pages
2 rows where "date" is on date 2012-06-06 and page = 11
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Link | body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil/2012-06-06.pdf,11 | CityCouncil | 2012-06-06 | 11 | The City Manager responded staff recommendations regarding the residential area came from discussions with developers; there is a lot of vacant commercial space; commercial development is unlikely to come back before residential; therefore, focus would be on doing detailed residential entitlements in order not to lose out on the next development opportunity. Vice Mayor Bonta inquired whether a private developer could do the entitlements if the market gets hot, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the EIR has the longest timeframe; Council could revisit funding the residential work in six months and still catch up with the EIR; waiting too long could cause the City to miss a window of opportunity. Councilmember Tam noted previous master developers never caught opportunity waves. Councilmember deHaan stated the areas of clean land are an issue. Councilmember Johnson stated the developers have had difficulty going through the entitlement process; Option 1 would allow the community to control the process. Mayor Gilmore stated the City would be getting the same control with Option 2. Councilmember Johnson stated the City should proceed sooner and not repair infrastructure that needs to be replaced. Mayor Gilmore stated the developer would only pay for new infrastructure and not other areas; funds are needed to patch existing infrastructure for tenants. Councilmember Tam stated that she does not see Option 1 as necessarily buying more time; Option 2 would allow the City to get a better bonding rate in the event infrastructure fails or there is another $2 million fire, like at the Fleet Industrial Supply Center. Councilmember Johnson moved approval of Option 1, on a cash basis. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mayor Gilmore clarified that the motion is to do the entire entitlement process using $5 million on a cash basis. On the call for the question, the motion FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers deHaan… | CityCouncil/2012-06-06.pdf |
CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf,11 | CivilServiceBoard | 2012-06-06 | 11 | sent an application to the City of Novato and he was qualified, but he received a letter that stated he did not qualify for the job because it was a senior services position. Again there were a lot of questions that were recreational based. It is a senior service position and he did not qualify for the job because they found others who met that qualification. He went through the process at another neighboring city and went through the same process of answering questions. Their process requires two years of recreation experience and he has 10 years. Based on their supplemental questions he feels he exceeded their expectations. He feels that it is wrong that they (appellants) are in this position. They say it was not based on merit. Again, they say it is based on percentage but if you look at the questions and you grade it, he does not know how the other person even moved on to the second interview. He asked the Board to please look at all the information and consider what is true and what is not. President Peeler asked for questions from the Board. Members McHugh and Batchelor stated they needed to read the material. President Peeler asked if the Board would like to decide on a timeline and whether to meet again to make a decision. Member Malloy asked if deliberations would be in closed session or open session. President Peeler stated probably closed session due to personnel issues. Mr. Riddle stated that the Board is not making decisions about individuals at this point. What the Board needs to decide is did the appellants demonstrate that the test was unfair or that the merit provisions of the Civil Service Rules have not been complied with. If the Board decides that is the circumstance, and there is a motion with three votes that reaches that conclusion based on the evidence, then the next question would be what relief or remedy the Board would grant. The initial question is, does the Board believe the appellants have shown that the examination/selection process was unfair and violated the merit principles of th… | CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object
CREATE TABLE "pages" ( [body] TEXT, [date] TEXT, [page] INTEGER, [text] TEXT, [path] TEXT, PRIMARY KEY ([path], [page]) );