|
MATTERS CONTINUED FOR DECISION
<br />Adoption of Ordinance No. 797, amending Section 2-7.08(a), Article 8,
<br />Chapter 2~ Title II of the Ordinance Code of the City of Pleasanton to
<br />allow "automobile washing, includin~ use of mechanical conveyors~ blowers
<br />and steam cleaners" as a conditional use in the C-C (Central Commercial)
<br />District (Introduced on 9-27-76 by a 3-2 vote)
<br /> Mayor Philcox declared this item continued to the meeting of October 26,
<br />1976.
<br />
<br />Adoption of Ordinance No. 798, amending Section 2-15.13, ArtiCle 2 (Sewer
<br />Connection Fees), Chapter 8 (~ewa~e), and Section 2-16.21, Article 2 (Water
<br />Connection Fees)~ Chapter ? (Water)~ of Title II (Zonin5 and DeveloRment)~.
<br />of the Ordinance Code of the City of Pleasanton relatin~ to exemptions to
<br />charges for casualty losses (Introduced on 9-27-76 by a 4-1 vote)
<br /> Mr. Edgar stated this Ordinance was introduced on September 27, 1976, by
<br />a 4-1 vote, and that it was now in order to adopt the Ordinance.
<br />
<br /> It was moved by Councilmember Brandes, and seconded by Councilmember
<br />Mercer, that Ordinance No.. 798, amending Section 2-15.13, Article 2 (Sewer
<br />Connection Fees), Chapter 8 (Sewage), and Section 2-16'.21, Article 2 (Water
<br />Connection Fees), Chapter 9 (Water), of Title II (Zoning and Development),
<br />of the Ordinance Code of the City of Pleasanton relating to exemptions to
<br />charges for casualty losses, be adopted.
<br />The roll call vote was as follows:
<br />AYES: Councilmembers Brandes, Herlihy, Mercer, and Mayor Philcox
<br />NOES: Councilmember LeClaire
<br />ABSENT: None
<br />
<br />Report~ Re: Clarification of Tele-Vue Rate Increase related to the F-M
<br />Monthl~ Service Charge
<br />Mr. Walker presented his report dated September 30, 1976, regarding this
<br />matter.
<br />
<br /> Mr. Bill Lilly, General Manager of Tele-Vue Systems, Inc., stated that
<br />it had not been the intent of his company to never charge for F-M service,
<br />but stated that clerical employees may have given that impression. He
<br />stated the F-M service charge was necessary due to increased costs, he felt
<br />that it was fair, and that he was willing to talk to any F-M user to reach
<br />an amicable resolution of this matter.
<br />
<br /> The following persons spoke in opposition to the $1.50 monthly service
<br />charge for F-M, stating they were.told there would never be any charge for
<br />it:
<br /> William Silveira, 4274 Muirwood Drive, who also presented a
<br /> petition with 23 names of residents who were
<br /> told by Tele-Vue that there was only a one-
<br /> time charge of $10.00 for their F-M outlet
<br /> Ida Silveira, 4274 Muirwood Drive
<br /> Daisy Bartlett, 2292 Crestline Road
<br /> John M. Coppinger, 7704 Forsythia Court
<br /> George Land, 4024 Fairlands Drive
<br /> }~rilyn Swanson, 5416 Greenfield Way
<br /> Betty Begiebing, 5259 Forest Hill Drive
<br /> Lee Strom, 5072 Hummingbird Road
<br />
<br /> After considerable discussion, it was moved by Mayor Philcox, that the
<br />current rate increase of $1.50 per month for Tele-Vue F-M service be applied
<br />to future users only, and that past and present users be exempt from this
<br />monthly service charge.
<br />
<br /> The motion died for lack of a second.
<br />
<br /> Mayor Philcox then declared the Tele-Vue rate increase would remain as
<br />adopted by City Council on September 13, 1976, and that every F-M user would
<br />be charged a $1.50 monthly service charge.
<br />
<br /> Mayor Philcox recessed the meeting at 9:50 P.M.
<br />
<br /> Mayor Philcox reconvened the meeting at 10:05 P.M.
<br />
<br /> 3. 10/11/76
<br />
<br />
<br />
|