{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-05", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -SEPTEMBER 5, 2006- -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 10:30 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent :\nCouncilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(06-428 - ) Proclamation expressing thanks to Contra Costa Newspapers\nand Its Employees, Gary Kidwell and Michael Switzer.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Mr. Kidwell\nand Mr. Switzer.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Proclamation.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nMayor Johnson stated the news racks have made a huge difference in\nthe business districts.\nEd Clark, West Alameda Business Association (WABA), stated former\nCouncilmember Karin Lucas raised the issue years ago; the City has\nattractive newspaper racks thanks to everyone's efforts.\n(06-429) Proclamation declaring September 17, 2006 as Alameda\nLegacy Home Tour Day in the City of Alameda.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Judith Lynch,\nHistorical Advisory Board (HAB) Member, and Richard Knight, HAB\nMember.\nCouncilmember deHaan noted the home tours have been held for at\nleast 32 years.\n(06-430) Presentation by West Alameda Business Association\nregarding the Peanut Butter and Jam festival.\nEd Clark, WABA, stated the Peanut Butter and Jam Festival would be\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nSeptember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-05", "page": 2, "text": "the best ever invited everyone to attend; stated WABA is losing\nSheri Stieg as Executive Director; introduced the new Executive\nDirector, Kathy Moehring; presented Council with jars of Skippy\nPeanut Butter.\nKathy Moehring, WABA Executive Director, stated that she would\ncontinue where Ms. Stieg left off; encouraged everyone to attend\nthe Peanut Butter and Jam Festival and outlined the event.\nMayor Johnson requested Ms. Moehring to explain why the event is\nnamed the Peanut Butter and Jam Festival, to which Ms. Moehring\nresponded Skippy Peanut Butter was invented on Webster Street.\nMr. Clark noted Skippy contributed over $15,000 worth of free\nPeanut Butter.\nMayor Johnson congratulated Ms. Moehring; stated Ms. Stieg did a\ngreat job.\nCouncilmember deHaan suggested that Council present Ms. Stieg with\na proclamation; stated Webster Street has a new vitality.\n(06-431) Library project update.\nThe Project Manager provided a brief update.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Authorizing Open Market\nPurchase [paragraph no. 06-437], Resolution Authorizing Sale of\nEmergency Generators [paragraph no. 06-438], Resolution Amending\nExhibit A - Compensation Plan [paragraph no. 06-439], and Public\nHearing to consider Ordinance [paragraph no. 06-442 ] were removed\nfrom the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the\nConsent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number. . ]\n( *06-432) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings\nheld on August 15, 2006. Approved.\n(*06-433) Ratified bills in the amount of $5,047,654.18.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nSeptember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-05", "page": 3, "text": "(*06-434) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report\nfor the Period Ending March 31, 2006. Accepted.\n( *06-435) Recommendation to amend the Consultant Agreement with\nConsolidated Construction Management extending the term, scope of\nwork and price for the Alameda Free Library, New Main Library\nProject, No. P.W. 01-03-01. Accepted.\n( (*06-436) Recommendation to reject Bids for the Modular\nRecreational Building and Site Improvements at Washington Park.\nAccepted; and\n(*06-436A) Resolution No. 14006, \"Authorizing Open Market\nNegotiation of Contract Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda\nCity Charter for the Modular Recreational Building and Site\nImprovements at Washington Park, No. P.W. 05-06-17, and Authorizing\nthe City Manager to Enter into Such an Agreement for $650,000,\nIncluding a 10% Contingency. Adopted.\n(06-437) Resolution No. 14007, \"Authorizing Open Market Purchase of\nTwelve Vehicles from Good Chevrolet, Alameda in an Amount Not to\nExceed $251,230.00. Adopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the staff report indicates the\nalternate fuel vehicle policy was considered but alternate fuel\nvehicles are not recommended; inquired whether the use of mini\npickups was analyzed; stated a mini pickup was used for a recent\ndedication ceremony and an electric flatbed could have been used.\nThe Public Works Director responded use is reviewed and discussed\nwith departments; stated the Recreation and Parks Director\nindicated a flatbed could not have been used at the dedication\nceremony based on bed size; the vehicles being replaced carry\nequipment, tools, parts and chemicals for pool maintenance, which\ncould not be accommodated by the size of the electric flatbed.\nPublic Works mini trucks travel outside of the City; the most\nreliable electric flatbeds on the market only travel 25 miles per\nhour, which would not work for travel out of Alameda.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested that the level of detail provided\nby the Public Works Director be included in staff reports in the\nfuture; inquired whether diesel fuel was evaluated for the one ton\ndump trucks and three quarter ton pickup trucks.\nThe Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated\ndiesel is more expensive, which is one reason diesel was not\nselected; that he is working on converting three existing vehicles\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nSeptember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-05", "page": 4, "text": "Councilmember Daysog inquired about the plans for the $14,800 in\nsavings; inquired whether there is a fund for alternative fuel\nvehicles.\nThe Public Works Director responded all vehicles are purchased from\nthe same fund; stated five electric vehicles would be purchased by\nthe end of the fiscal year; the savings return to the vehicle\nreplacement fund.\nThe City Manager stated the purchase is the result of the new\napproach to manage vehicle replacement; savings remain in the fund\nalong with vehicle sales revenue.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n(06-438) Adoption of Resolution Authorizing and Approving Sale of\nEmergency Generators and Associated Electric Equipment to Cummins\nWest, Inc. for $832,000. Not adopted.\nHadi Monsef, Alameda, urged Council to reject the recommendation\nstated $1 million of public funds would be given away; the\nsituation of the world could impact the supply of electricity to\nthe City: the future is too unstable.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether potential generator uses could arise\nand whether the generators could be used in the event of a disaster\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nSeptember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-05", "page": 5, "text": "or if the City's power supply were cut off; further inquired\nwhether the generators at the former Base make the generators\n[proposed for sale] unnecessary.