My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN110601
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
CCMIN110601
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:34 AM
Creation date
12/21/2001 11:16:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
11/6/2001
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN110601
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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
The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers - Ayala, Campbell, Dennis, Michelotti, and Mayor Pico <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotfi indicated she had come to the meeting thinking she preferred the southern <br />alignment because there were only two bridges that needed to be constructed. She also thought it <br />would be nice to have a perpendicular bridge over the arroyo connecting to a thirty acre park. <br />However, in considering the staff input regarding the bridges, the issues raised by residents <br />regarding the length of a straight street vs. a curved street, the issues surrounding the mixing of <br />gravel trucks with other traffic, she has changed her mind. She agreed with comments that <br />Council needs to look at the big picture. She pointed out there is a big picture: it is called the <br />General Plan. That General Plan includes the extension of Stoneridge to E1 Charro and has the <br />northerly alignment. Even though there is still on-going discussion, people should keep in mind <br />that there is a General Plan and a Specific Plan which were developed by residents of this <br />community over a long period of time. <br /> <br />There was a break at 9:37 p.m. <br /> <br />The meeting reconvened at 9:45 p.m. <br /> <br />Item 6d <br />Consideration of a request by the Human Services Commission to conduct a Supplemental <br />City Grant Process for FY 2001/02 (SR 01:254) <br /> <br />Ms. Michelotti indicated she had a conflict of interest on this item and left the dais. <br /> <br /> Ms. McKeehan indicated that City staffprovides independent advice and <br />recommendations to the Commissions and to the City Council. The Commissions are a conduit <br />to receive advice fi.om the community to the Council. When an item involves a matter of policy, <br />it is important that Council make the decisions. It is unfortunate that in this case, staffdisagrees <br />with a decision made by the Commission. She wanted to make it clear to the community that <br />this is not about the value that the staff places on human services in Pleasanton. Staff has <br />recommended and Council has approved over $1.5 million in the current budget for human and <br />social services. She believed government has a separate role to play. That is to make certain that <br />when rules are set for a process, that the rules are clear, the people are held accountable to follow <br />them and that the rules are not changed midstream. That gives the appearance that the City is <br />awarding funds based on personal interests rather than following an established priority system <br />that is fair and equal for all concerned. <br /> <br />James W. Wolfe presented the staff report. <br /> <br />Ms. Dennis asked when was the last time all the grant funds were not awarded? <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 17 11/06/01 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.