{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-10-06", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, October 6, 2010\nThe meeting convened at 7:10 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nChair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 1, 2010.\n2-B. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for Jim Bustos Plumbing, Inc., Building\n612, at Alameda Point.\n2-C. Authorize the Executive Director to Execute an Amendment to an Agreement with Russell\nResources for Environmental Consulting Services for Alameda Point Extending the Term\nfor 12 Months and Adding $140,000 to the Budget.\n2-D. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for NRC Environmental Services, Inc.\nBuilding 616 and Yard D-13, at Alameda Point.\nVice Chair deHaan moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Member Tam seconded\nthe motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative\n- Highlights of September 2 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember Matarrese was not able to attend the Sept. 2 meeting but received materials regarding\nremediation activity in progress with a new technology, and a brief report on the University of\nFlorida study of the remediation technique.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speakers.\n6.\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS\n6-A. Presentation on \"Going Forward\" Community Forums for Alameda Point", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-10-06", "page": 2, "text": "The Planning Services Manager gave an oral presentation on the schedule of the Alameda\nPoint Community Forums, an initial eight month public outreach effort of the first phase of\nplanning, which would end in June 2011 and restart the environmental review process. The\nPlanning Services Manager explained that while the City of Alameda is doing a CEQA\ndocument EIR, the Navy will be doing a NEPA document. The Navy process won't start until\nthere is a project description or general description of the City's plan. The goal is eight months.\nThe eight-month schedule starts with a series of community outreach efforts, including\ncommunity workshops and internet outreach. The tentative schedule of the first three meetings\nis: November 9 at the Grand Pavilion, November 18 at Mastick, and December 8 in west\nAlameda. These workshops and key components of each meeting will be consistent from\nmeeting to meeting.\nThe Planning Services Manager summarized the six key areas as noted in the staff report: 1)\nCommunity Facilities, 2) Land Use Mix, 3) Streets, Parks, and Open Space, 4) Transportation\nAccess, 5) Architectural Character and Building Types, and 6) Historic Character and Adaptive\nReuse.\nThere are plans for a Tenant Forum in the spring focused on economic development strategy, a\nDeveloper and Business Forum, and discussions with each of the Boards and Commissions. A\nsummary will be presented to the ARRA Board in March 2011, and a project description in June\n2011.\nMember Gilmore requested an overview of where Alameda and the Bay Area stand in the\ncommercial and industrial real estate market. The Interim City Manager discussed the\napplication of a citywide real estate management policy which will include the information\nMember Gilmore requested about comparable leases.\nMember Tam requested an evaluation of internal competition, i.e., Marina Village VS. Alameda\nPoint.\nMember Matarrese discussed the commercialization and industrialization approach to\ndevelopment at Alameda Point, stating that the markets already out there are not the typical\nsuburban business park, not the type of businesses that would go into Marina Village, i.e., NRC\nand supporting industries, Spirits Alley, the maritime industry. Member Matarrese also\ndiscussed the jobs housing, and that job creation should drive it, stating that Alameda Point will\nnever be the rest of Alameda and probably shouldn't be, because it is industrial. Alameda Point\nshould reflect what it was and people will look at it in a different way.\nVice Chair deHaan concurred with Member Matarrese, stating that Alameda Point has a\ndifferent architectural design and that the development should maximize the unique venue out\nthere, and that folks should not get caught up in that it has to look like the rest of Alameda.\nMember Gilmore recommended evaluating and targeting the types of businesses and industries\nthat would value the asset of Alameda's own electric utility.\nMember Tam inquired a status report on communications with the Navy and if they were aware\nof the \"Going Forward\" plan, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services\nresponded in the affirmative, stating that staff met with the Navy last week. The Navy produced\nconveyance objectives and stated that they want to help facilitate conveyance and interim\neconomic development. The Interim City Manager stated that she will meet with the Navy's top\nmanagement every 90 days for a status update.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-10-06", "page": 3, "text": "Member Tam inquired if there was opportunity for Alameda to get funding for the EIR process.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative, stating that\nstaff has discussed funding possibilities with the Navy. There are some technical issues as the\nNavy has a contract for their NEPA process, and the City has a CEQA contract, but it may be\npossible to combine the processes so that it is cost efficient.\nMember Tam inquired if there are synergies between the sister federal agencies (Lawrence\nBerkeley Lab is with the Dept. of Energy, and the Veterans Administration has close ties with\nNavy). The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that, regarding the VA, the\nNavy understands that there has to be coordination to the extent that City staff can work with\nthe VA to leverage their infrastructure and develop that relationship, not just in terms of\nregulatory process, but also with actual physical improvements and infrastructure. With regards\nto the Lawrence Berkeley Lab's requests for proposals for land to host their second campus, the\nCity is prepared to submit a proposal in coordination with the Navy.