|
287
<br /> by Councilman Keckley , as he felt that ultimate objective would include the
<br /> final staging of a total rapid transit system .
<br /> Mr . Armand Cohen , of Servicar of Nothern California , stated
<br /> his understanding of Plan D required by State legislation
<br /> a transit system that has to physically tie into BART , there -
<br /> fore would imply rail service on tracks .
<br /> Mr . Fisher replied that present legislation is as indicated
<br /> by Mr . Cohen , that a proposed transit system on Peninsula would
<br /> have to be compatible to BART , but it was believed if a new
<br /> transit technology developed , such legislation would be amended
<br /> later .
<br /> Amendment to motion lost on roll call vote , Councilmen Arnett , Petersen , Rosselli ,
<br /> Weymouth and Mayor Bury voting no , Councilmen Henderson and Keckley voting yes .
<br /> Councilman Henderson indicated her opposition to the main motion of accepting
<br /> only Plan B as doesn ' t believe motion as offered is sufficient for needs at this
<br /> point . Main motion carried on roll call vote , Councilman Henderson voting no
<br /> ( MINUTE ORDER #69 -48 )
<br /> REPORT OF BID OPENING, Bel Air Way Improvement District .
<br /> Director of Public Works reported bids received had been reviewed by himself and
<br /> Attorney for the District and would recommend that bid not be awarded to the apparent
<br /> low bidder, Wenrick and Associates , because of several discrepancies noted . He
<br /> further reported that the several property owners in this area were present and
<br /> had asked to present a proposal to Council . Attorney for the District , Robert J,.
<br /> Costello , concurred with statement made by Director of Public Works .
<br /> Mr . Ray Harder , 50 Bel Air Way ( owner of Lots 24 and 45 ) reviewed
<br /> the attempt that had been made by property owners in this area
<br /> previously to install their own improvements in cooperation with
<br /> City , and the estimates which had been received of some $8 , 000
<br /> but which had not been concluded because of protest of one of the
<br /> property owners . He advised that since that time a new owner ,
<br /> Mr . William Rhodes , had indicated he favors such a proposal , and
<br /> that several of the other property owners had likewise indicated
<br /> such an interest , and urged that Council again consider this sug -
<br /> gestion .
<br /> PUBLIC HEARING , Resolution of Intention to construct , Bel Air Way Improvements , declared
<br /> open and affidavits of mailing , publication , and posting ordered filed . It was
<br /> ruled comments and discussion held previous to opening of public hearing were to be
<br /> considered as a part of the hearing .
<br /> Attorney for the District , Robert J . Costello , advised statutes
<br /> under this procedure would permit property owners to contract
<br /> for work directly as a normal procedure , or abandon these proceed -
<br /> ings entirely , terminating the Assessment District , and permit the
<br /> property owners to contract for themselves . He cautioned , however ,
<br /> that Staff and property owners would have many problems to work out
<br /> before proceeding on this basis . He suggested this public hearing
<br /> be continued and then based on interim discussions , the issues be
<br /> decided at the next public hearing on whether to reject the bids
<br /> and readvertise or terminate the proceedings .
<br /> Councilman Rosselli moved to continue this public hearing to April l4 , 1969 , seconded
<br /> by Councilman Keckley .
<br /> In reply to question as to effect on the bids by continuing
<br /> public hearing , Attorney for the District stated continuance
<br /> of the public hearing would leave maximum options for Council ' s
<br /> later consideration .
<br /> City Attorney advised specifications provide that bids may be held for 30 days before
<br /> award , although bids could be rejected at this point and readvertising authorized .
<br /> Mr . Russell Torrey , 44 Bel Air Way , owner of Lot 41 , wondered
<br /> if continuance suggested would allow sufficient time to plan a
<br /> property owners improvement proposal , and also questioned whether
<br /> Council ' s policy concerning two of the lots in this proposed Dis -
<br /> PAR 17 '69
<br />
|