HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 Final Arroyo Mgmt Plan AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 28, 1985
SUBJECT: Zone 7 Final Arroyo Management Plan -
Administrative Draft
EXHIBITS ATTACHED : 1 ) Transmittal letter from Zone 7
2 ) Announcement- of Public Information
Meet i-ng
3 ) Excerpts from Zone 7 Final Arroyo
Management Plan - Administrative
Draft (A copy of the complete draft
plan is available for review at the
Dublin City Offices )
RECOMMENDATION: � Direct staff to transmit comments to
Zone 7
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION: On December 10, 1984 , the City Council
reviewed the Zone 7 Arroyo Management Plan - Initial
Progress Report. The report included background information
and an initial inventory of trail feasibility. The City
Council directed staff to continue working with Zone 7 in
preparing the plan .
Zone 7 has now released an Administrative Draft of the Final
Arroyo Management Plan for the City ' s review and comment .
The Draft Plan has an outline of agency responsibilities,
typical design standards, and overall master plan map of
trails .
The Draft Plan, (pg. 9 ) includes the following designation :
"Alamo Creek
- Supported by Dublin City Planning Staff and Public
- Zoned Open Space in February 1984 Draft General Plan
- Connects to future six acre park, and State Route
580''
Staff has a number of concerns with the above designations :
1 . Policy question--
During the discussion regarding the Initial Progress Report,
Staff stated that the City Council and perhaps the Planning
Commission and Par;: and Recreation Commission would need to
decide whether a trail should be developed along Zone 7
facilities in to City . If a trail were to be developed,
the C-ity might :maintaining the trail through a
join_ r:ov/Ocs with Zone 7 .
JCa l VO1Cc_ ;ilc jOr COrlc(3rn wltfl sazety, security, and
vandail' s1i1 .L:�Sl: ?.'i re-'lat^:.: to a trail . A—1,d1tional (esi'Jn
nrOvii.! d i=O assure the welfare 0�7 pr.�ool] :'
wild loin � L]st� t"lle trail ADS, We11 3s t1lose who reside aCljdc°ni=
to it . QU05tlot of vi ual surveillance_, tencl.ng, -all
Ut'cl lC'r v(:_hicular acc`�ss , l l.ghting -lnd sa:miliar security
Coat--ur,e� G✓oul(.! iir c , to :)e answered' . Petrol servlc,'.S wc-uIC;
3 . DeyeloiDment and Maintenance Cost and 1 undl n
Additional inform,--it-ion would be needed b•ofore tile City /
entered into an agreement to develop and maintain a trail .
The City has not, at this time, indicated it is willing to
contribute to implementing the trail program.
4 . Recreation Considerations
The following recreation considerations should be included
in the Draft Plan :
a) There should be coordination between local bicycle
trails and the proposed public access trails .
b ) Access should be limited to non-motorized use .
c ) Trails should have compatible uses and provisions
for various use requirements, i•.e. pedestrians
with joggers and bicyclists .
d) The provision of support amenities is important
and should be incorporated in the development
plan, i .e . benches for walkers, markers for
joggers, etc .
5 . Draft General Plan
The Draft General Plan designates Alamo Creek as Open Space;
Stream Corridor . A future minimum 5 acre park is planned
for the east Dougherty Hills area.
Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to
transmit the City Council comments on the Draft Plan to Zone
7 .
------------------------------------------------------------------
Y_ RE50U
ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION_DISTRICT
a a -
1404 CONCANNON BOULEVARD d LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA 94550 A (4l 5) 443-9300
�NAGEME
January 11; 1985
RECE1yEp- _
JAN I
CITY OF OUBLW '
SUBJECT: ARROYO MANAGEMENT PLAN
Enclosed for your review and comment -is the final draft of the Arroyo
Management-Plan prepared by Kent Watson.and Associates. The Zone 7 Board of
Directors will be considering this draft plan at the regular board-meeting on
January 23; 1985. Kent Watson will be'presenting the plan at that time, and
your comments are welcomed. After the Zone Board's consideration the plan will
be presented to the public for input at a public meeting scheduled for
January 31, 1985 (see enclosed announcement).
If you have any questions, please call Kent Watson (775-9153) or myself at your -
convenience.
Very truly yours,
Mun J. Mar
General Manager
By
Vincent Wong
Supervising-Water Resources Engineer
VW:bkm
Enc.
cc: Each Member, Board of Directors
Kent Watson & Associates
R E SOUR��
' ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER.CONSERVATION DISTRICT .
a a
1404 CONCANNON BOULEVARD S LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA 94550 1 (415) 443-9300
GErnEr? ANNOUNCEMENT OF A PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING
DATE: Thursday, January 31, 1985
TIME: 7:30 p.m.
