My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CCP 10272025
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2025
>
CCP 10272025
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/28/2025 3:33:18 PM
Creation date
10/28/2025 3:33:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
Meeting Date
10/27/2025
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
189
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Attachment 5 <br />(attachment 8). <br />However, a non-traditional approach would likely reduce that impact by choosing the most <br />advantageous route for tree preservation and considering alternate surfaces. It should be <br />noted that even foot traffic can also cause compaction that could adversely affect trees, but the <br />risk is far less than that related to construction and heavy vehicular traffic. There are instances <br />throughout the parks and recreation system of heavily traveled paths that run within driplines. <br />Although there is no way to guarantee unintentional tree loss will not occur with a construction <br />process, staff feel that if appropriate mitigation strategies are undertaken such risks can be <br />greatly minimized. <br />At this point in the process, it is difficult to discern exactly how many trees would need to be <br />intentionally removed to provide space for a pathway, but staff feel confident that they can <br />minimize the number of trees removed by narrowing the pathway and prioritizing tree impact in <br />the route selection. An appropriate next step could be to utilize a contracted arborist and an <br />engineer to work together to determine a path that is least impactful to trees. <br />Accessibility <br />Based on preliminary staff analysis, it appears that if the City chooses to install a pathway on <br />the site, it would be considered a "shared use path" or "sidewalk," which means the best <br />practice is to comply with the Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG). In <br />summation, the following elements would likely need to be present on any trail through the <br />right of way: <br />Pathway must be firm and stable <br />Slope not greater than 5% (1 foot of rise over 20 feet) <br />2% slope at pathway width <br />Minimum 48-inch wide, with periodic passing space <br />Curb cuts/curb ramps on each side of the path <br />It appears that none of these standards would necessarily preclude a natural/non-bituminous <br />path. City staff are preparing a topographical survey to determine what grade changes would <br />be needed. <br />Parks and Recreation System Master Plan Guidance <br />The Parks and Recreation System Master plan prioritizes the implementation of pedestrian <br />and bicycling links: “connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists is a clear desire of the <br />community, and while connections across the community might be a long-term goal, the <br />process of creating a connected community begins locally – by linking neighbors to their parks, <br />and parks to other parks…” (Attachment 3, page B-37). This parcel was identified as a <br />possible constellation connector within the Master Plan (page B-38). Several specific goals of <br />the master plan may fit in with this conversation: <br />Goal 4.1: Develop, adopt, and implement a comprehensive and integrated trails, <br />pathways, and community connections system plan for recreation and transportation <br />uses, including separate facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists (including off-road <br />Qbhf!42!pg!29: <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.