CCMIN071701 - Laserfiche WebLink

suppose to be there. People are not obeying the signs that are presently posted and going along the trail. He would withdraw his support ifa gate were not going to be there. Tom O'Malley, Tri Valley Business Council, PO Box 3258, Livermore, said the Council Transportation Committee is very interested in every oppommity for regional mobility throughout the Tfi-Valley Region. The Business Council endorses the project and feels it is a great opportunity for bicyclers, walkers, and transportation alternatives for Pleasanton residents. He urged approval of the trail. Marie McEntee, 4263 Jensen Street, is a representative for the Pleasanton Hullers and Puffers Running Group, an informal group of people who get together five days a week to run together. When she moved here fi:om the Santa Cruz Mountains the hardest thing to leave was the nature, trails, and beauty. Her family discovered the arroyo trails. Her family was disappointed when they would see a trail fi:om the road, only to discover a gate blocking their access. The running group use the trails all of the time. They love the trails because there is no traffic, no stoplights, and the natural beauty. They go up on the ridge and around the arroyo. Currently they run to the gate and back and would like to have more options and the ability to run a loop. During the times she has run on the trails she has never encountered people loitering, any criminal element, or fires. She also runs with her family and finds that it is great because there is no worry about traffic. Lynn Creighaum, 3225 Clifford Cimle, represents nine other families on Clifford Circle. She thinks the entire project is actually being discussed. The environmental documents that were submitted in June identify this as a 12-foot wide pathway between the Alamo Canal and Santa Rita Road. She became conceraed as she was driving down West Los Positas and looked over at the section of the Arroyo being discussed and thought about how she would feel if her child was being directed on that route to school. She thought about what would she do if she saw a child injured on that pathway. There is a 9 - 10 foot sound wall between that child and a residence where they would feel safe. She thought she could get on her cell phone and call someone. How long is it going to take that someone to respond to that injured child or the child that is in danger, perhaps being accosted? Her main comments concern two procedural issues. In 1999 the Parkside residents registered for a second time their opposition to the opening of a public trail on the south side of the Arroyo Mocho Canal, directly behind their homes. They requested instead that the trail be placed on the north side of the canal. They were told at that time by City staff that the Federal grant money must be used for development on the south side. If the project were not done at that time the money would have to be returned. The project appeared to come to a halt and based on the "use now or lose forever" argument presented by the City at that time, the residents were confident that the project had quietly died and the Federal money had been returned. On June 30, 2001 they received notification that there would be a public meeting on July 9, 2001 regarding the bike path for Hart Middle School students. It was at this time that it became obvious the Arroyo Moeho Canal bike project had not gone away, it was just being addressed differently under the disguise of the school access. The community has had only seven days to review this current plan, request additional information, and attempt to contact appropriate affected residents. It is interesting to note the timing of this action, during the Ple~santon City Council 10 Minutes 07/17/01