CCMIN012103 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Hosterman said she had seen the video and felt it was very good. She would like to have the video available in the library for people to check out. Mary Smith, 4241 Cabemet Court, wanted to do the right thing and wanted the City to spend money in a prudent manner. An urban creek is a valuable asset. Kottinger Creek is an urban creek, not a drainage ditch. She wanted the creek restored. Over the years several things have happened that caused it to deteriorate. One was when the creek was deepened and that caused a lot of erosion. Another problem was when some trees were cut down. She also wanted to make certain a maintenance manual is prepared once the studies have been done and is relevant to the creek. She said many meetings were held in order to get to consensus. She did not think consensus was a good term in this regard. The only thing to be done is to restore the creek. She wants children to experience a living creek with natural diversity, including frogs and ducks. Ron Taylor, 512 Gerard Court, agreed it would be good to narrow the focus and to restore Kottinger Creek based on science. A properly designed creek channel increases flood control, biodiversity and increases the natural beauty of the park. He noted the creek is near a school and teachers use the creek for their classes. He wanted to make certain Drew Goetting Consulting is included in the new process for requesting proposals. He said the ability to talk with Drew Goetting allowed them to focus on what was important and helped to narrow the project. He wanted to be able to communicate directly with any consultant the City retains. George Reid, 596 Gerard Court, said the Urban Creek Council recommended an hydrology oriented company rather than a landscape architect firm. Drew Goetting walked the creek and made excellent suggestions for studies, costs, maintenance manual and restoration of the creek. The first Wolfe Mason proposal of over $100,000 did not include a maintenance manual. The second proposal was scaled down using reconnaissance level studies. That is changing the scope of work the Friends were looking for in terms of detailed studies of the creek, including modeling with the Army Corps of Engineers ATC models, biology and ecology studies. He did not feel reconnaissance studies would produce a decent maintenance manual to maintain and preserve the creek for the next hundred years. He asked for a rough estimate from Drew Goetting on associated costs because Mr. Reid did not believe it should cost $100,000. Mr. Goetting had good ideas and estimated only $35,500 for the studies, $12,000 for design development, $3,000 training and management, and $65,500 for creek restoration. That is only $10,000 more than the Wolfe Mason proposal just to study the creek. He recommended that hydrology oriented firms like Goetting and Leventhal to submit a proposal to perform the studies and for creek restoration. Cheryl Puls, 939 Kottinger Drive, said the Friends of Kotlinger Creek have five requests. She believed the goal for the creek has never been clearly established. She asked Council to determine that the project goal is to restore Kottinger Creek to dynamic equilibrium, which means we will neither have excessive erosion nor sedimentation. That is the best way to protect the habitat, deliver clean water, and minimize maintenance costs. She asked Council not to approve the consultant agreements with Wolfe Mason because it does not reflect the goal previously requested. She acknowledged this may require the City to open the bidding process Pleasanton City Council 18 01/21/03 Minutes