LOCATION: Arroyo Mocho School Multi-Purpose Room
1040 .Florence Road, Livermore, California
SUBJECT: Draft Arroyo Management Plan
Zone 7 of Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District has retained Kent Watson and Associates to prepare an Arroyo
Management Plan. The plan investigates the feasibility of, .and .proposes, a
master plan for public trail access along flood control .channel and arroyo
rights-of-way owned. or to be owned by Zone 7. The primary products of this
plan are:
1. An outline of agency responsibilities for development,
operation, maintenance, and security for each segment of the
arroyo system planned for a trail;
2. A set of typical design standards or cross sections; and
3. An overall master plan map showing the location of trails in the
system plus other interconnecting trails already in place.
The purpose of this meeting is to present the draft plan to the
public and to receive input from interested parties before finalizing the
plan. This is the second of two public meetings on the plan.
Questions or comments before the meeting can be directed to Vince
Wong of Zone 7 (443-9300) or Kent Watson (775-9153).
Nwy. 580
wt
4
d geo o Moc.HO Scrrc�t.
=
104.0 FLDesHCLE RD.
Wy.
LivERHaRer, C4
i �
1 11 k'• Y a k �:
F ''
A
f s ,, 1. l t S 4 .l I t I 'r ti. �1c*'f�i � ti. C+< '� i f v i..1 a y
a
1. h Q �.• T �{1 k'.Z 1 d -(Fr' 'l
Tf , i Y i �
1 f s Mf ;ri c .t '>.Y d er t xT } try. 1.. -.i:
,rt a ,, + 4 r._ - s i: . •1 �f S t '. T �V3, y*...lr�,T p. '-'s`.y, t ' �'t , ; ',�
.y h z E
1tt i .,\J 7- l t 1 �"( L "4, �3'l{Y'� n','~,,,,iisl } �a {'�, 'r y -� a:ti..'\ ',�
f I a` 1 t YS nil ' w ,q� 4 ry . ' '{
't, ° 4 y t, 9 4. 1 Kf,t 1,'J f
.
n ! .j
` r ,1i t 2J f' C •ab 1 a _ i
1 l y 1 ( Y
✓_,..- -
. Zone '7 -
y — ti 7
. ,
• , TJ )
�' Alameda County.,Flood Control and r' , ' '� f' �a r 4j ` �'
a I
Water Conservation District s: 1 y ,{ ; tik��� t}'yri p rs
+ I
�; x > Mkt 2 r *,e tL J ;- s }}}
„� :" Livermore, California ,`f ,i' Kam ;•_�y}rs �' t
1
w k
f ' k ,. 4.Y�p9, {;x�r'„ .Q:kr+�`2 q, a la if=,"�t ?_yF .,,r{''"1 j ? �i
1 .. f — 4' SJ'1 y. S Y C. 11. .a1`M S ur , ) ') 3 :�:
t ¢-. ' r.y� t > •5_:. ;a+ d 4 t...Znk$.•' } .y ht.f};1 "`t ''-, �i.�+. '.rS t�k rf 1... s'z f £
�'� ti �r V'. - rt` _*'-, '.J a t om? `` t
I F > >�y, � Cw9 {P s V A f s -.
` t }j r€ �5 1 h}.. yf ti-va ° i
T{' Q 1 , i
`� A , 'i� i nGl l i, 1 y / ry i. j'. k f a ,�� "y.'v(`, yY y"'5-f. '`s.. rN -\ S r "•-�
•..: _ i J '"'fib._� b -
,r a 3 p 71 c., �^. 1
tM1k:! 1. ! .,; .fit• , •"1
'Arroyo 1Vlanagement = Plan �� � � �s { x '- 41C `,
a ;+ x { .2.�, , F�,�,�y:{,�� .3.�- y i is i
, f 4 ' ry t �3 . �T M��II r.A'�Y? t� rra ,,a` ' +
t - ' t F��`I Y4 'a ` A,' - 1, f
It t -s. �.
r C 4 y' t '.ry t i f ,d't t 4 9 _y�} _� 5` YF 1 J*•
t<
.. s. { r r
o ,,r. , .,,.1 r- =.f it c. .1
9 M`.,
A �� r.
��
.
��
. ® %
. .
:.,•
i '
.
. - ', :.
'C'
i I -�' S•i
J
, .' iC )Ili
mw
� t i
` Kent Watson & Associates
Landscape Architects - .
1550 Pacific Avenue
. 11 ; .'
San Francisco CA 94109 ,..-___,
(415) 775-9153 • , s
January 1985
y,
«'
� ' .
