My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN112779
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1970-1979
>
1979
>
CCMIN112779
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:48:38 AM
Creation date
11/11/1999 12:41:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
After further discussion, Councilmember Mercer rescinded his second to the <br />motion. <br /> <br /> Mayor Brandes seconded the motion. <br /> <br /> The City Attorney advised that this is a policy statement only and that the <br />City is required to accept zoning and general plan designation applications. <br /> <br />The roll call on the adoption of Resolution No. 79-240 was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmen Kephart, Wood, and Mayor Brandes <br />NOES: Councilmen Butler and Mercer <br />ABS~T: None <br /> <br />REPORTS OF THE CITY MANAGER <br />Matters for the Information of the Council <br /> Mr. Brown presented Information Report IR 79:16 of the Assistant City Manager <br />dated November 20, 1979, regarding procedures for development of major streets. <br /> <br /> Mayor Brandes stated he felt this information should be made available to <br />the property owners as soon as they indicate an interest in development. <br /> <br /> Councilmember Mercer stated he felt the City has a responsibility prior to <br />a developer developing his property in the design of streets. He also stated he <br />did not understand the formula for developers participating in signalization <br />costs and felt this should be addressed further. Councilmember Mercer concluded <br />by stating he felt this report was about six months too late. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brown advised that this procedure is used by most cities and has been in <br />existence for some time. <br /> <br /> Councilmember Wood suggested that a developer be required to improve both <br />sides of a street where it is necessary and collect reimbursement costs for the <br />other side of the street from that property owner when he develops. <br /> <br />Sunol Interceptor - Proposed Amendment to Engineering Agreement <br /> Mr. Campbell presented his report dated November 20, 1979, regarding this <br />matter. <br /> <br /> Councilmember Mercer asked why there was a cost overrun on this project. Mr. <br />Campbell advised that this is a cost plus contract and that before exceeding a <br />certain amount it requires City Council approval. Mr. Campbell explained that <br />the agreement was entered into in September, 1977, and was based on construction <br />costs at the start of 1978. The project was not started until one year later <br />through no fault of the Engineer and inflation costs had to be added. Mr. Camp- <br />bell stated that the water lines were not added into the original contract be- <br />cause at that time the City did not know where the lines would be placed. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Councilmember Mercer, and seconded by Councilmember Wood, <br />that Resolution No. 79-241, approving the amendment to the Engineering Agreement <br />with Kennedy/Jenks Engineers for the Sunol Interceptor, with the City paying 12~% <br />($32,337.50), be adopted. <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmen Butler, Kephart, Mercer, Wood, and Mayor Brandes <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br /> <br /> 9. 11/27/79 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.