\nThe Alameda Power and Telecom (AP&T) General Manager responded\nthere is not a zero probability that the generators never would be\nused; stated combustion turbines near Alameda Point would serve all\nof the load assuming customers were not furiously using\nelectricity; typically people are responsible during\nparts of the system might be down in the event of a major emergency\nand the entire load would not be served.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the generators would be helpful if\npower lines were down in an area.\nThe AP&T General Manager responded possibly; stated currently the\ngenerators are permitted as stationary; moving the generators is\nnot a simple task; the system has to be tested; the process takes\n96 to 100 hours assuming roads are passable.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the City's emergency response\ngroup has reviewed the asset to determine whether it is part of\ndisaster preparation.\nAP&T General Manager stated AP&T has a smaller unit, which is very\nportable and can be hooked into smaller service areas very easily.\nThe Disaster Preparation Officer stated any asset would be an\nadjunct to the infrastructure; however, the equipment is semi- -\npermanently mounted; the two turbines [near Alameda Point ] would\nprovide 50-60% of normal demand; the Public Utilities Board's\nrecommendation seems prudent having something more mobile would be\nmore appropriate; other types of equipment are more suitable for\nmobile generation.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the generators are included\nin the disaster relief plan.\nThe Disaster Preparation Officer responded in the negative; stated\nthe combustion turbines would be used to provide back up power to\nthe City in the event of a power disruption; mobile units would\nbetter serve specific areas of the City; the City would be better\nserved with additional mobile units.\nMayor Johnson stated perhaps the generators could be sold and\nmobile units could be purchased.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated the units were purchased in 2001 for $1.8\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nSeptember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-05", "page": 6, "text": "million; inquired whether, including depreciation, the units are\nbeing sold for the amount they are worth.\nThe AP&T General Manager responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired what the money would be used for if the\nunits were sold.\nThe AP&T General Manager responded the money would be used for\nother infrastructure needs; stated one capital project in mind is a\nsecond feeder to Coast Guard Island.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired what would be the cost of a mobile\nunit, to which the Disaster Preparation Officer responded that he\ndoes not know the amount.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the units have a 10-year\nuseful life period.\nThe AP&T General Manager responded the units have a 10 or 20 year\nlife period; stated maintenance staff indicated the life of the\ngenerators is rapidly declining.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the price is good if the life is 10-\nyears; said information would be useful; the conversation should be\nfrom the vantage point of the objective that the City would achieve\nfrom selling the generators; more information is needed.\nMayor Johnson stated that she would like to know the impact on\ndisaster preparedness and whether proceeds should be used to\npurchase mobile generators to make the City better prepared in the\nevent of a disaster; that she concurs with Councilmember Daysog\nthat more information is needed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he concurs with Councilmember\nDaysog about understanding the goal; homeland security money should\nbe pursued for a second line to Coast Guard Island; the money from\nthe sale should replace the original use; more information on the\ngoal is needed.\nThe AP&T General Manager stated the units were purchased for\nrolling blackouts; AP&T's portfolio has been properly planned and\nthe City should not be subject to rolling blackouts; the generators\nare quite cumbersome and would not be best for disaster response ;\nthere are costs for maintenance and fuel.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether keeping the units in stand by\nmode costs $30,000.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nSeptember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-05", "page": 7, "text": "The AP&T General Manager responded the cost covers fuel and does\nnot include labor and maintenance.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the total cost is closer to\n$50,000, to which the AP&T General Manager responded the cost is\naround $50,000 to $60,000.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the amount might be reasonable for\ndisaster preparation; the generators have not been used very much;\nthe viability of using the units has not been discussed; the matter\nshould be researched further to better understand the asset.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the $30,000 is spent only\nwhen the generators are operated, to which the AP&T General Manager\nresponded the money is spent on testing.\nThe City Manager stated the matter would be brought back with\nadditional information.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the additional information should\ninclude more detail on whether the units could be made mobile,\nwhether the City should look into alternative, smaller generators\nthat are more mobile, and whether the units [proposed for sale]\nhave a place in disaster preparation.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would like information on the\nuseful life and evaluation from an economic perspective.\nThe AP&T General Manager noted only line workers can move the\ngenerators.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated perhaps easier connection points could\nbe set up in various spots throughout the City; the matter should\nbe researched further.\n(06-439) Resolution No. 14008, \"Amending Exhibit A - Compensation\nPlan Established by Council Resolution 13545 and Amended by\nResolutions 13626, 13689 and 13977 to Establish a Five-Day Workweek\nAlternative with a Corresponding Salary Range for the\nClassifications of Library Director and Recreation and Parks\nDirector. Amended ( including title) and adopted;\n(06-439A) Resolution No. 13009, \"Amending the Management and\nConfidential Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule by\nEstablishing Salary Ranges for the Classifications of Principle\nExecutive Assistant, Purchasing and Payables Coordinator and\nSupervising Animal Control Officer.' Adopted; and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nSeptember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-05", "page": 8, "text": "(06-439B) Resolution No. 13010, \"Amending the Alameda City\nEmployees Association (ACEA) Salary Schedule by Establishing the\nSalary Range for the Classification of Transportation Coordinator. \"\nAdopted.