CCMIN072004 - Laserfiche WebLink

restrictive. She mentioned that her students would only be clients for three or four months as opposed to the long tenn. She indicated that staff had notified her tutors informing them of the need to obtain business licenses. She did not understand why individual tutors needed to obtain a business license and conditional use permits. If she were to abide by the City's recommendations and what the Planning Commission approved, she would need to make very costly improvements. She withdrew her request to withdraw her appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of PCUP-112. Mayor Pico continued this item to the August 3, 2004 to allow Council the opportunity to review this matter. 6._~c Approval of Kottinger Creek Concept Plans for Creek Restoration. (SR 04:172) Rob Wilson presented the staff report. Mr. Brozosky noted that when this project started, there was a budget of $469,000 and now there are preliminary construction cost estimates ranging from $440,000 to $650,000. He asked staff if the scope of the project had increased? Mr. Wilson said that the original budget that was prepared was preliminary and it came from a set of numbers that was presented at the very onset of the project. He pointed out that the scope of tiffs project was not defined. The scope of the project has not changed but the estimate has and is based upon actual refined details. Mayor Pico mentioned that several residents have mentioned their concern with respect to the removal of culvert crossings and replacing them with stepping stones across the Creek. He asked staff what it was proposing to do and where, as one of the areas from which he believed the culvert crossing would be removed was from the other side of Adams Way to the main part of the park. Mr. Wilson said there are three existing culverts that are on this particular reach of Kottinger Creek, sta~ing from the lower to the upper portion of the creek. Staff is proposing to remove the culvert crossing that is furthest to the west (west of Adams Way) and replace it with a clear-span pedestrian bridge. The second culvert crossing is located in the middle of the project, and that crossing primarily provides access from the existing path, which is in the Park, across the stream to a picnic area. It is not a primary access to the Park and basically, it provides the ability for someone coming down the path to gain access to a picnic area. For this particular culvert, staff is proposing to remove it, as it does not provide primary access to the Park. The culvert will be replaced with stepping stones. The cost of a bridge is substantial and because this is not a major entrance to the Park, access would still be allowed. Mayor Pico asked if it was possible to leave the culvert intact and still achieve the objectives of the design and the meandering stream? Pleasanton City Council 8 07/20/04 Minutes