CCMIN101970 - Laserfiche WebLink

It ',,,as moved by Councilman ~rton and seconded by Councilman Beratlis that the City of Pleasanton endorse PrOpoSition :los. !, 10, 14, 15, 16, 1° LId 20 as recor:-..ended by the i, ea~,ue of California Cities m:-e rol'l call vote ?as as =~, : YES: Councilmet.: Getton, Beretlie, Pearson and :.'.ayor Reid OES: Jone .BSE:'~T: Councilman SOiliOtOOOU!OS It was moved ~7 Council:-zn Gerton and seconded-b-f Councilman Beratlis that the City of Pleasanton also endorese Proposition :';o. 5, pertaining to Public Meetings of the University of California Regents. The roll call vote '..:as as follows: AYES: Councilme:' Gelton and Beratlis NOES: None ABSEXT: Councilman SpiiiotoF-oulos kBSTAiIrED: Councilman Pearson a~nd riayor Reid Consideration of the BARTD Pc!icy Statement Re: Rail Extensions .Mr. Fa!es reviev;ed his report, dated October 14, 1970 and also review- ed the BARTD Policy Statament adopted October 13, 1970 regarding transit planning. fir. Fa!es stated that he felt that this policy statement regarding rail extensions is in keeping with the policy position e:-:pressed by beth the Livermore and Pleasanton City Councils and the Mayors' Conference. 2..'.r. Fales added that this statement will be referred to the full BARTD Board of Directors at their meeting '~}n October 22nd. :!r. Fa!es reccrmT, ended that the City Council express pproval of the statement and urge its adopti.on by the entire BARTD .~oard. It was moved by C0uncilr. an Gerton and seconded by Councilman Beratlis that the BARTD policy statement recarding Rail Extensions be endorsed by the enti're BARTD Board of Directors at their meeting on October 22, 1970. The rcl! call \;ote :.,'as :ms fo!!o:.;s: AYES: Councilr:',en Beret!is, Gerton, Pearson and ::ayor Reid NOES: None ABSE:Uf: Councilman Spi!iotopoulos Further Report Re: Grc::th Related Fees and CharGes 'Mr. Fa!es stated that ke had received a telegram from Mr. William ~,~ President of tl:e 7..ccoiated i!o.7.ebui!ders of the Greater East Leonard, Bay area which stated -hat the ----D.--~ate court forbnd that all require- ments of land de~iicati.tn or in lieu fees for anything other than neigbl:or::oc~- facilities direct!':' related to that subdivision are unconstitutional. ,.'.Ir. Faies state~ that l:e '.;o'',~ ~-,a"e ~-~ City Attorney oreDare a legal interi:2zation of tb.e aFpelate courz decision and report on ..... "- T:: iiovember 9 ~ %70 at '..'~.ic7 tiT._- t2:e renor~ on Gro:.;th this .......... , -' ~ Related Fc.z.-~ and Charges :.fill be discussed. Discussion ensued regarding this entire matter. Mayor I eid asked that it be c-~nti::ued at the meeting of :royon'jeer 2, i970 when the Ci.~.. Attornol..'c fir. di~_ were 3 10-19-70