CCMIN071905 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. McGovern would like these included in the plan. She asked what the difference is between lighted pedestrian walkways and lighted multi-use paths, and if it would fie to the Trail Master Plan for the Park? Michael Fotheringham, architect, said the use of trails and paths are interchangeable. The key word is whether it is a multi-use facility, which is a nine-foot wide paved trail that can accommodate a number of users at the same time. If there ara secondary paths, they will most likely be five-feet wide and may be decomposed granite in more environmentally sensitive areas. The majority of the Park in Phase I needs to be accessible by this multi-use path for park maintenance purposes. The level of lighting would be the minimum that the City would require for a park, which is typically .2-foot candles, and the light spacing as illustrated in the plans represent this level of light. In response to an inquiry by Ms. McGovern, Mr. Fotheringham said the lighting is downcast with shrouds that protect the lighting from going out laterally or upwards towards the neighborhood. Ms. McGovern asked how the multi-use paths would accommodate bicycle riders? Mr. Fotheringham said the Pleasanton Avenue extension has bicycle lanes on both sides of the road and thera is no parking; parking would be off of the street in the parking lots. A bicycle lane would be going in both directions and the multi-use trail would accommodate both bicycle riders and pedestrians. In response to an inquiry by Ms. McGovern, Mr. Fotheringham said staff had reviewed the permit area program and indicated less building and more shade arcades in Phase I. He noted that the seating areas in both Fields Four and Five would have canvass steel structures that would be arranged to provide shade over the seating terraces. He mentioned that there were no plans at this point to provide shade arcades in the picnic areas other than planting large trees. Ms. McGovern questioned the Planning Commission's requirement to have the overflow parking area paved. She believed that Council was looking at pervious materials to help percolate the water. Mr. Fotheringham said the overflow area has always been planned to be used for overflow parking. Related to that question is extending Pleasanton Avenue even further up which would cost more to do a final paving section of that road. He is not confident that pervious pavement is the way to go and he needed to learn more about the soils on this site. This area will receive approximately five feet of fill and as that fill comes in, it has to be evaluated in terms of its capacity to percolate. He believed it would better to drain the parking lots so that there are no curves and allows the water to drain through the curves into bioswales, which is simply an area where water is allowed to filter through plant material before it goes into a stormdrain system. He noted that staff's preference for the multi-use trail is not to use pervious pavement. Ms. McGovern pointed out there seemed to be a discrepancy on the height of the lighting. The staff report mentions that the lighting will be 60 and 80 feet in height and page 11 of the Negative Declaration mentions that the lighting will be 70 and 60 feet. Mr. Fotheringham said there are two different fields with lighting at two different heights and will be different combinations depending on how many poles are needed, which has yet to be determined. He did not believe the lighting poles would exceed 80 or 90 feet in height. Pleasanton City Council 19 07/19/05 Minutes