CC MIN 1970 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

149 Charles R. Seals, 2522 Goodwin Avenue, described his property, which utilized a wooden retaining wall, and that eventually the creek caused erosion of portions of his yard, so that he obtained a permit from the City to place a riprap wall at some cost. He spoke in support of spot improvements where needed. City Attorney spoke concerning several references to "hold harmless" agreements with respect to the creek issue, and indicated his assumption that the reference was meant to mean "encroachment permit", and defined the terms for clarification. Relative to the question of use of bond issue funds, he stated it was not permissible to expend primarily for the benefit of private property, but if it is found to relate to over- all flood project, based on expert advice, to make incidental improvement, it may be justified if the general purpose of the bond issue is met. James Hagerty, 1244 Windsor Way, indicated he had no flooding problem, but neighbors did. He questioned whether addition of culverts would solve the problem. Mr. Garibaldi, 2803 Carson St., expressed the opinion that rip - rap would improve the channel flow, and that loss of property was secondary. He felt options should be left open in recommen- dation. Mayor Bury returned to the meeting at 8:45 P.M. Councilman Petersen questioned whether the maker of the motion would like to amend to include spot improvements. Councilman Henderson stated that question was excluded because she felt it should be considered separately. Councilman Petersen felt suf- ficient discussion had been held on the question to permit consideration, and there- fore offered to amend the motion to include spot improvements in the motion. Amend- ment died for lack of a second. Original motion carried. (MINUTE ORDER #70-58) Councilman Petersen moved to include in improvements of upper reaches of the creeks the recommendations in Staff report concerning spot improvements, seconded by Councilman Weymouth, Council discussed such questions as recommendations of Staff, specific locations of such spot improvements, and suggestion of advisability of leaving certain discretion to Staff, Councilman Henderson indicated reservations about approving spot improvements. Director of Public Works indicated necessity to obtain rights of entry for any necessary work, including cleaning channels. City Attorney again commented on use of bond funds, indicating if expenditure proposed for spot improvements is to en- hance the flood control of .the over-all project, bond funds, or maintenance and con- struction funds may be used, depending on the type of work, Following further dis- cussion, Councilman Henderson offered a substitute motion to ask Staff to examine potential for isolated spot improvement, and report back to Council with specific recommendations. Councilman Petersen seconded the motion, indicating he would with- draw his original motion, Councilman Arnett questioned what would be involved with respect to permits to enter, City Attorney stated that wherever improvements are to take place, it would be necessary to obtain permits to enter, if this has not already been done. Motion carried, (MINUTE ORDER #70-59) Concerning the same Branch, Councilman Henderson inquired as to proposed plans for alleviating problem in the 1200 Block of Alameda, and Director of Public Works acknowledged there is a flooding problem between Roosevelt and Carson, and studies