CCMIN032106 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Thorne requested staff to notify the downstream residents and have meetings with them concurrently with the bidding process so the City can get the neighborhood's input on the project. Mr. Fialho responded the meetings and bidding process could be done concurrently however, if we expand the participation, inevitably there may be additional comments and modifications that residents may request that may not be reflected in the public bidding process. If the comments are consistent with the "Friends of Kottinger Creek", then there would be no delay. If not, the project would have to be returned for Council direction. Mr. Brozosky questioned the financing grants that have been applied for in order to offset the costs of the Kottinger Creek project and if the results would be received prior to receiving bids, in order that the information is included prior to the Council making a decision. Mr. Wilson thought the grant process would occur prior to a decision. Mr. Brozosky questioned the increased costs of the bridges that were reflected in the report. Mr. Wilson responded there are two different types of bridges being installed in the project. The stepping-stones have been replaced with a modest bridge that spans the eight-foot low flow channel and is for foot traffic only. There are larger bridges where the span is wider than expected and the costs for materials have increased. Mr. Brozosky inquired about the option of phasing the project and whether staff has calculated the additional costs to share the project. Mr. Wilson responded that additional estimates for the project if done in two phases have not been completed. Staff plans to return options to Council to review if staff recommends the project be completed in two phases. Mr. Brozosky asked if the bidding process included the option to complete the project in two phases. Mr. Wilson responded the bid documents are being prepared and proposed for one project only. Mr. Sullivan inquired about the different bridges and what the need was for massive steel bridges versus pedestrian bridges only. Mr. Wilson responded that the larger bridge, from the Parks and Recreation Department perspective, is important in terms of allowing maintenance operations. If the bridges were eliminated, it would cause concern for the Parks and Recreation Department, as it would require the maintenance vehicles to utilize an access point on Adams Street, which does not have a turn around area for the vehicles. Mr. Sullivan inquired whether the need for the larger bridges was a convenience or a critical access for the Parks and Recreation Department. Pleasanton City Council Minutes 9 03/21/06