CCMIN041602 - Laserfiche WebLink

Item 6¢ Proposed Update to the Community Trails Master Plan (SR 02:091) Mr. Wolfe presented the staff report. Mr. Campbell referred to one of the slides and asked about the trail in the arroyo. He also asked if the trail could be moved higher in the arroyo. Mr. Wolfe explained that the paved portion of the trail is below the flood plain. It is still used regardless of its condition. He felt the engineers would have to decide how far it could be raised. There are trees and landscaping that may impede the ability to move the trail. Ms. Ayala inquired about the budget of $115,000 over five years for this project. Mr. Wolfe said that in anticipation of the trails plan coming forward, a decision was made by Council to start making a commitment toward trails. It is acknowledged that $115,000 will not be sufficient, but it is likely in future the staff will recommend increasing that amount. The desire was to demonstrate a commitment to trail improvement and to get a fund started. Ms. Ayala referred to the list of trails by priority. The Vineyard Corridor is listed as number six. She noted the trail will be paid for by developers in that area and if those developments move forward, would that trail move up on the priority list? Mr. Wolfe said that was correct. It was placed at a lower priority because it was unknown when development would occur. Peter MacDonald, 400 Main Street, Suite 210, representing the Parkside Area Residents Committee (PARC), indicated there was a false premise in the staff report that states the City cannot have an adequate trail system and still address the adverse impacts on adjacent homeowners. PARC is asking that the trails master plan be denied or continued. He wanted the trail along the south side of the Arroyo Mocho not be opened until a reasonable plan of mitigation can be developed. A written mitigation plan was presented to staff for review. The proposed trail goes along the back side of 61 homes and is separated by only a six foot chain link fence installed by Zone 7. If the trail is opened without mitigation, trail users can easily look into the backyards of those homes, depriving them of privacy, security and quiet enjoyment of their backyards. The PARC homeowners want a seven foot good neighbor fence or equivalent landscaping to protect their privacy. He believed the City would require the same mitigation from a developer. He wondered what the City would require for the homes on the Busch property that back up to the Iron Horse Trail. The second issue is the concern about connecting the trails to street access within Parkside, even though City staff denies such a plan at present. He wanted assurance that those connections could not occur without reasonable notice and mitigation. The third issue is the concern about negative impacts of public trails on property values of adjacent properties. He referred to studies that show lower appreciation of property values on trail impacted properties. If a property owner has to disclose trail impacts to a Pleasanton City Council 15 04/16/02 Minutes