CCMIN041602 - Laserfiche WebLink

potential buyer, it could cost the seller $10-25,000 in lost property value. He felt these citizens had a legal right to mitigate for the impacts of a new public trail. The staff report estimates a new wooden fence would cost about $150,000. This is far below the loss of property value which the Parkside property owners will incur. Because of these impacts, the residents would prefer the trail to be on the north side of the arroyo. Given the decision to locate the trail on the south side, the residents believe reasonable mitigations are in order. He felt the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Commission was based on inaccurate information, specifically the cost to bridge the Chabot and Tassajara Canals on the north side. That cost was stated as $400,000 to $600,000. The bridge across Tassajara Canal at Creekside Park cost the City only $80,000. The Commission was presented with a choice of spending $600,000 for the north route or no cost for the south route with no mitigations. He felt the real cost for the bridges for the north route was $160,000 or less. The real cost for the south route with a good neighbor fence is $150,000. He felt the true costs of the north and south routes are equal. Given that, he asked why the south route was more desirable. He said staff was concerned about two issues: setting a precedent and scarcity of public resources for trails. As to precedent, none of the new trails being added to the plan go past existing houses. All of the existing trails go past backyards that are already improved with solid wood fences. In other words, he felt there would not be a substantial additional cost for reasonable mitigation for impact of all the new trails in the master plan. Second, as to scarcity of resources, if trails are worth doing, they should be done right and fairly. If trails improvement results in a one percent decrease in vehicle trips, it would save the City millions of dollars in traffic improvements. Aside from the recreation benefits, the economic and fiscal benefits of trails justify spending more money than less money on trails. The cost of trails must include the cost of screening the backyards of adjacent houses. He felt trail advocates would support a trail design considerate to those impacted by their trail use. In conclusion, he asked that Council not permit the trail on the south side of Arroyo Mocho to be opened until a reasonable plan of mitigation is adopted. Ms. Michelotti asked about some of the discrepancies on the list versus Mr. MacDonald's presentation, such as seven foot versus eight foot fences. Mr. MacDonald explained they want funds to build a seven foot fence and permission to build an eight foot fence at the owner's expense for the extra foot. Joseph Jones, 3625 Touriga Drive, said he had been working for the last year and a half on trails for the Livermore-Amador Valley area. tie thanked Council for recognizing the importance of trails in the community. He said Pleasanton is about 3,500 housing units away from buildout and adopting this trails master plan will make historic progress for the future. Providing safe, non-motorized transportation corridors for the residents offer opportunities for recreation and commuting away from the dangers of increasing street traffic. The Iron Horse Trail represents the regional success that can be expected in providing trails. There are over a million alternative transportation user trips each year. Greater than 36% of its use is for transportation whether going to schools, jobs, visiting friends, parks or shopping. He fully supported the Trails Master Plan. The City staff has done a fine job in evaluating the system and he felt it represented extensive knowledge and understanding of the current situations and needs. He urged Council to approve the Trails Master Plan. He presented a video from the Trails Council regarding trails in the Folsom area. Pleasanton City Council 16 04/16/02 Minutes