Laserfiche WebLink
V. DISCUSSION <br />Discussion <br />An excerpt of the "Trails Plan" from the City's "Community Trails Master Plan" is attached. <br />The Community Trails Master Plan shows a combination of Class A and Class C trails and three <br />trail staging areas on this site and linked to adjoining sites. Absent any staging areas on this site, <br />the closest staging area will be in the planned public park located on the former City dump site <br />in the Vineyard Avenue Specific Plan area. <br />The concern with the proposed means of addressing the open space ownership and provision of <br />Class C trails includes the following: <br />^ It relies upon future City concurrence to accept the open space. In the future, the City <br />may not wish to accept the land thereby retaining the open space land in private owner- <br />ship; or may not accept the land until adjacent properties develop and provide extensions <br />to the regional trail. <br />^ If privately owned with a public access easement, homeowner's associations and their in- <br />surance carriers may be reluctant to assume the liability of public access to the associa- <br />tion controlled land. <br />There are, however, other questions to providing trails and trail heads in the areas shown on the <br />Community Trails Master Plan in addition to the acceptance of the Kottinger owners: <br />^ The presence of potentially sensitive habitat areas and the outside agency jurisdiction. <br />The presence of potentially sensitive habitat area may limit the trail locations on the prop- <br />erty; may require bridging creeks and swales thereby requiring agency permits; and the <br />trails' functions may be limited, e.g., no bicycles or equestrians. These questions would <br />then have to be answered if the City Council directs trails and trail heads are to be pro- <br />vided on the development plan. <br />^ When the trails are to be installed and by whom. If not constructed by the applicant, the <br />City would have to pay for their construction. <br />^ The potential maintenance costs to the City. However, the City would require the devel- <br />oper or homeowner's association <br />Alternatives <br />The possible alternatives available to the City to address the open space ownership and the pro- <br />vision of trails/staging areas for the Oak Grove development would include, but are not limited <br />to, the following: <br />PUD-33 Page 4 of 6 January I1, 2007 <br />