forward at 90 units rather than 120 units.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-10-01", "page": 2, "text": "The two PBCs received were from the City's Recreation and Park department and from Habitat\nfor Humanity for self-help housing. We are recommending the PBC from Rec and Park, and will\nindicate our support for Habitat for Humanity for 20 to 30 units of self-help housing. The Habitat\nfor Humanity PBC is approved by the federal housing agency, HUD; and the Department of\nInterior would approve the Rec and Park PBC.\nThe next step is to begin negotiating a Legally Binding Agreement (LBA). The LBA is an\nagreement document that goes forward to HUD, along with our amendment to the Community\nReuse Plan (Reuse Plan), HUD reviews the Reuse Plan and makes the ultimate determination of\nhow well it meets the needs of homeless accommodation. We are scheduling two community\nmeetings in November, on the 3rd with the Planning Board, and on Nov. 24th on the amendment\nto the Reuse Plan, and draft LBA at its Dec. 3 meeting. The statutory requirement is to get\neverything to HUD in December.\nMember Matarrese asked how HUD weighs different factors during their evaluation of the\nproposals. Ms. Potter explained that typically, the screening process regulations are broadly\ndrafted in order to give local jurisdictions a lot of leeway and opportunity for the Reuse Plan to\nmeet their needs. What they are looking for is a balance of homeless accommodation, and what\nthey call \"other community goals\", in terms of job generation, economic development, housing,\nand open space. Member Matarrese asked if there is a previous process which we were involved\nin. Ms. Potter replied that the 1996 Community Reuse Plan was the last time we were involved\nin that process. Member Matarrese informed staff and the Board that he just received a letter\nfrom the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) regarding the remediation of site\nwhere the Midway Shelter is located. The letter informed of DTSC's plan to evaluate the impact\nof removing viscous material and widespread contaminated material from that site. Staff will\nfollow-up.\nChair Johnson called public speakers. Doug Biggs, Interim Executive Director of the APC spoke\nin support of the city's recommendation. He discussed the homelessness crisis in today's\neconomy. Liz Varela, Executive Director of the BFWC, supports Doug Bigg's comments, and\nappreciates the City's recommendation on the BFWC NOI and its efforts of relocating the\nMidway Shelter.\nMember deHaan asked staff to give a background on the remediation requirements and how the\nNavy is going to address that. Ms. Potter explained that the south east corner of the North\nHousing parcel, there is a plume which extends to that area and will be remediated. The Navy\nhas started remediation of the plume, and we made it clear when we put out the request that there\nis an environmental issue. None of the proposals we received asked for property anywhere near\nthat site. There has been prior time-critical removal that has all been completed. Ms. Potter\nadded that there was no removal under hardscapes or roads, so anyone who will develop that site\nhas to take that in consideration.\nMember Matarrese expressed concern that we should not move forward where uncalculated\nliability for any unremediated land is passed on to any future to non-profit.\nMember Matarrese motioned to provide direction that in the Community Reuse Plan and\nin the negotiations of the LBA we include disclosure of significant liability of\nuncharacterized contamination under hardscape and contamination beyond two feet, and\nthat we have these LBAs come back to ARRA. The motion was seconded by Member\ndeHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes - 5, Noes - 0, Abstentions - 0.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-10-01", "page": 3, "text": "3-B. Report on Restoration Advisory Board Comment Letter on Installation Restoration\nSite 1.\nMs. Potter summarized that at the ARRA meeting on September 10, the Board received several\nletters regarding Site 1. Staff was directed to work with the environmental consultant, Dr. Peter\nRussell, to prepare a response to RAB letters. The ARRA's position is that land fill should be\ndug up and hauled off, this position has been consistent during the public comment process,\nwhich is not concluded. A final draft Record of Decision (ROD) is due on Oct. 28th, which will\ngive us further opportunity to provide comments on the final draft ROD. However, as all of this\nwork has been going on, the results of the additional trenching did not reveal waste, so the sense\nis that there is no longer a landfill at Site 1. We would like to send a letter to the Navy\nrequesting they do a little more work to determine whether a land fill is still present at Site 1.\nThe Navy began remediation on groundwater contamination.\nMember Matarrese reminded staff that the original concern expressed was, not that there was a\nlandfill, but that it was uncharacterized and unknown. He wants to make sure all contaminated\nmaterials are removed, and inert ones remain in place. Ms. Potter stated that we must go through\nthe CERCLA process, and that the time-critical removal was for the material down to two feet.\nMember Matarrese asked how Site 1 could be closed if there is still objectionable material there.\nMs. Potter responded by stating that the work effort and investigation as part of IR Site 32 work\nincludes going further than two feet, and the moving of the materials allows the changing of the\nboundaries of the IR sites and what they are studying. Member Matarrese would like a risk\nassessment provided to the City with anticipated development in mind - to build a case for the\nultimate price tag for the property, i.e., if the property goes to auction, the contamination status\nwould affect the price.\nThere were two speakers on this item. James Leach, RAB member for 9 years, is there\nvoluntarily because they are experts and have done clean-up and provide oversight to a high\ndegree. George Humphreys, Co-Chair of the RAB, commented on Dr. Russell's evaluation of\nthe Site 1 issue.\nMember Matarrese motioned to accept the report with future reports to include a risk\nassessment of the significant issues being discussed from a technical standpoint. The\nmotion was seconded my Member deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes -\n5, Noes - 0, Abstentions - 0.\nMs. Potter discussed two additional recommendations included in the staff report; first was the\nrequest for authorization to request that the Navy further explore issue of whether there is still a\nlandfill, and second, that staff be given authorization to prepare and send a letter on the draft\nfinal ROD. Since there is no opportunity to provide back to ARRA before it's sent, Member\nMatarrese suggested it come back to the Board at a the second Council meeting in November\n(November 18).\nMember Matarrese motioned to approve the two additional recommendations, seconded by\nMember deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes - 5, Noes - 0, Abstentions -\n0.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative.\n- Highlights of September 4 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-10-01", "page": 4, "text": "Member Matarrese stated that the next RAB meeting is tomorrow night and the minutes from the\nlast meeting have been presented.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\n(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the\ngoverning body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.)\nThere was one speaker, Bill Smith, who spoke about various topics.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember deHaan asked if there was an update on the GSA property behind Foster Freeze. Ms.\nPotter informed him that staff will get and update and provide it to the City Manager as an Off-\nAgenda item.\nMember Matarrese stated that the Board has received a stack of documents from SunCal, but has\nnot seen a document that fits the description of a Business Plan. He requested that staff ask\nSunCal for a business plan. David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, affirmed Member\nMatarrese's request.\n7. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAiran Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-01", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL\nWEDNESDAY- - -OCTOBER 1, 2008- -6:00 p.m.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:00 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Councilmember deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,\nTam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :\n(08-408) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators:\nCraig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations :\nAll Bargaining Units.\n(08-409) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title: City\nManager.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Labor, Council received\na briefing regarding negotiations with various City bargaining\nunits; no action was taken; regarding Performance Evaluation, the\nmatter was not heard.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:20 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 1, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2008-10-01", "page": 1, "text": "OF\nTERKA\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING\nOF THE\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA\nWEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 1st, 2008\n1.\nThe meeting was called to order at 5:09 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL: Board Members Avonnet Peeler, Linda McHugh, and Peter Horikoshi\nABSENT:\nBoard President Michael Rich, Member Roberto Rocha and Executive Secretary Karen\nWillis\nSTAFF PRESENT: Jill Kovacs, Senior Management Analyst, Emily Hung, Administrative Management\nAnalyst and Stacey Meier, Administrative Technician I, Human Resources\nOTHERS IN ATTENDANCE: Alan Elnick and Linda Justus\n3.\nMINUTES:\nThe minutes of the regular meeting of July 2, 2008 were presented for Board approval.\nMember McHugh inquired as to what the status of the Ordinance going to City Council\nwas. Jill Kovacs explained that Council agendas are extremely full lately and that the\ndate\nkeeps getting pushed back. Member Peeler asked whether or not the RFP for\nleasing out\nthe golf course was done. Jill Kovacs stated that the City has received some\nproposals\nand has gotten some interest. Alan Elnick stated that consideration for\nproposals at the\nOctober 7th City Council Meeting has been removed.\nMember McHugh moved to accept, Member Horikoshi seconded, and\nthe motion carried by a 3-0 vote.\n4.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\nSUMMARY REPORT FOR EXAMINATION ELIGIBLE LISTS AND CLASSIFICATIONS FOR THE\nMONTHS OF JULY, AUGUST, SEPTEMBER 2008.\n4A. ELIGIBLE LIST ESTABLISHED\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\nDevelopment Manager (Housing)\n8/27/2008\n208-23\nJourney Lineworker\n7/15/2008\n208-051\nLine Working Supervisor\n6/17/2008\n208-15\nPlans Examiner/Plan Check Engineer\n9/22/2008\n208-24\nPublic Safety Dispatcher (Entry)\n9/4/2008\n208-18\nPublic Works Superintendent\n8/21/2008\n208-16\nTraffic Signal Maintenance Tech\n7/30/2008\n207-67\n4B.\nELIGIBLE LIST EXTENDED\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\nDivision Chief\n10/3/2007\n207-16PR\nFire Captain\n5/2/2008\n208-09PR\nFleet Mechanic\n5/4/2007\n207-15\nIntermediate Clerk\n10/23/2007\n207-50\nJunior Engineer\n2/12/2008\n207-68\nMaintenance Worker I\n7/25/2007\n207-26", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2008-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2008-10-01", "page": 2, "text": "City of Alameda\nPage 2 of 4\nCivil Service Board Agenda\nRegular Meeting of October 1, 2008\nPolice Lieutenant\n9/5/2007\n207-51PR\nPolice Officer (Academy Grad/Attendee)\n2/2/2008\n207-06\nJamie Bolin\nPolice Officer (Lateral)\n2/2/2008\n208-07\nEric Stegman\nJeffrey Ung\nPolice Officer (Recruit)\n3/5/2007\n206-76\nPolice Officer (Recruit)\n2/2/2008\n208-08\nProgram Specialist I/II\n1/25/2007\n206-63\n(Integrated Waste Mgmt Program)\nPW Maintenance Team Leader\n2/7/2008\n207-69\n4C.\nELIGIBLE LIST EXPIREDICANCELLEDI\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\nEXHAUSTED\nAdministrative Management Analyst\n10/9/2007\n207-47\nCombination Building Inspector\n8/22/2007\n207-42\nCustomer Service Representative\n7/20/2006\n206-09\nFire Apparatus Operator\n9/20/2006\n206-08PR\nFire/Building Code Compliance Officer\n3/12/2007\n207-17\nHousing Authority Maintenance Team Leader\n12/17/2007\n207-73PR\nPermit Technician I\n6/26/2008\n208-17PR\nPlanner I\n7/18/2006\n206-38\nPolice Officer (Attendee/Graduate)\n9/15/2007\n207-52\nPolice Officer (Lateral)\n11/10/2007\n207-53\nProgram Specialist II (Clean Water Program)\n11/2/2006\n206-48\nPublic Works Supervisor\n2/11/2008\n207-70\nMember Horikoshi moved to accept the consent calendar, Member McHugh seconded, and the\nmotion carried by a 3-0 vote.\n5.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n5-A Activity Report - Period of June 1, 2008 - August 31, 2008\nBoard Member Horikoshi asked what the City's outlook is with regard to the State budget situation. Jill\nKovacs stated that sales tax revenue will decrease due to the closing of Goode Chevrolet and that things\nare bleak.\n5-B Reclassification from Combination Building Inspector to Senior Combination Building Inspector\nBoard Member McHugh asked what the history behind the reclassification is. Jill Kovacs stated that the\nemployee in the Planning and Building department has been acting as a Senior Combination Building\nInspector since July of 2006. Member Horikoshi asked if there are any other Combination Building\nInspectors who might be interested in the position. Jill Kovacs stated that there is only one individual\nwho meets the qualifications and has the certifications that are required. Member Horikoshi asked if the\nCity ever rotates acting assignments if there is more then one qualified individual. Jill Kovacs stated that\nsome departments such as the Police Department will occasionally rotate assignments. In this situation,\nhowever, there is only one person qualified. Member McHugh asked why people are in acting roles for\nsuch a long period of time. Jill Kovacs stated that sometimes it fills an immediate need and the\ndepartment doesn't want to make a permanent change until they know for certain if it is necessary. She\nalso stated that sometimes it takes a while for a position upgrade or new position