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested that the Deputy City Manager\ndiscussion be addressed at the next Council meeting and the\nremainder of the resolutions be adopted tonight.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolutions.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nMayor Johnson clarified the motion is to adopt the resolutions,\nwith the exclusion of the Deputy City Manager position.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n( *06-440) - Resolution No. 14011, \"Appointing Rebecca A. Kozak to the\nBay Area Library Information System (BALIS) Advisory Board. \"\nAdopted.\n(*06-441) Ordinance No. 2951, \"Approving and Authorizing the Lease\nof City-Owned Property at 3367 Fernside Boulevard to Arthur M.\nJawad and Julia Jawad. Finally passed.\n(06-442) Public Hearing to consider Ordinance Reclassifying and\nRezoning Certain Property Within the City of Alameda from Open\nSpace (O) to Community Manufacturing Planned Development (CM-PD) by\nAmending Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, N.S. for that Property Located\nat 500 Maitland Drive. Introduced.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the City owned the property\nand whether the property flipped over into the Harbor Bay\ndevelopment area when Maitland Drive was changed.\nThe Planner III responded in the affirmative; stated over an acre\nof City land on the other side of Maitland Drive moved to the\nsouthwest side when Maitland Drive was realigned; the City sold the\nland to Harbor Bay and amended the General Plan designation shortly\nafter; provided the exhibit to the Ordinance.\nMayor Johnson stated the proceeds of the sale went into an open\nspace fund.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what the new owner is proposing.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nSeptember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-05", "page": 9, "text": "The Planner III stated the existing self-storage and RV storage\nfacility is proposing expansion; most of the land is zoned\nCommercial Manufacturing Planned Development like the rest of the\nbusiness park; however, the over one acre area was never rezoned ;\nthe Planning Board approved all entitlements and recommends\napproval of the rezoning.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what was the entire amount of the\naddition, to which the Planner III responded five acres.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the gun range used to be\nlocated on the site, to which the Planner III responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the site is clean.\nThe Planner III responded there was discussion of lead radiation;\nhe could review the record.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the area is a gateway furthering the\nuse of a storage yard does not improve eye appeal; he is concerned\nabout contamination.\nThe Planner III stated paving over lead in the dirt would contain\ncontamination\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the Planning Board addressed\nthe matter; to which the Planner III responded the Planning Board\ndid not discuss lead contamination, but did discuss the area as a\ngateway, landscaping requirements, adjacent landscaping and paths.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the property was transferred\nas open space with the assumption it would remain open space.\nMayor Johnson responded the assumption was not that the property\nwould remain open space; the tradeoff was that a small, not very\nuseful open space parcel would be exchanged for $1 million that\nwould be designated to buy open space or support more useable open\nspace projects; the intent was always to allow commercial use.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated some of the proceeds went towards the\npurchase of land adjacent to Towata Park.\nMayor Johnson stated the money was a proposed local match for an\nEstuary Park grant that the City did not receive; the City is now\nconsidering using the money to purchase the Beltline.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nSeptember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-05", "page": 10, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated that he voted against the matter\nbecause he voted against having an RV park on the West End and to\nbe fair he did not want to support expansion of an RV park on\nHarbor Bay.\nMayor Johnson noted the original RV park was a requirement the City\nput on the developer.\nThe Planner III stated expansion was also part of the original\nrequirement.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers Gilmore and Matarrese\nand Mayor Johnson - 3. Noes Councilmembers Daysog and deHaan - 2.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(06-443) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Historical\nAdvisory Board's denial of the alteration of more than thirty\npercent of the value of historically designated single-family homes\nat 1530, 1532, and 15321/2 Ninth Street and adoption of related\nresolution.\nThe Supervising Planner gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated three duplexes are being created;\ninquired whether the square footage of the lot complies with\nMeasure A, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the\naffirmative.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether variances are not needed, to\nwhich the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether some of the four outstanding\nissues outlined in the staff report have been resolved.\nThe Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; stated trim\nreplacement has been resolved; new windows would be needed for\nenergy conservation.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the hardboard siding issue has\nbeen resolved.\nThe Reconstruction Specialist II responded that she has been in\nextensive conversations with Chris Buckley and the Alameda\nArchitectural Preservation Society (AAPS) ; stated an agreement has\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nSeptember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-05", "page": 11, "text": "been reached on three of the four items, with the exception of the\nwalkway; there is also agreement on the items in the most recent\nletter AAPS submitted.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the walkway is a Design Review\nitem that is not within the purview of the Historical Advisory\nBoard (HAB) .\nThe Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; stated the\nHAB'S purview is alteration of historic structures.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Design Review would be\ncompleted at the staff level, to which the Supervising Planner\nresponded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired what is the current square footage of each\nstructure.\nThe Reconstruction Specialist II responded 1530 and 1532 Ninth\nStreet are 1100 square feet and would be increased to 3106 square\nfeet; 1532 1/2 Ninth Street is 1066 and would be increased to 2632\nsquare feet.