CCMIN082096 - Laserfiche WebLink

she does not feel the road presents a safety problem. She believes Ruby Hill is seeking the realignment in order to more quickly transport its residents into town. She doesn't feel every taxpayer in town should pay for the convenience of the Ruby Hill residents. If Ruby Hill was able to change its conditions of approval, she would like the Council to reconsider items such as a school on site; a bike path should have been built in the arroyo because the bike path along Vineyard has been rendered unusable because of the amount of traffic that is now on Vineyard; reconsider the access to Route 84, because the back gate has not been built for this access; the park fees should have been paid in full. If Ruby Hill can reopen the conditions of approval from six years ago, then the taxpayers also have a right to have these other decisions reopened. Mary Roberts 1666 Vineyard Avenue, spoke on the "S" curve topic. She has no economic interest in this project because she does not plan to develop her property. She feels the "S" curve is an amenity Ruby Hill gave to Pleasanton. The pre-annexafion agreement is clear that the "S" curve would be straightened and the straightening of the "S" curve is more of a benefit to the Ruby Hill residents than to the Vineyard residents. She wanted the City to hold Ruby Hill to its signed agreement. Brian McGuire, 233 Del Valle Court, also spoke on the "S" curve topic. This is the only road that provides access from Ruby Hill to Pleasanton. To say that no one is going to use this roadway to get to Pleasanton is ridiculous. To his knowledge, the "S" curve straightening was to have been done three years ago. Mr. McGuire feels it is apparent that there will not be as many units sharing in the cost as Ruby Hill first thought; this issue could have been raised earlier. This project would not be done without the Ruby Hill project. It is disingenuous of Signature Properties to want to change the conditions of approval and he hoped the City Council will hold Signature to its agreement. Council adjourned to a dosed session at 10:50 p.m. to confer with Legal Counsel regarding potential litigation concerning Signature Properties and its Roadway Improvement Agreement concerning Vineyard Avenue Realignment, the Management and Confidential Employee Performance and Compensation Plan, potential litigation on the County certification of the EIR and development plan approval for the San Francisco property; and the protest on the Aquatic Center bid proposal award. The Council reconvened in open session concerning the bid protest of Midstate Construction. Councilmember Dennis had returned and participated in the closed session discussion. Mr. Pico made a motion, seconded by Ms. Mohr, to adopt Resolution No. 96-95, upholding the protest of Midstate Construction and awarding the contract for the Pleasanton Aquatic Center to Midstate Construction subject to two conditions: (1) confirmation by City staff that the bid of Midstate Construction is responsive and (2) confirmation that Ralph Larsen & Sons, Inc. was not in possession of a State of California Landscape Construction License as set forth expressly in the Specifications for the project; and providing further that if either condition (1) or (2) cannot be confirmed that the matter be placed on the Council agenda for further action as soon as possible. 08/20/96 -20-