.,
1 � 'I " �a
Ta)t ".tPP`.1
;s. TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
III. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 3
t °3 A. Goals
B. Policies
••,',ry' C. Action Items
c
IV. TRAIL RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
'¢ • : A. Design
'.„. B. Priorities (Plan Map)
C. Selection Criteria
D. Non-Selection Criteria
E. Future Planning Considerations
7:
V. TRAIL DESIGN STANDARDS. . . . . . . . . . . . 11
A. Cross Sections
B. Notes on Cross Sections
. . 1 ° C. Typical Plans (Staging Areas, Access Points)
D. Facilities Standards
VI. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET & SCHEDULE . . . . . 24
VII. IMPLEMENTATION RECO,I1MENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
R .
VIII.FUNDING SOURCES . . . . . . . . . . 27.
APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Initial Progress Report - Updated; new Implementation sections on
Sample Licenses; Minimizing Channel Design; and Public Comment
4�
s{
"� I• INTRODUCTION.
x The Arroyo Management Plan investigates the feasibility of and
proposes a master plan for public trail access along the flood controy
channels and arroyos in Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control
District. The Zone generally encompasses the Dublin, Pleasanton and
52
Livermore communities and their immediate environs within Alameda
County.
After receipt of a proposed master plan program in 1983, the Zone 7
Board of Directors, through its staff in Livermore, requested in May
t 1984 that an Arroyo Management Plan be
Y g prepared and funded by Zone 7.
Each of the affected cities, park districts, other public agencies and
interested citizeiis have been involved in the preparation of this
Plan. The public trail access envisioned in this Plan includes
y improvements which will serve residents, commuters or tourists engaged
in non-motorized travel or recreation along, within or across natural
or modified flood control channels. Typical uses and benefits
expected include walking, hiking, jogging, bicyclying, equestrian use,
picnicking, nature study, general play, transportation and urban
relief.
The primary products of this plan ares
a) an outline of agency responsibilities for development,
operation, maintenance, and security for each segment of the
arroyo system planned for a trail;
b) a set of typical design standards or cross sections (in a
{ format easily used with grant submittals); and
c) an overall master plan map showing the location of trails in
the system plus other interconnecting trails already in place.
- 1 -
t.
II. SUMMARY
The planning process for the Arroyo Management Plan has included
extensive field reconnaisance, city, park district, county, state and
°ky federal agency interviews, research, data collection and display and
public comment. This draft plan is eligible for public comment until
when the Final Arroyo Management Plan will be released.
The data collection indicated both a strong overall demand and
very localized opposition to public access along the arroyos. Local
general plans call for natural appearing and accessible arroyos. The
arroyos currently being modified for dedication to Zone 7 continue to
be channelized and are restricted from public access. The paved trail
along the Arroyo Mocho through Livermore is popular and receives
steady use. Almost all of the open arroyos show evidence of
continuous foot traffic (normally as result of trespassing) and a few
of the fences around Zone 7 arroyos have been vandalized to provide
access.
The concept of public access along the arroyos received critical
reviews from adjacent private landowners. Some were predictably
concerned about security and privacy. Others, who might use the
trails, were favorable to the idea.
The Arroyo Management Plan is being prepared at an opportune time.
Many transportation-related plans are currently underway which will
influence land use. This plan illustrates the opportunities and
constraints available for public access along the arroyos. Much of
these data have been synthesized and consolidated onto working maps
and overlays. A summary map of trail recommedations is included with
this report.
The implementation ideas resulted from surveying other flood control
districts and discussing possibilities with local agencies. Many
options are available for construction, maintenance and operation
assistance and funding.
The preliminary information was presented and discussed at a public
meeting on November 13, 1984, at Walnut Grove Elementary School in
Pleasanton. The input from that meeting was combined with the data to
form the Plan and alternatives. These are presented in the
Administrative Draft Management Plan for Zone 7 review, and will
result in a Draft Management Plan for further public review and
comment.
i
2
IV. TRAIL RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Design. The proposed trail system design was based on:
1) the Trail Feasibility Inventory (Appendix, Figure 4);
2) the support expressed by city and
park district officials;
3) public opinion; and
4) the expected outcome of the gravel quarry reclamation.
B. Priorities. The Management Plan Map (next page) is divided
into ffour categories, by priority of use/development:
n
1. Existing Trails Associated with Arroyos - The existing
trails under the jurisdiction of LARPD, Livermore and Pleasanton
- are shown.
2. Flood Control Rights-of-Way Available for Public Access
- These highest priority routes follow the 1966 Master Drainage
Improvement Plan where arroyos have already been or are scheduled
for future modification. Zone 7 would normally be the landowner
through acquisition or dedication by developers.
3. Recommended Connecting Trails Outside of Flood Control
Rights-of-Way - These routes connect with the arroyo trails on
roads, railroads grades or arroyos outside the scope of the 1966
Master Drainage Improvement Plan. Zone 7 would normally not own
these lands.
4. Alternative Flood Control Rights-of-Way Available for
Public Access - Nu.nbered by priority, these trail segments are
recommended options which may be added to the Master Trail Plan by
F` the Zone 7 Board.
- 7 -
J
a _
- — .-......_..— - -- -- - - —
V.11011 CR
. LRO �
•��: Cl Ct T
L�EGF
Im,
+:
_ —
,. r - -
-
t.�
cl
Ai t-
-.. oc) 0 G!� - a„ `? =L]_t_i S:y� i'•:.�;t .,l.. -:•�,'_.i :ir`.__f ! LlJ W C:
.T� _DcL-VALE'
•.J. ; .,_? -t1.� �.�.,�;,,r.i.•.:+' _ _-__-_I U-'l i;i:f� t�il i�r �_.-,-... -�„- �".. �. ;{ L`
rL- oo
0 -.f
,
,
_
, - 2` -- - � - '!.\':1):��� ^'J•.I -_ - >�� ( `y.• _- •Zl_(rY.`':r^r !N':.=;�a,Cp Jr I - '
'�!�� - --;i:• Sf ��`'�:'':, .mss., `ti' _ i,
I'
tt
_ 'Y _ ',, .'f' l-_ )-:^ic:'i,: I'• — _ � �1. lid �1 ...
- -1
mil._ � -
i,r. r ,I
���" -• �� i1 I - _ _,� _ _ . . _ �7,ire',;�s�„ i . ..,;' '.-;, kr{- E I
1
C,. Selection Criteria. The following section documents the
support for the trail segments proposed along flood control
ij rights-of-way by local agencies, plans and the public.
1. Alamo Creek
x *
Supported by Dublin city planning staff and public.
1 * Zoned Open Space in February 1984 Draft Dublin General
I Plan.
Connects to future six acre park, and State Route 580.
2., South San Ramon Creek
* Supported by EBRPD Regional Trail Plan (#48), staff and
public comment.
* Connects to future BART station in East Pleasanton, Dublin
High School, future transportation/utility corridor along SP
tracks, and Amador Valley bike trail.
3. Arroyo Mocho
Supported by Pleasanton city staffs, LARPD and bicycle
clubs...
* Complies with zoning.
Connects to existing trail system, West Livermore BART
station, Hacienda Business Park and future Chain of Lakes.
4,., Arroyo de la Laguna
Supported by the Pleasanton city staff and EBRPD.
* Alternate route for EBRPD regional trail #36.
* Connects to natural riparian habitats, partial link to
Augustine Bernal Park and proposed Pleasanton Ridgelands Regional
Park,.
5.: Arroyo del Valle
* Supported by Pleasanton city staff and General Plan, EBRPD
and LARPD staffs and LARPD Master Plan.
* Proposed as EBRPD Regional Trail #17 east of Shadow
Cliffs, extends Veterans and Sycamore Park Trails.
* Connects to future Chain of Lakes, Shadow Cliff Regional
Park, County Fairgrounds, and Del Valle Parkway by bypassing
resident objections in downtown Pleasanton.
6. Arroyo las Positas
* Supported by Livermore city staff, LARPD and bicycle clubs.
Zoned Open Space in Livermore General Plans and shown in LARPD
Master Plan as a trailway.
.r Connects to Chabot College and crosses Route 580.
7.. Alamo Canal
* Supported by bicycle clubs.
* Connects Dublin to Pleasanton.
- 9 -
Al
VII.., IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS
A.; Immediate Considerations
�r
The Initial Progress Report described several Administrative
Structure options and scenarios (refer to Appendix ). Those options
are still viable with the exception of the one using State inmates or
the County weekender programs for labor. That means the East Bay
Regional Park District, the Livermore Area Regional Park District, the
cities of Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore and the California
Conservation Corps and non-profit environmental groups are willing to
contribute to the implementation of the trail program.;
Analysis of the nine Administrative Structures scenarios which
describe the responsibilities of the various agencies in different
combinations, points to continuation of basically the present format:
T. 6.: Zone 7 would collaborate with EBRPD, LARPD and the cities of
Livermore, Pleasanton and Dublin through contractual agree- ments
where respective regional park districts and cities would develop,
maintain and provide security for trails/parks along the flood
On
control channels within their jurisdictions and Zone 7 would
continue to maintain the flood control channels..
Zone 7 does not need to create new recreation staff positions as
long as the local cities and park districts are willing to support the
trail plan.. It would be an unnecessary duplication of effort.. The
same is true regarding security personnel; utilize existing security
and public safety authorities.,
Collaboration with both cities and park districts appears
necessary based on the current division of responsibilities between
Livermore and LARPD.:
Zone 7's role will be limited to providing lands for trails
associated with the arroyos and promoting trail development via public
relations and cooperative funding aplications. The Trail Master Plan
Figure , shows which agencies are expected to implement each trail
segment.
The EBRPD Trails Manual (1976) is recommended as a comprehensive
guide for Administrative Procedures and Design Construction Standards.
i
25