CCMIN020795 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Dennis believed it is possible to design a trail satisfactory to Fish and Game but that it might not meet the City's requirements for a recreational amenity. Mr. Swift indicated there are a number of issues to consider; e.g. whether full handicapped access is required; which is more intrusive to the bank slope; how the design meets regulations for Fish and Game and for Zone 7. There are provision which allow varying access of handicapped persons. For instance, the blind could use the trail, but a wheel chair could not. The City has a trail policy, but also has a strong outreach to handicapped groups in the City to try to include them in decision-making as to whether this particular trail should be accessible to the handicapped. Currently the trail on the north side is not handicapped accessible because it is not fully paved. The City' s objective is to use its best efforts to make the trails accessible and this is done when older facilities are retrofitted. Ms. Mohr indicated a portion of the trail in conjunction with the Centennial improvements was not paved because the residents did not want it. Mr. Pico stated the trail on the north side was completed inundated and flooded in many areas with the recent rains. Some sections were washed out. He was concerned that paving would not solve the problems. Mr. Swift indicated some of the pavement has been there for many years and other sections of the trail was quickly improved for the Centennial Celebrations. He then described the typical low-flow crossings. Ms. Dennis referred to condition #23, 24 and 25, which allowed the developer to post a bond so that if the amenity is not possible at this site, the money can be spent at another location. Mr. Roush responded to the question of attaching a condition that the project would not go forward without the amenity of a park, trail and crossing and requiring an agreement to that effect. He stated that the condition must be drawn so that the amenity is required to mitigate a condition of this project and moving it elsewhere might not address the impact of this project. Ms. Dennis believed that was the case here because the public would be denied access to the arroyo without the trail. She would not be in favor of the project or its density without the amenity. Ms. Mohr asked if the creek crossing could be moved elsewhere. Mr. Roush stated it could be done, however the amenity to be installed has to relate to the impact which the project is causing. 02/07/95 - 12-