My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN082100
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
CCMIN082100
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:32 AM
Creation date
9/26/2000 7:46:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
8/21/2000
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
Mr. Swift indicated taking out the abutment lowers the surface elevation of the <br />water and that does not have any effect downstream. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver believed that Zone 7 was responsible for flood control and asked <br />why Pleasanton was doing it? The City is removing the abutments to solve the 100 year <br />flood plain pmblems and Zone 7 is responsible for flood control for this part of Alameda <br />County. He felt retention basins upstream would do more for flood conre31 than <br />removing the abutments. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico did not believe t/rat issue had any impact on the decision tonight. The <br />bridge abutments already exist within the City of Pleasanton and are not part of the <br />Bernal property. Any liability or downstream impacts already exist. <br /> <br />Ms. Dennis asked about liability if the City owns the arroyo? <br /> <br /> Ivh'. Roush explained that as the property owners, the City would be responsible to <br />maintain the Arroyo to make sure we do not create an additional flooding hazard to <br />adjacent property owners. In the absence of any improvements to the Arroyo, any <br />impacts of removing the abutments would have to be analyzed in terms of balancing the <br />benefits to Valley Trails versus downstream impacts. The initial analysis suggested there <br />would be no downstream pmblems. That would not be affected by who owns the <br />Arroyo. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said that since discussion about the abutment started years ago, the <br />original plan was to take out the old bridge, not the existing bridge abutments. <br />Subsequent to that, it has been determined that we need to replace the abutments to <br />preserve the Bernal Bridge. <br /> <br />24. <br /> <br />Mayor Tarver asked Council to go through the staff recommendations I through <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico supported all the recommendations, including #16, and did not think it <br />was necessary to vote on every single one individually. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti preferred to defer the final decision on the berm until the golf <br />come review was completed in the next week. She referred to the Windsor project as <br />what she would like to see. She was concemed that if the golf course is not put in and <br />vineyards were planted, for example, they could not bc seen because of the berm. She <br />wanted to be able to see into the property. <br /> <br /> Mr. Costanzo did not support deferring the decision. It appears there will be a <br />vote to decide whether a golf course will be built and Greenbriar cannot walt to build the <br />berm until after that vote. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 18 08/21/00 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.