CCMIN021484 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Combs questioned the deadline for submitting the rebuttal statement; whether or not it is at the close of business at 5:00 P.M., or 12 midnight. Mr. Swift, Assistant City Attorney, advised that the rules vary regarding this issue. He stated that Council did not specify a definite deadline time for submittal of the rebuttal arguments; only the deadline date of February 14, 1984. Mr. Curt Altschul, 6324 Calle Altamira, asked what time does City Hall close its business day. Mayor Butler advised at 5:00 P.M. Mr. Altschul asked if all citizens are subject to these hours. Mayor Butler stated they are. Mr. Altschul stated he felt Council should not be allowed to file their rebuttal argument because of the deadline time of City Hall business being at 5:00 P.M.; that they should have to abide by the rules that govern the citizens. Mayor Butler stated that it is still February 14, 1984, and that Council would not take any advantage that was not afforded to Pleasanton Today and Tomorrow. Councilmember Mercer asked Mr. Altschul if he was specifically told that PT&T's rebuttal statement would have to be filed by 5:00 P.M. Mr. Altschul stated he was not specifically told that 5:00 P.M. was the deadline. He stated that PT&T was ad- vised to bring in their original petition to the City Clerk's office before 5:00 P.M., and he felt the rule should remain the same for rebuttal statements and not extend business h6u~s into the evening. Mayor Butler stated that Council has filed their rebuttal argument statement within the time limit and that copies are available for PT&T review. Mr. Michael Bennardo, 1362 Orloff Drive, addressed the BART rail extension issue, stating he did not think it is legal for BART to extend service to San Mateo County be- fore providing service to the LiverTaore-Pleasanton area. He suggested that California Streets and Highways Code Section 150 and Code of Civil Procedures Section 526(a) might be used to bring action against BART in order to get BART service to the Valley. He also expressed concern regarding the credibility of the Valley~s representatives to the various agencies who are involved in this issue. He requested Council to look into the possibility of legal action against BART on the grounds of misappropriation of taxpayers funds as set forth in Section 526(a), and sue against their intent to spend the money elsewhere. Council instructed staff to look into this matter. Mr. Ron Schneider, 650 Orofino Court, President of the Vintage Hills Homeowners Association, asked if Council could require the developer of the property at Bernal (Pico) Avenue and Vineyard Avenue to fill in the ditch along Bernal at this location as it is a very dangerous situation. Mr. Okamura advised that the developer has one year to complete the improvements and there is not much the City can do to get him to move faster. Council instructed staff to do everything possible to get the developer to take care of this hazardous situation as soon as possible. Mr. Schneider addressed the Vineyard Avenue traffic study, stating that several hundred dollars had been appropriated for the consultant to review this matter with concerned citizens and that this has not been done. He suggested that Council require the consultant to discuss the report with residents in the area for their input, before the report is reviewed by Co.uncil. Mayor Butler stated that Council will not consider the Vineyard Avenue traffic study tonight, and instructed staff and the consultant to meet with representatives of Vintage Hills before this matter is reviewed by Council. Mr. Frank Belecky, 892 Madeira Drive, stated he felt BART service to the San Fran- cisco Airport was ridiculous and that it would not be used for that purpose. He stated the present transportation system to the San Francisco Airport is adequate. Mr. Jack Hovingh, 4250 Muirwood Drive, stated he supports the City's efforts in trying to get BART service to the Valley. 6. 2/14/84