CCMIN051606 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. McGovern commented that she was looking for an option that was within budget. She Thinks this is a maintenance project and asked if there was a way to find the shortfall in the maintenance fund. Mr. Fialho commented that the City would not be replacing without the restoration. He suggested that option 2 might be the balance between creek restoration and budget concerns. However, it would not address the culverts, which were part of the original objective by the neighborhood. As the culverts fail, then they will be dealt with at that time. Mr. Sullivan stated that he would like to vote on the motion. Mr. Sullivan's motion failed due to lack of support. It was moved by Ms. McGovern, seconded by Mr. Sullivan to approve Option 2 as reflected in the staff report and to construct Phase I and II with no steel bridges, with wooden railings consistent throughout the project, and to add dog waste bags and trash receptacles to the project. Mr. Sullivan stated his support for option 2, with restoration above and below Adams, and to remove two bridges at Sherry Court and Cabernet Court, and to separately deal with the bridges at a later date. Mr. Wilson noted that the bridge size has increased due to changes to the flood plane. He said the bridge at Sherry Court is 50 feet long, the bridge at Cabernet Court is 40 feet long. This is because the project is widening the flood plane. Mr. Fialho commented that the Cabernet bridge also functions as a sidewalk for the area. Mr. Sullivan asked the bridges could be looked at separately to see if there was a more cost effective way of dealing with them. He asked if the lower bridge was for foot traffic only. He suggested building a foot traffic bridge and then building a vehicle bridge in the upper area. Mr. Wilson commented on the timing issue with ordering the bridges and installation, he is not sure if that can be accomplished. This might create a gap in the timing and use of the park. Mr. Brozosky added that by going in this direction means that they may be committing more in the future. Mr. Fialho commented on the process to date. He stated that currently there is a procedural issue in terms of a bid process. He suggested they focus on the four options available as presented. Mayor Hosterman stated that she is interested in doing the project and doing it correctly. It has taken too long so far. The cost of the project is$1.4 million to restore the creek and staff has identified resources. Ms. McGovern commented on the creek on her property with a culvert. She believes it can be the same for the Kottinger Creek area. She thinks it will be a beautiful park. Pleasanton City Council 18 05/16/06 Minutes