\nCouncilmember Daysog requested an explanation of the \"Golden Mean. \"\nThe Supervising Planner responded the Golden Mean was accepted by\nCouncil as part of the residential design guidelines and creates a\nproportion for Victorians with the upper level larger than the\nlower level; the upper level has to be 60%.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how long the Golden Mean has been in\nplace, to which the Supervising Planner responded less than two\nyears.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the site would be re-graded\nto comply with the Golden Mean, to which the Supervising Planner\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what would be the level of the\nwalkways, to which the Supervising Planner responded the walkways\nwould be level with the entry; retaining walls would be used.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether soil would be higher [than\nthe walkways], to which Supervising Planner responded in the\naffirmative\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the [grading] approach has\nbeen used before, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nSeptember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-05", "page": 12, "text": "negative.\nCouncilmember deHaan questioned whether precedence would be set;\ninquired about the driveway width.\nThe Supervising Planner stated the driveway is eight feet.\nMayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.\nProponents (In favor of appeal) : Li-Sheng Fu, Architect.\nOpponents (Opposed to appeal) : Candace Fitzgerald, Alameda.\nNeutral Christopher Buckley, AAPS; Richard W. Rutter, AAPS; and\nMark Irons, Historical Advisory Board (provided handout)\nMayor Johnson closed the public portion of the Hearing.\n* * *\n(06-444) Following Mr. Buckley's comments, Councilmember Matarrese\nmoved approval of continuing the meeting past 12:00 midnight.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n* * *\nMayor Johnson stated the house reminds her of a house on Pacific\nAvenue. she would like more detail to make the buildings'\nappearance look like the original character of the house; the side\nviews are not attractive; she is concerned with the size of the\nstructures.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the project provides the key to\ncompromising the Golden Mean; further stated the project done with\nthe City's help on San Jose Avenue is disproportionate with the\nrest of the community; in addition to the Golden Mean, the width of\nthe driveway is of concern.\nMayor Johnson clarified although AAPS is not supporting the\nproject, its position is not opposed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the Golden Mean is a visual\npresentation based on aesthetics; achieving the Golden Mean by\ngrading is a legitimate approach; squeezing in the number of units\nand parking spaces seems difficult; however, the project cannot be\nturned down if it meets the Code. the Code should be changed if\nCouncil does not like the way the Code works; that he would prefer\nthe front path to go straight to the door; the project is not\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nSeptember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-05", "page": 13, "text": "simple and is massive.\nMayor Johnson stated Design Review is not being considered; that\nshe agrees with the HAB that the alterations as proposed would\nadversely affect the historic significance of the dwellings; the\ncompromises reached are not enough to maintain the historic\ncharacter of the buildings review of the historic nature should\nnot be limited to the front.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would support sending the\nmatter back to see if the HAB can work out a solution to meet the\ngoal of maintaining the historic integrity as much as possible.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated a decision could be made on design\nissues that the HAB reviewed; the main issue is the Golden Mean;\nthe Golden Mean is based on nature, such as trees and seashells;\ndigging down might satisfy the ratio on paper, but he is worried\nand would like the HAB to review the matter further.\nMayor Johnson stated size is an issue and relates to historic\ncharacter.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that she has concerns with size, massing,\nand the width of the driveway; however, the structures meet the\nzoning regulations; the zoning regulations need to be changed or an\noverlay needs to be added that applies to Victorians and historic\nstructures if Council does not like the way the project looks; the\nproject should not be penalized because Council does not like the\nway it looks; sides of Victorian structures tend to be plain; the\nstructure is old and has not been cared for someone is willing to\n\"rehab\" the structures; being strict on every project might keep\npeople from attempting to fix historic structures; questioned\nwhether allowing historic structures to decay is better; stated\nsomeone has to pay for the project; three of the four outstanding\nissues have been resolved; the walkway is not under the HAB's\npurview; that she supports overturning the HAB's decision and would\nprovide direction to staff to negotiate with the architect and\nreceive input from AAPS on the front walkway.\nMayor Johnson stated that the City has additional authority because\ndemolition of a historic structure is being requested; the proposal\nis to almost triple the size of three adjacent structures\nconcurred with Councilmember Matarrese's suggestion to send the\nmatter back to the HAB; stated relative size to the neighborhood\nshould be considered.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he concurs with Mayor Johnson; the\nprojects on Pacific and San Jose Avenues are disproportionate and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nSeptember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-05", "page": 14, "text": "stretched the envelope; the project drops 18 inches to get into the\nlower level; there has to be another wayi he is concerned with mass\nand the eight-foot driveway the Fire Department should review the\ndriveway.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested staff to clarify whether the\neight-foot driveway meets code.\nThe Supervising Planner stated the existing driveway can be\nretained; further stated the minimum code for driveways now is\neight and a half feet.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated relation to other houses in the\nneighborhood is a planning and design issue.\nMayor Johnson stated more work needs to be done; size is relevant\nto the historic character of the house; approving the demolition is\nan extraordinary act and historic preservation should be expected\nin return; the duplexes are going to be larger than some houses in\nAlameda; limiting the size and requesting more details would\npreserve the historic character.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved that the matter be sent back to the\nHAB to review the impact of the expansion on the historic nature of\nthe structures and review additional detail to bring the structures\ncloser to original form.