\nThe Interim City Manager added that the City is prepared to respond to the Lawrence Berkeley\nLab RFP process with a very competitive proposal. There are opportunities to have strategic\nalliances as a result of the DOE and the Navy that makes Alameda Point uniquely competitive.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that staff will be providing the Board\nwith updates at the monthly ARRA meetings.\nVice Chair deHaan inquired if the Navy is willing to do phased conveyance. The Deputy City\nManager - Development Services explained that the Navy is exploring the boundaries, the pros\nand cons of phased conveyance, and that the Navy is open and listening to ideas.\nThere was discussion from the Board about the management of the utilities at Alameda Point\nand whether there was a formal decision made about it. The Assistant General Counsel -\nARRA stated that there has never been a plan that the City would operate any of the utilities at\nAlameda Point other than the electric utility.\nMember Matarrese requested that the facts of this matter be brought back to the Board.\n7.\nREFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n8.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember Matarrese attended the liaison committee meeting between AC Transit and the City\nand discussed the series of cuts, including reduction of services for Lines O, Line 51A, and Line\n21, and the discontinuation of Line 851. He was most concerned about Line 31 (the only bus\nservice to the Alameda Point Collaborative and to west of Main St) which will be discontinued on\nweekends. Member Matarrese requested that the City insist that Line 31 be continued on\nweekends.\nThere was discussion by the Board of SunCal's involvement in the political arena.\nBoardmembers expressed their dissatisfaction and displeasure, denouncing SunCal's efforts,\nstating that the personal attacks on staff members and elected officials to influence any political\ndebate or election should not be tolerated.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-10-06", "page": 4, "text": "9. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 8:09 p.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nItema Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-10-06", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nWEDNESDAY--OCTOBER 6, 2010- -7:01 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 8:09 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/ Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(10-491 CC/ 10-72 CIC) Update on Alameda Unified School District Assistance: Toddler\nand After School Child Care (Woodstock Child Development Center)\nThe Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired how the State restored the funding and if it was through\nspecial legislation.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded the Big Five, which is\nthe Governor and the Leaders of the Assembly and Senate, came up with a package of\ncuts and revenue enhancements, including creative accounting and federal dollars that\nare not yet secured; as part of that package, the legislature churned over the summer\nfor more than 100 days and the program has been put back in through the Big Five\nConference; the budget conference committee met on October 6th and it is unlikely that\nthe money will be taken back out; the matter will be confirmed after the October 7th\nvote.\nCouncilmember/ Commissioner Matarrese requested the method of helping remain\nready in hopes of being able to restore adult education and recreation programs.\nThe Interim City Manager agreed; stated even though there is a respite this year, future\naction is uncertain; when impacts to the School District and City are known, staff will\nreport back to the Council/ Commission.\nCouncilmember/ Commissioner Gilmore inquired if, and how much, the deficit was\nclosed.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services stated the State claims to have\nclosed the approximately $19 billion deficit with creative maneuvers and federal money,\nwhich still has to be secured.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nOctober 6, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-10-06", "page": 2, "text": "In response to Vice Mayor/ Commissioner deHaan's inquiry about how the City will stay\nout of the budget, the Interim City Manager stated the budget is strategic and responds\nto a lot of heavy press criticizing the Legislature; after a new Governor is elected, there\nwill be a surprise package.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services stated the State is starting to issue\nIOU's this month.\nThe Interim City Manager stated none of the budget deficit reflects the 2012 - 13 State\nhit of PERS costs.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the Government has 35,000 more employees\nnow than 5 years ago, to which staff said information is unknown at this time.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese requested an Off Agenda report be posted on\nthe website summarizing the comments of the Deputy City Manager - Administrative\nServices.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Tam requested clarification on whether the City has\nprovided some of the CDBG funding; inquired whether the funding would affect the\nSchool District's loss in State funding.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the School District can only use the money for\ncertain things; the only way the School District would not get a dollar-for-dollar take\n[from the State] is if the City gives a grant, or eliminates or offsets a School District\nGeneral Fund expense; the funding was a one-time, 90-day solution and is not a long\nterm solution for the program.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan stated that he attended a workshop at Lincoln\nSchool; the City needs to be at the table during discussions to understand impacts.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the next Subcommittee meeting needs\nto be scheduled; that he would not support consolidating grades 7-12 into one school;\nthe City should weigh in on all the issues so that the boards can talk about the direction\nthat will be given based on the impacts.\nVice Mayor/Commission deHaan concurred; stated decisions cannot be made in a\nvacuum.\nCouncilmember/ Commissioner Gilmore stated the City definitely needs to work with the\nSchool District and raise concerns, but it is ultimately the School District's budget; the\nSchool District is the expert regarding its budget and the product that needs to be\ndelivered; the City should not tell the District how to manage its budget.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nOctober 5, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-10-06", "page": 3, "text": "Mayor/Chair Johnson concurred.\nCouncilmember/ Commissioner Tam stated that she wants to convey some businesses\ncomments to the Subcommittee with respect to the school closures; there are some\nconcerns that if Alameda High School becomes a middle school with a closed campus,\na lot of stores, restaurants, and businesses that depend upon a non-closed campus\nwould have serious revenue impacts.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 8:27\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, CIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nOctober 6, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2010-10-06", "page": 1, "text": "any\nOF\nFERKA\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING\nOF THE\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA\nWEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2010\n1.\nThe meeting was called to order at 5:12 p.m. by Board President Avonnet Peeler\n2.\nROLL CALL: President Avonnet Peeler, Board Members Dean Batchelor, Linda McHugh,\nand Jose Villaflor\nABSENT: Vice President Peter Horikoshi\nSTAFF PRESENT: Chris Low and Jill Kovacs, Senior Management Analysts\n3.\nMINUTES: The minutes of the regular meeting of July 7, 2010 were presented for Board\napproval. Board Member McHugh moved to accept the minutes. Board\nMember Batchelor seconded, and the motion was carried by a 4-0 vote.\n4.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\nSUMMARY REPORT FOR EXAMINATION ELIGIBLE LISTS AND CLASSIFICATIONS FOR\nTHE MONTHS OF JULY, AUGUST, SEPTEMBER 2010.\n4-A ELIGIBLE LIST ESTABLISHED\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\nAGM-Energy Resource Planning\n9/13/2010\n2010-20(1)\nOffice Assistant\n8/11/2010\n2010-24\nPolice Officer - Recruit\n7/30/2010\n2010-18\nPolice Officer - Academy Graduate\n7/30/2010\n2010-19\nPolice Officer - Lateral\n7/1/2010\n2010-21\nSenior Clerk\n8/19/2010\n2010-26PR\nUtility Info Systems Network Analyst\n9/15/2010\n2010-25\n4-B ELIGIBLE LIST EXTENDED\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\nDeputy Fire Chief\n11/20/2009\n209-35PR\nPolice Lieutenant\n12/3/2009\n209-29PR\nPolice Sergeant\n10/14/2009\n209-04PR\nProperty & Evidence Technician\n3/3/2010\n2010-04\nPublic Works Superintendent\n4/21/2010\n2010-09\nSenior Account Clerk\n4/20/2010\n2010-11\nSenior Management Analyst\n4/7/2010\n2010-08PR\n4-C ELIGIBLE LIST EXPIREDICANCELLEDI\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\nEXHAUSTED\nController\n3/10/2010\n2010-01\nJailer\n3/24/2010\n2010-03\nMeter Reader Collector\n6/3/2010\n2010-15PR\nOffice Assistant\n6/9/2010\n2010-10PR", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2010-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2010-10-06", "page": 2, "text": "City of Alameda\nPage 2 of 4\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting of October 6, 2010\nPolice Officer (Academy Graduate or Lateral)\n12/10/2009\n209-33\nUtility Information Systems Supervisor\n4/22/2010\n2010-12\n4-D LIST OF SPECIFICATIONS:\nExisting Classification Specification Revision:\nCommunity Development Program Manager\nEquipment Operator\nUtility Information Systems Network Analyst\nMember Batchelor asked what class of driver's license was required for the\nEquipment Operator position as the job specification stated that the operation of\nequipment such as a Water Truck was listed under job duties. Mr. Low responded\nthat the weight of the equipment is what determines the class of the driver's license\nand not necessarily the type of vehicle. Member Batchelor stated that the City may\nwant to review this qualification in light of this job specification to make that\ndetermination. Member McHugh pointed out that the job specification calls for\nroutine maintenance and the operation of heavy equipment. Executive Secretary\nWillis stated that the City will check into the class of driver's license needed and\nreport back to the Board.\nMember Batchelor moved to accept the consent calendar. Member McHugh\nseconded and the motion passed by a 4-0 vote.\n5.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n5-A Activity Report - Period of June 1, 2010 - August 31, 2010\nMember Batchelor asked about the two transfers to other departments and if these\npositions had been posted. Executive Secretary Willis stated that these were not\nposted as they involved moving the entire position and incumbent from one\ndepartment to another department. Thus, the Finance Department lost two positions\nwhile the Fire Department and the City Manager's Office each gained a position.\nThe net effect on total City positions is the same.\nLinda McHugh asked if any of the Police Officers that were hired were displaced\nfrom other organizations. Executive Secretary Willis responded that two or three had\nbeen laid off from the Oakland Police Department.\n5-B Concurrent Eligible Lists\nExecutive Secretary Willis introduced Chris Low, Senior Management Analyst who\nprovided the overview on this item.\nChris Low stated that the Human Resources Department is bringing this issue to the\nCivil Service Board to see if the Board has any questions or concerns regarding\nutilizing concurrent eligible lists for the same classification. Mr. Low cited the\nexample from the letter presented in the Board packets of Record and\nCommunication Manager. Mr. Low stated that because this is such a specialized job\nand the City found it difficult to find suitable candidates, it was split into two separate\npositions under the classification of Administrative Management Analyst. The City\nwants to be able to recruit for the specializations that are necessary for these\npositions without having to close an existing Administrative Management Analyst", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2010-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2010-10-06", "page": 3, "text": "City of Alameda\nPage 3 of 4\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting of October 6, 2010\neligible list. Executive Secretary Willis explained that absent being able to have\nconcurrent lists, the City would need to interview everyone on the current list of\neligibles, disqualify each of those on the list and then cancel the list before the City\ncould recruit for the specialized skills. Having concurrent lists would allow for the\ncurrent candidates to still be considered for openings that may occur without having\nthe need to reapply. The City does not want to have to cancel the list and start a\nnew one each time this happens. The City would prefer to keep the current list\nactive and recruit separately for the specialized skills.\nPresident Peeler asked what the job title would be for this new recruitment. Mr. Low\nresponded that it would be Police Records Supervisor. However, it was pointed out\nthat this is a working title for the classification of Administrative Management Analyst\nwhich would be reflected on the recruitment notice. Member McHugh asked about\nbargaining unit rights and bumping rights issues. Executive Secretary Willis stated\nthat bumping rights are based upon classification and that a laid off employee must\nbe able to do the job they are bumping into.\nExecutive Secretary Willis stated that she would like the Board's concurrence that\nhaving more than one active eligible list for the same classification under these\ncircumstances would be acceptable. Member McHugh asked if those on the current\nlist would be notified of the new recruitment and offered the opportunity to apply.\nExecutive Secretary Willis stated that the City could notify the applicants. It was\nagreed that the candidates on the existing list would be notified of any concurrent\nrecruitments once they began.\n5-C SAFER Grant - Fire Department\nExecutive Secretary Willis informed the Board that the Fire Department was awarded\na federally funded grant in the amount of $1.7 million which will provide the Fire\nDepartment with the opportunity to hire up to six experienced firefighters. These\nfirefighter positions are for a maximum duration of two years and, due to the fact that\nthey are grant funded positions, are not covered by civil service. Executive Secretary\nWillis explained to the Board that the City utilized virtually the same testing and\nselection process for this recruitment as it has always used for firefighter\nrecruitments. Thus, the City would like to be able to utilize the names from this non-\nCivil Service recruitment to be able to certify names to a Civil Service list should a\nregular firefighter vacancy occur within the two years of this grant. This will allow the\nCity to be able to hire these firefighters into regular full time civil service positions\nwithout them having to go through the testing process again.\nMember McHugh stated that she did not have a problem with the City certifying these\nnames as long as they had gone through the same process as a civil service\nposition. Mr. Low assured the Board that the process was the same to include a full\nbackground check.\nMember McHugh asked what section of the Civil Service Ordinance spoke to non-\ncivil service positions. Executive Secretary Willis told the Board that the reference\nwas in Section 4 - Scope of the Civil Service Program, which reads, \"The Civil\nService of the City of Alameda shall consist of all positions of employment and\noffices (hereinafter designated as position) of or under jurisdiction of the City of\nAlameda, except: (f) All personnel hired in conjunction with a State or Federally\nfunded program or other specially funded projects.\"", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2010-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2010-10-06", "page": 4, "text": "City of Alameda\nPage 4 of 4\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting of October 6, 2010\n5-D AB 1234 Ethics Training\nExecutive Secretary Willis reminded the Board about Ethics Training required under\nAB 1234. She stated that each Board member should have received a letter\nregarding the options available for them to receive this training and strongly\nencouraged each Board member to take the Ethics training.\nMember Linda McHugh moved to accept the Regular Agenda Items.\nMember\nBatchelor seconded and the motion passed by a 4-0 vote.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere was no one present from the public.\n7.\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)\nPresident Peeler welcomed new Board member Jose Villaflor.\n8.\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM STAFF)\nThere was discussion that the next meeting of the Civil Service Board will be held on\nWednesday, January 5, 2011 beginning at 5:00 p.m.\n9.\nPresident Peeler asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Board Member McHugh\nmoved to adjourn and Member Batchelor seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0\nand the meeting was adjourned by President Peeler at 5:52 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nKaren Willis\nHuman Resources Director &\nExecutive Secretary to the Civil Service Board", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2010-10-06.pdf"}