to be approved, which\nis often through the budget process.", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2008-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2008-10-01", "page": 3, "text": "City of Alameda\nPage 3 of 4\nCivil Service Board Agenda\nRegular Meeting of October 1, 2008\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nAlan Elnick, Business Representative, Operating Engineers Local No. 3 stated that ACEA has been in\ndiscussions with the City regarding the leasing of the Golf Course and its effects on ACEA members. He\nstated that the City's plan was to displace golf course employees and replace, by seniority, people in the\nParks Department. He explained that there is a difference between golf course maintenance workers\nand parks maintenance workers and asked how golf workers are going to replace people in other job\ntitles. He also shared that some employees have already been told they would be losing their jobs. He\nwent on to question how the City determines who has seniority over who. Member Peeler stated that the\nCivil Service Board does not know what is happening at the Golf Course and that they will not know until\na final decision has been made.\nJill Kovacs stated that managers have met with employees to give them a heads up as to what could\nhappen and that no official notice has gone out. Alan Elnick stated that the seniority structure has been\nshared with employees. He also stated that he does not understand who bumping rights apply to and\nhow or why there is only one seniority list for three job titles. Jill Kovacs stated that all of the working\ntitles fall under classification code 5260 Golf and Park Maintenance Worker and that is the commonality\nbetween them. She further explained that all of these employees were hired into and paid according to\nclass 5260 Golf and Park Maintenance Worker as established consistently over the years by Council on\nthe ACEA Salary Schedule.\nLinda Justus, ACEA President, stated that when a recruitment is done for a parks maintenance worker\nthe flyer specifically states parks, and when a recruitment is done for golf the flyer says golf. She stated\nthat each recruitment that is done forms a separate eligible list and depending on the department, people\nare hired from separate lists. She stated that she does not understand how someone can have bumping\nrights when they are not hired for the same duties.\nBoard Member Horikoshi stated that it is not the role of the Civil Service Board to get involved in\nnegotiations. He stated that they would have staff report on what happens in negotiations. Alan Elnick\nstated that it is a Civil Service issue and that it may be brought back to the Board eventually.\nMember Peeler stated that the Board needs to see a report on the issues, i.e. seniority, bumping rights,\njob titles and when they were lumped together, as well as chronology, etc. She also suggested that\nsince there was not another Civil Service Board Meeting soon, a special meeting should be scheduled.\nMember Horikoshi asked why a person would be hired to maintain the Golf Course and not the parks\nand how they plan to execute seniority. Member Peeler stated that the displacement of one or the other\nmay not be appropriate. Jill Kovacs explained that the minimum qualifications are the same for all of the\ntitles, and they are certified as to possessing the minimum qualifications for the job. Linda Justus stated\nthat she recalled a similar situation where an administrative position was posted for three different\ndepartments and then three different lists were certified.\nMember Peeler asked how soon the Civil Board can expect to see a report. Jill Kovacs stated that she is\nunsure. Member McHugh stated that she would like to see an example of how the City handled a similar\nsituation. Alan Elnick stated that a legal process is already underway and that ACEA may need to\ninvolve the Board. He suggested that staff advise the Board what classes will be affected.\n7.\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)\nBoard Member Horikoshi stated that he received the letter regarding ethics training and that he would\ncomplete it online as soon as possible.\n8.\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM STAFF)\nJill Kovacs stated that staff will provide the Board with communication regarding the golf issue this week\nand that the City Attorney has been involved.", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2008-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2008-10-01", "page": 4, "text": "City of Alameda\nPage 4 of 4\nCivil Service Board Agenda\nRegular Meeting of October 1, 2008\n9.\nThere being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nKaren Willis\nHuman Resources Director &\nExecutive Secretary to the Civil Service Board", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2008-10-01.pdf"}