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, with the caveat that one\nof the structures could be moved closer to the property line, which\ncould change the opportunity of making the project work and change\naccess points.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there are examples of\nremodels that have gone wrong; the project meets Code but no one\nlikes the look; questioned when the Code would be changed stated\npeople trying to do projects should have a better idea about what\nis acceptable.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the big issue is the 30%\n[demolition] or else the project should go forward.\nCouncilmember deHaan noted the City should be vigilant i City\nfunding is going into the project.\nThe Supervising Planner noted that the houses are covered in\nasbestos shingles and the detail would not be known until the\nshingles are removed; therefore, the drawing is devoid of some\ndetails; the shadow line would be found to determine trim detail.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nSeptember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-05", "page": 15, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated that she did not notice a provision that\nrequires restoration of trim detail.\nThe Supervising Planner stated a condition requires the project be\ncompleted to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building\nDirector.\nMayor Johnson stated trim might help; hopefully something else can\nbe done to the side of the buildings.\nCouncilmember Matarrese clarified the intent of the motion is to\nhave the HAB come up with a solution and not send the matter back\nto Council; requested staff to convey that the HAB should work with\nthe architect and owner to come up with a solution and address the\nissues of: mass relative to the historic proportions of the\nbuildings and visual appearance from the street to ensure the\nbuildings are rehabilitated to look like Victorians, not something\nelse.\nMayor Johnson stated size is important to her; duplexes, with each\nunit bigger than many homes in Alameda, are not needed.\nMs. Fitzgerald noted the average house size on Mastic Court is 850\nsquare feet.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Council would be pleased\nwith something short of complete restoration if the matter were\nsent back to the HAB.\nMayor Johnson stated that she does not expect complete restoration\nand does not mind some increase in size.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he wants something to work; the\nbuildings are not attractive, are deteriorating and need to be\nupgraded in a timely manner requested the matter be placed on the\nnext HAB Meeting agenda.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he would like to see how the\nGolden Mean could be met without the grading option; all\nalternatives should be exercised; the grading option might work\nwithout handicap access.\nThe Planning and Building Director stated staff would work with the\narchitect and AAPS; since the buildings are not on the historic\nlist, the HAB review is only whether the building can be altered,\nnot all the details of restoration.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nSeptember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-05", "page": 16, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated the HAB has authority to make the finding that\nthe project, as proposed, would adversely affect the historic\nsignificance of the dwelling; further stated there has to be a\ncommitment that what is built maintains the historic significance\nas the tradeoff to allow demolition.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the buildings were constructed in the\n1800's; the property is important even though the buildings are not\non the historic list.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the intention of the motion is to\nhave the HAB look at alternative plans to address the issue of mass\nand the appearance from the front; that he does not want the\ndirection construed as a restoration critique; the Council wants\nthe project to appear that it belongs, people to know the buildings\nare Victorians by looking at the buildings, and does not want the\nbuildings turned into something else; the HAB has to focus down\nwith input from AAPS, the architect and owner.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the HAB reviewed the grading\nissue, to which the Planning and Building Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan restated that he seconded the motion.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following\nvoice vote Ayes Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese and\nMayor Johnson - 4. Noes: Vice Mayor Gilmore - 1.\n(06-445) Public Hearing to consider Adoption of Resolution\nAmending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Revise and Streamline\nthe Planning and Building, Public Works and Fire Departments Fee\nSchedules. Continued.\nThe City Manager suggested that the matter be continued for 30\ndays.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing the matter for\n30 days.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n(06-446 - ) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal\nCode by Amending Subsection 13-2.2(e) (Modifications, Amendments\nand Deletions to the California Building Code) of Section 13-2 -\n(Alameda Building Code) of Chapter XIII (Building and Housing), to\nIncorporate Specific Requirements for the Installation of Fire\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nSeptember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-05", "page": 17, "text": "Extinguishing Systems. Continued to September 19, 2006.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of continuing to matter for two\nweeks.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(06-447) - Public Hearing to consider ZA06-0001, Zoning Ordinance\nText Amendment City-wide; and\n(06-447A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal\nCode by Amending Subsection 30-4.9A.g.8 (Off-Street Parking and\nLoading Space) of the C-C Community Commercial Zone of Chapter XXX\n(Development Regulations), to Add a Process for Parking Exceptions.\nContinued to September 19, 2006.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of continuing the matter for\ntwo weeks.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(06-448) - Michael Krueger, Alameda, stated the Santa Clara Avenue\nand Willow Avenue transit shelter and the Santa Clara Avenue and\nWalnut Street canopy need maintenance; graffiti is present at both\ntransit shelters.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated vandalism increases if condoned.\ngraffiti has not been brought down to a working level; efforts need\nto be made to clean up graffiti immediately.\n(06-449) Jon Spangler, Alameda, thanked Mayor Johnson for sticking\nup for the historic preservation aspect of the Ninth Street\nproperty and Commissioner Matarrese for coming up with a solution\non the Rutledge appeal.