CCMIN091603 - Laserfiche WebLink

Gailey, Krisit Gorrebeeck, Katelin Hopping, Courtney Lam, Jennifer Mello, Samantha Moos, Kendra Perry, and Jenna Robinson. A presentation by Howard Neeley concerning Pleasanton's Odd Fellows Cemetery information was continued to October 21, 2003. Other Speakers Joe Fraser, 7801 Capewood Place, addressed Council regarding the Affordable Homing application involving Rachel Smith. He has known Rachel for approximately 15 years and she is a good friend of his wife's. He made reference to the Council's character values, specifically integrity, and mentioned that he went through the leadership program two years ago. They worked on a book to serve the underserved people in this community. He felt very strongly about the book, which goes to all the nonprofits. To him an underserved person is someone who has slipped through the cracks and that is why he wants to become involved. Rachel has a disability because of her child's disability. She has gone through every aspect of the approval process for affordable homing and it seems like every direction she tums there is another roadblock. He asked the Council and city staffto take another look. Her heritage and family go back 40 to 50 years. Her grandfather sat in the Mayor's seat for two terms. He asked Council to look at the facts, and if there is a gray area, have it go towards someone in the community to allow her a chance to buy a home and raise her children. As a member of the leadership program he would like to see the process work. Rachel Smith, 4682 Augustine Street, requested reconsideration of her assignment for the affordable homing project. She felt she had been treated unfairly and requested for this matter to be placed on a future agenda. She stated that she does meet the eligibility requirements and has proven that. As a form of verification and as suggested in the eligibility packet, she submitted a letter on company letterhead stating the terms of her employment. She included documentation of the benefits she receives fi:om work and was told that her integrity was questioned because she works with her father. A meeting was held with her and city staff where she was informed she received a bonus point for disability status. Her documentation was not traditional because of the direct effect that her son's disability has on her ability to work. By not accepting her documentation, she felt the City of Pleasanton had discriminated against her based on a disability status. The City packet also claimed to assign a number of points if the person were employed regardless of the legal employment status, plus a bonus point. When she met with the City Manager it was suggested that City staff look into it with the City Attorney. She was then informed that it would not matter, as her residency was in question, which to her, had never been mentioned. She mentioned thet she did provide proof of residency with a notarized letter. Staff questioned this became her best fi:iend wrote it. She was then asked to produce a utility bill as proof of residency; however, she pointed out that she was only living with someone until she could get her own place, and thus there was no need to put a utility bill in her name. She was asked to provide proof of residency for the Pleasanton School District. The District has a special form that is an affidavit for parent and child sharing residency with another adult. She noted she has received mail from the Pleasanton City Council 5 09/16/03 Minutes