My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 072804
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
PC 072804
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/14/2017 9:45:58 AM
Creation date
3/16/2005 1:17:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
7/28/2004
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 072804
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
ROLL CALL VOTE: <br />AYES: Commissioners Arkin, Fox, and Sullivan. <br />NOES: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br />ABSENT: Commissioners Kameny, Maas, and Roberts. <br />Resolution No. PC-2004-47 was entered and adopted as motioned. <br />Commissioner Fox suggested that the Commission revisit the conditional use permit <br />process as it appeazs to be anover-regulation of small businesses. <br />The Commission then considered Item 6.e. <br />e. Consideration of Changes to the Aparoved Bernal Avenue Bridee by Foothill <br />Road. <br />Mr. Wilson presented the staff report, describing the background and history of the <br />Bernal Avenue Bridge. He stated that the project was modified in 1993, and a new <br />concrete bridge with a false steel superstructure to replicate the existing steel truss bridge <br />was approved. Mr. Wilson explained that funding problems developed as a result of cost <br />capping and subsequent reduction of contributions by the entities involved in the <br />construction of the bridge. Because the construction of the bridge, as proposed, would <br />'~ require the City to fund the difference for the cost of the bridge, staff recommended that <br />the cost of the project be reduced by redesigning the second bridge to eliminate the false <br />steel superstructure and investigate other design options which would complement the <br />existing steel bridge rather than imitate it. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. <br />There were no speakers. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br />Commissioner Arkin commented that the architecture of the existing bridge is part of the <br />chazacter of the community and that the original design of the second bridge should be <br />retained. He indicated that he would not support the construction of a bridge without the <br />steel superstructure and proposed that the City Council look for ways to build the bridge <br />as originally planned and agreed upon. <br />Commissioner Sullivan stated that he would like to see a second bridge as a riveted steel <br />bridge identical to the existing bridge. He expressed concern with the City picking up the <br />funding shortfall and recommended that the City Council enforce the construction of the <br />original design without using City money to build it. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 28, 2004 Page 12 of 19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.