My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN092094
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1994
>
CCMIN092094
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:54:30 AM
Creation date
2/1/2000 7:50:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
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).
View images
View plain text
Ms. Mohr inquired about the safety issues of the current alignment and the laws <br />regarding removal of the cap over the landfill. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lum explained this was the most gentle curve of the alternatives considered and <br />would allow the greatest speed, approximately 40 mph. He further stated that the Bay Area Air <br />Quality Control Board and Alameda County Health Dept. have been very insistent that the cap <br />over the old landfill not be breached for fear that large amounts of methane gas might be <br />released. He explained that the road could be moved farther north, however that raises problems <br />of cutting into the hill structure and raising the retaining wall even higher. There is no limit on <br />how high the wall can be from an engineering standpoint, but the issue becomes one of <br />aesthetics. <br /> <br />Mayor Tarver declared the public hearing open. <br /> <br /> Jim McKeehan, Signature Properties, 6612 Owens Drive, reviewed the status of meetings <br />with all the property owners. Several have already given fights of entry to begin construction <br />with compensation to be established later. The Graham property is not needed for realignment <br />of the roadway. Mr. McKeehan stated he would like to proceed as soon as possible as he had <br />concerns about road cuts in the winter. <br /> <br /> Discussion foilowed about the timing involved in getting possession through litigation and <br />when construction can actually begin. <br /> <br /> Robert Graham, 2503 Vineyard Avenue, indicated he has never approved of the <br />alignment and stated his driveway access will be a 12% grade. He believed his quality of life <br />will be seriously affected by this new roadway and the high berm will obstruct his view. He <br />strongly urged Council to lower the road. <br /> <br />Mr. Tarver inquired about the elevation of the new roadway. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lum stated that at Mr. Graham's property the roadway would be elevated fifteen feet <br />and on the other side of the road is the eight foot retaining wall. He further indicated that Mr. <br />Graham has an approved PUD for his property which could be impacted by the driveway. <br />There are still discussions that have to take place to resolve the matter. <br /> <br /> Mr. McKeehan clarified that the City required Signatom to build the road and the City <br />will choose the alignment. His point is that Signature does not need the property of Mr. Graham <br />and Signature is just h-ying to do what he is required to do. He recalled that Mr. Graham used <br />the services of Signatore's engineers at its cost to lay out alternatives. <br /> <br /> Wayne Hahner, 2287 Vineyard Avenue, owns property immediately east of Mr. Graham. <br />He expressed concern about the alignment and the rush to get this through. When Mr. <br />McDowell applied for a PIJD for the Graham property, staff resisted on the grounds that there <br /> <br />09/20/94 <br /> - 10 - <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.