Laserfiche WebLink
It was moved by Mayor Pico to direct staff and the Parks and Recreation <br />Commission to work with the Parkside neighborhood with respect to further clarification <br />of the mitigation plan for the Arroyo Trail on the south side of the Arroyo Mocho; to <br />support the issue of gates from private yards; to respond to the concerns about safety and <br />protection; and to investigate the feasibility of some form of financial mitigation to be <br />brought back to Council. <br /> <br />The motion died for lack of a second. <br /> <br />Ms. Ayala was not willing to pay for the fences. <br /> <br /> Mr. Campbell was also uncomfortable with the fences. He had originally supported the <br />Mayor because of Val Vista Park. He asked if the issues were similar? <br /> <br /> Mr. Wolfe said the Val Vista fence is on City property. In this case the fence clearly is <br />on Zone 7 property. The City allows access to the area because of an agreement with Zone 7. <br /> <br />Ms. Michelotti was concerned that this was precedent setting. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala supported gates and reviewing safety and protection services as provided to <br />any other area of the City. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis suggested an expedited review process for the fences to minimize the process <br />for the neighbors. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti felt this was not the usual situation. She agreed with Ms. Dennis' <br />suggestion of minimizing the process so there is notice and a hearing is necessary only if there is <br />an appeal. <br /> <br /> Mr. Wolfe felt that most of the issues on the list of mitigations could be worked out. The <br />biggest stumbling block for staff was ite~n 2A, the financial contribution toward mitigation. <br /> <br />Ms. Ayala asked for clarification on the access points. <br /> <br /> Mr. Wolfe believed the issue was that the Parkside residents wanted assurances of the <br />process that would be followed about potentially opening the court access to the trail. Staff does <br />not support opening them at this time and the Commission agreed. The residents were concerned <br />that if the staff or Commission members change, that the court access would be opened. He felt <br />that staff has a very good record of always providing notice and opportunities for discussion <br />before action is taken. He believed item 5 of the mitigation list was concerned with Council <br />opening these courts and what recourse would there be for the neighbors directly affected. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 26 04/16/02 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />