11 foot asphalt with cement curbs trail on my property line

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

Well, when I lived up there, Walnut Creek park was known for its 'drug central' status - everyone went there to buy their drugs :P. Maybe it has changed since the late 90s....

The trails were great for biking, though...

The urban trail is brand spanking new and incredible.

[oldtoiletsmkgdflrpots]

The trail sounds awesome and in my opinion would be a plus when looking for a home. The question I would want to ask the OP is this: is the land in question yours?

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by Novacek

So a path that is probably less than 1% cover in the greenbelt (if that, it's probably a non-linear response) makes limiting owners to _45%_ cover (plus the 100% cover of the roadways those owners use) hypocritical?

When subdivisions are designed the City requires that they stay under the maximum impervious cover requirement calculations, which typically includes 0% in the greenbelts and also takes into consideration the 45% for residential lots and the 100% coverage of the roads. So yes it is hypocritical for the City to turn around and add thousands of square feet of additional impervious cover in the greenbelts.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

turn around and add thousands of square feet of additional impervious cover in the greenbelts.

Compared to the _millions_ that are already there from the houses? It's a rounding error. And that's even assuming it has any appreciable effect (again, I'm not a hydrological engineer, but I suspect it's a non-linear process).

[austin-steve]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Compared to the _millions_ that are already there from the houses? It's a rounding error. And that's even assuming it has any appreciable effect (again, I'm not a hydrological engineer, but I suspect it's a non-linear process).

I also suspect the surfaced trails would be done with the newer porous asphalt products, which provide for a good wheeled surface but which allow some degree of draining right through the surface instead of 100% runoff.

Steve

[gpurcell]

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

it was the city

Under what code? There is nothing in the code that determines where a gate may be placed.

[10scoachrick]

Originally Posted by gpurcell

Under what code? There is nothing in the code that determines where a gate may be placed.

The fences don't necessarily belong to the homeowner...could be the HOA or the city.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by 10scoachrick

The fences don't necessarily belong to the homeowner...could be the HOA or the city.

Let's be clear since there's a ton of mis-information being (likely purposefully) disseminated.

1. The city doesn't build fences as part of urban trails to keep home owners out. Period.

2. If an HOA has a fence up or a fence w/o a gate is required by the HOA its between the homeowner and the the HOA, but it's not by city code.

Ic delight loves to make broad allegations with nothing to back it up. I'm sure hell have a reply about how certain he is but note that he will not provide a cite to the city code. That is because there is none.