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(06-450) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for the Economic\nDevelopment Commission, Golf Commission, and Recreation and Park\nCommission.\nMayor Johnson nominated Jessica Lindsey and Alan J. Ryan for\nappointment to the Economic Development Commissioner, Betsy E.\nGammell for appointment to the Golf Commission, and Jo Kahuanui for\nappointment to the Recreation and Park Commission.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nSeptember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-05", "page": 18, "text": "(06-451)\n-\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the Tube lighting has been on\nthe board for at least three years and CalTrans has deferred the\nproject for two years; he would like the issue to be tracked; the\nproject needs to move forward.\n(06-452) Councilmember deHaan stated the Central Avenue\n[crosswalk] embedded lighting is not functioning; inquired when the\nPark Street embedded lighting would be done near Boniere Bakery.\n(06-453) Councilmember deHaan stated that Park Street trash\nreceptacles overflowed from the weekend; trash pick up should be\nbrought under control within the City before the rainy season.\n(06-454) Councilmember Matarrese stated repairs are being made on\nLincoln Avenue and Park Street overhead wires; half of the weed-\nfilled triangle near Tilden Way has been shaved away; inquired\nwhether the other half could be shaved and landscaped.\nThe City Manager responded the issue would be addressed.\n(06-455) Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Long's Drug\nStore was supposed to do some landscape upgrades.\nThe City Manager stated she should look into the matter.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to see some\nlandscaping on the corner across from City Hall.\n(06-456) Mayor Johnson stated that large weeds have grown at the\nOtis Drive median off the Bay Farm Bridge.\nThe City Manager stated she would talk to the Public Works Director\nabout the matter.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nRegular Meeting at 12:55 a.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nSeptember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-05", "page": 19, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -SEPTEMBER 5, 2006- -6:00 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:00 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(06-426) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators :\nCraig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee organizations :\nAlameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of\nElectrical Workers, Management and Confidential Employees\nAssociation, and Executive Management Group.\n(06-427) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name\nof case : Zornes V. City of Alameda et al.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Conference with Labor\nNegotiators, Council received a briefing from Labor Negotiators on\nthe status of negotiations with Alameda City Employees Association,\nInternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and Management and\nConfidential Employees Association and no action was taken;\nregarding Conference with Legal Counsel, Council received a\nbriefing from Legal Counsel and gave direction on settlement of\nthis matter.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:25 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\nSeptember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-05", "page": 20, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nTUESDAY - - SEPTEMBER 5, 2006- - -7:27 P.M.\nChair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:50 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nMINUTES\n(06-050) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and CIC Meeting\nheld on July 26, 2006; the Special Joint City Council, ARRA, CIC\nand HABOC Meeting held on August 2, 2006; and the Special CIC\nMeeting held on August 24, 2006. Approved.\nCommissioner Matarrese moved approval of the minutes.\nCommissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n(06-051) Recommendation to consider Appeal of Determination that\napplicants are not eligible to purchase a below market rate home at\nBayport.\nThe Development Services Director provided a brief presentation.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired whether income is verified\nimmediately when applications are submitted, to which the\nDevelopment Services Manager responded income is verified at a\nlater time.\nThe Development Services Director continued the presentation.\nCommissioner Gilmore inquired how many income tax years are\nverified.\nThe Development Services Director responded that Alameda\nDevelopment Corporation (ADC) did the preliminary background work;\nstated ADC received three years of income tax information prior to\n2005; 2005 income tax information was not available; ADC received\nincomplete information because only pay stubs were received; income\ntax information was not received showing all income sources for the\nentire household; ADC found outside employment from the Peralta\nCommunity College District; only the primary employment source was\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n1\nSeptember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-05", "page": 21, "text": "provided.\nCommissioner Gilmore inquired whether the disputed overtime is from\nthe primary job, to which the Development Services Director\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner Daysog stated that both the Rutledge and CIC figures\nshow approximately $2,900 for the Peralta College salary; inquired\nwhether the $2,900 is the actual dollar amount.\nThe Development Services Director responded in the negative; stated\nW-2's have not been received from the Peralta Community College\nDistrict; $2,900 is an estimate.\nCommissioner Daysog inquired whether the $2,900 estimate is for\nactual teaching time, to which the Development Services Director\nresponded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Commissioner Daysog's inquiry regarding the income\nthreshold for a family of four, the Housing Development Manager\nstated the income threshold is $83,800.\nChair Johnson inquired whether other information was incomplete in\nthe application package.\nThe Housing Development Manager responded ADC believed sufficient\ninformation was available to determine that the Rutledge's income\nwas over the threshold; the Rutledge's only provided information\nregarding the addition of the fifth household member when the City\ninquired whether the Rutledge's wished to submit additional\ninformation; Peralta Community College District pay stubs, 2005\nincome tax returns, and W-2's would be requested if the\ndetermination process were starting now.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired why the Social Security\nAdministration overtime communication occurred.\nThe Development Services Director responded the Rutledge's wanted\nto dispense with any overtime in order to qualify stated the City\nrequested a letter from the Social Security Administration stating\nthat no overtime would occur; a strong letter was not received; the\nCity determined that overtime could occur.