Laserfiche WebLink
74 <br /> <br /> r. Approval of the Reimbursement Agreement with Ahmanson <br /> Developments, Inc., for Tract 6266, Laguna Oaks Unit A, <br /> for the installation of signal interconnect along <br /> Foothill Road from Bernal Avenue to Racoon Hollow Court, <br /> and allocation of $20,587.31 from Project No. 875032, <br /> Miscellaneous Interconnect Funds, to cover the cost of <br /> the reimbursement. (SR 91:91) <br /> <br /> s. Adoption of Resolution No. 91-35, authorizing the filing <br /> of a claim with the Metropolitan Transportation <br /> Commission for Allocation of Transportation Development <br /> Act Funds for Fiscal Year 1991/92. (SR 91:88) <br /> <br /> t. This item was discussed under CITY MANAGER'S REPORT as <br /> Item 12f. <br /> <br /> u.Adoption of Resolution No. 91:36, approving Phase I and <br /> Phase II of theEmployee Recognition Program. (SR 91:105) <br /> <br /> v. Acceptance of the report on the research, findings and <br /> recommendation regarding the feasibility of providing <br /> Municipal Fire Insurance within the City of Pleasanton. <br /> (SR 91:85) <br /> <br /> The roll call vote was as follows: <br /> AYES: Councilmembers Butler, Mohr, Scribner, Tarver and Mayor <br /> Mercer <br /> NOES: None <br /> ABSENT: None <br /> ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> 5. MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC <br /> <br /> SAVE Initiative/Moratorium on Buildinq Construction <br /> <br /> Ms. Peggy Purnell, 2472 Via de los Milagros, stated that in <br /> 1972, the citizens of Pleasanton voted in favor of the SAVE <br /> Initiative, providing for a residential building moratorium when <br /> water rationing is put into effect. She noted that the City of <br /> Livermore is planning to implement the Initiative and inquired if <br /> Pleasanton plans to do the same. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer referred the matter to Mr. Roush. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush explained that it was his understanding that after <br /> the voters of both Pleasanton and Livermore approved the SAVE <br /> Initiative, a suit was brought against both cities by the Building <br /> Industry Association. The Superior Court judge ruled against both <br /> cities. Livermore appealed the decision through the Supreme Court <br /> <br /> - 4 - <br /> 3-19-91 <br /> <br /> <br />