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired why an evaluation was not made for the\nfirst group of applicants, and whether applicants were aware that\nan evaluation would not be made initially.\nThe Development Services Director responded all applicants are\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n2\nSeptember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-05", "page": 22, "text": "evaluated; ADC sends a letter stating what is needed from the\napplicants, such as W-2's checking account information, etc.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether an applicant's status is\nchecked and re-evaluated at the end of the process, to which the\nDevelopment Services Director responded the bank would re-evaluate\nthe status.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether the entire process could take\nsix months.\nThe Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;\nstated the process includes workshops.\nCommissioner deHaan stated an applicant's status could change\nwithin six months; inquired whether applicants are informed that\nwages should include overtime.\nThe Development Services Director responded the application\nrequests gross earnings ; stated overtime is a calculation of gross\nearnings.\nChair Johnson opened the public portion of the meeting.\nProponents (In favor of appeal) : M. Daniele Adams, Social Security\nAdministration Isha Brown, Alameda; Jesusita Rutledge, Appellant\nDuane Rutledge, Appellant; Hannah Israel, Appellant's dependant\nand Jon Spangler, Alameda.\nOpponents (Not in favor of appeal) : Belinda Racklin, Alameda\nDevelopment Corporation.\nThere being no further speakers, Chair Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nChair Johnson stated that she appreciates all speaker comments; the\nRutledge's acted in good faith throughout the application process;\nrules need to be followed; rules become arbitrary without\nconsistency; overtime rules are applied in court every day; the\nRutledge's were given an opportunity to have the employer [Social\nSecurity Administration] provide information stating that overtime\nwould not be allowed; said information was not received.\nCommissioner Daysog concurred with Chair Johnson; stated the income\nmethodology was fair; ADC's and City staff's job is to find\ninformation; the Rutledge's income exceeds the maximum threshold\nfor a family of four; the City needs to be fair to other families\ngoing through the processi urged the Rutledge's to stick with the\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n3\nSeptember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-05", "page": 23, "text": "City throughout the next building phases.\nCommissioner Gilmore stated applicants are required to provide\ninformation on any status change, which includes a change in the\nfamily size; the Social Security Administration letter was not as\nclear as the testimony tonight she would have no problem\ndismissing the $4,000 in overtime if a person in authority provided\na letter stating that no overtime would be allowed; the Peralta\nCollege income is more problematic; documentation would need to be\nprovided from the College.\nCommissioner deHaan stated past trends indicate that Mr. Rutledge\nwould teach this year; the evaluation period is important to keep\nin mind; he is not happy with the prior procedure; the application\nclearly indicates what the income should include.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired whether qualification was based on\nthe 2006 income.\nThe Development Services Director responded verification was to be\nprovided to the ADC by December twelve-month income was then\nprojected.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired whether a twelve-month window was\nprojected from the time of the application.\nThe Development Services Director responded in the negative\nearnings are projected forward twelve months after the application\nis complete and an earning pattern is reviewed.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired whether January 2006 to December\n2006 income was used for evaluation purposes.\nThe Development Services Director responded income was to cover\nMarch 2006 to March 2007.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated income projection should be tighter\nsince it is now September an accurate income could be projected if\nthe Social Security Administration certified that no overtime would\noccur and the Peralta Community College District certified that Mr.\nRutledge is on sabbatical figures could be reviewed to see if the\nincome falls within the window.\nCommissioner Daysog stated 300 affordable homes would be built at\nAlameda Point west of Main Street; the precedent should be to work\nwith a process that is fair.\nCommissioner Gilmore stated documented changes are important a\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n4\nSeptember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-05", "page": 24, "text": "paper trail is needed for the file.\nCommissioner Daysog stated the Rutledge's had ample time to provide\ndocumentation.\nChair Johnson stated the Rutledge's could continue to find ways to\nchange circumstances in order to qualify.\nThe Development Services Director stated the policy would need to\nbe changed if applicants were allowed to change working status to\nbecome eligible.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether another home selection would\noccur, to which the Development Services Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired when validation would be initiated for\nthe next draw.\nThe Development Services Director responded as soon as the\nplacement is complete for the current homes.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired whether the application process\nallows applicants to provide evidence of a change in status during\nthe evaluation period, to which the Development Services Director\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated individuals have no control over\nfurloughs and overtime cuts; the current process is valid and\nallows people to appeal; verification is missing from the Social\nSecurity Administration and Peralta Community College District.\nCommissioner Gilmore stated the overtime calculation was used to\ndisqualify the Rutledge's; now opportunities are not available to\nmake half of the excess income.\nCommissioner Daysog stated the Rutledge's would be eligible for the\nnext housing program because the application would be different\nbased upon adding a fifth person to the household.\nChair Johnson stated allowing individuals to continually change\ninformation on the application is unfair to other applicants;\napplicants could tailor information to meet the qualifications\nThe Development Services Director stated the Rutledge's income was\nreviewed for a five-member family and the income was still slightly\nabove the threshold.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n5\nSeptember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-05", "page": 25, "text": "Legal Counsel stated the overtime issue is relevant and the\ntestimony is very good for the record; the past standard allowed a\nwritten letter from someone in authority stating there would be no\novertime ; an applicant taking a sabbatical has never been accepted\nin order to disallow income; she is not sure whether a sabbatical\nwould resolve the issue.\nChair Johnson stated taking a sabbatical would be a voluntary act.\nCommissioner Gilmore inquired whether the snapshot covers the\nperiod from March 2006 to March 2007, to which the Development\nServices Director responded the snapshot covers a projection moving\nforward to March 2007.\nCommissioner Gilmore stated January 2006 through March 2006 was\nused to project the Peralta College income.\nChair Johnson clarified that January 2006 through March 2006 was\nused to project the Peralta College income from March 2006 to March\n2007; inquired whether fall and winter Peralta College income was\nnot assumed.\nThe Development Services Director responded in the affirmative.\nstated Mr. Rutledge would be obligated to advise the City if he\nwere going to teach.\nCommissioner Daysog stated Mr. Rutledge had every expectation to\nteach if enough students enrolled; reasonable assumptions were made\nfrom the best available information.\nCommissioner Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nChair Johnson seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Commissioner deHaan inquired when the evaluation\nperiod for the next phase of houses would take place, to which the\nDevelopment Services Director responded the evaluation is going on\nnow.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether the Rutledge's could be placed\nin the next evaluation process.\nChair Johnson responded other applicants have been disqualified and\nhave not been put back into the process.\nOn the call for the question, THE MOTION FAILED by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes : Commissioner Daysog and Chair Johnson - 2. Noes:\nCommissioners deHaan, Gilmore, and Matarrese - 3.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n6\nSeptember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-05", "page": 26, "text": "Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of allowing the Rutledge's to\nattempt to provide documentation regarding Social Security\nemployment status and to have staff perform an evaluation based\nupon projected income from March 2006 to March 2007 to determine\nwhether or not the Rutledge's fit into the income category for a\nfive-person household.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired whether the Social Security\nAdministration income would be frozen if there were no more\novertime.\nCommissioner Gilmore responded the income would be for overtime\nearned up until September 30, 2006; overtime would be zero from\nOctober 1 though March if the Social Security Administration]\nletter were submitted.\nChair Johnson inquired what happens if a letter is not received, to\nwhich Commissioner Gilmore responded the Rutledge's would not\nqualify.\nCommissioner deHaan requested a caveat be added to the motion\nrequesting documentation on the added dependent; inquired whether\nthe documentation is on record and validated.\nThe Housing Development Manager responded the dependent has been\naccepted.\nCommissioner deHaan stated that he wants the dependent validated\nand the Social Security [letter regarding overtime) validated by\nthe [Social Security] Finance Director.\nCommissioner Gilmore suggested that the requirement be that the\nletter comes from someone in authority.\nMayor Johnson suggested that the language state \"the appropriate\nperson\" and staff could get the information from said appropriate\nperson.\nLegal Counsel stated real information is being requested; Peralta\nCollege income needs to be counted for the fall and into 2007;\nstaff does not have said information.\nChair Johnson requested that the motion include that the Rutledge's\nprovide all necessary documentation to provide staff with actual\ninformation.\nCommissioner deHaan requested a caveat be added into the motion\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n7\nSeptember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-05", "page": 27, "text": "that all pay increases be projected also.\nThe Development Services Director requested a timeframe for the\napplicant to submit the information.\nChair Johnson stated three weeks is a generous amount of time.\nCommissioner Matarrese seconded the motion.\nThe Executive Director requested clarification about the request\nfor verification of the dependent; stated staff accepted the\ndependent as a family member.\nChair Johnson stated whatever is acceptable to the Internal Revenue\nService.\nThe Development Services Director stated that the fifth member does\nnot have to be a dependent and only has to be part of the family\nunit.\nCommissioner Matarrese restated the motion is that the Rutledge's\nare required to provide a letter from the appropriate authority at\nthe Social Security Office stating that there would be no overtime\nfrom October 1, 2006 through the end of March 2007; that all\nreportable income from Peralta College and any other source be\nfactored in; and all documentation needs to be submitted by\nSeptember 30, 2006.\nCommissioner Gilmore stated Commissioner deHaan requested that\nmotion include salary increases be projected forward if trainee\nstatus changes and there is an increase.\nCommissioner deHaan requested that the motion be modified to\nrequire the Social Security Administration to provide its overtime\npolicy and [overtime] percentage projection.\nChair Johnson stated there needs to be a statement that there is or\nis not [overtime] income.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated the motion includes receiving a\nletter indicating that there would be no overtime.\nThe Executive Director clarified that the process was to resolve\nthe appeal, not to set a precedent for future evaluations.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated a process is not being established;\ninformation is being gathered to adjudicate the appeal.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n8\nSeptember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-05", "page": 28, "text": "Commissioner Daysog stated the Rutledge's were given ample time to\nmake the best and strongest case possible and failed to do so; the\nCIC is opening a can of worms; other applicants could get letters\nfrom non-decision makers. encouraged Commissioners to reconsider\nand approve the staff recommendation\nCommissioner Gilmore stated the appeal would be denied if the\nRutledge's do not provide documentation from a person in authority\nat the Social Security Administration.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes : Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and\nChair Johnson - 4. Noes Commissioner Daysog - 1.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 10:29 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nSecretary\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n9\nSeptember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf"}