December 4, 2013

with the County logo; the bridges would be ten-feet wide, strictly for pedestrian use; the bridges could possibly fit a golf cart. Referring to Exhibit A-4, (Conceptual drawing of close up details of bridge elements), Mr. Piga said the drawing depicted the elements in greater detail: it included the (85-ft) arch bridge, the redwood planters, the elements of the low-key 70-ft bridge (that) would pick up the nautical-theme of the paddleboat amusement, and the pathway handrail details. Mr. Piga said the handrail was for delineating the pathway; it would help restrict pedestrians from straying off-path. The bridges would have lighting. Referring to Exhibits A-6 and A-7, (General Plan & Elevation Details for the Construction of Two Prefabricated Bridges - 70’0” Span & 84’0” Length), Mr. Piga said that both pre- fabricated bridges were aluminum. The first bridge was 68-ft., 10-in., with a 10-ft. wide path; the handrails were 42-inches in height with horizontal bars. The second bridge was an overall 85-ft. bridge elevation; the elements would include cuitured-stone columns, the County jogo; and the circles on the arch indicated lights that wouid illuminate the bridge. The elements would pick up in the design of the smaller bridge. There would be actual lighting on the pathway, and gates and columns on each end. The truss would be the same as the handrails. Mr. Piga concluded his testimony; he said there was currently a pathway around the reservoir. The plan would be an improvement of the existing conditions. The Board asked Mr. Piga questions regarding his testimony. Council President McCartney referred to Exhibit A-5; she inquired if there would be a fence on the waterside of the pathway. Mr. Piga said the fence was strictly to delineate the pathway; the rest of the path did not have fencing on the waterside, it was not necessary to fence the waterside of the pathway. Mr. Ghebremicael commented that the plan was a great improvement. Mr. Lester wanted to know the height of the (85 ft. bridge) arch. Mr. Piga said the overall maximum height was about 13 feet. Mr. Weston inquired if the new lighting would be the same as the blue-hued ones currently installed; he said that as the path went further into the Reservation away from the main Complex could consideration be given for installing lighting that is more low-key to create a more dark-sky effect. Mr. Piga

said that as the path went further into the Reservation away from the main Complex could consideration be given for installing lighting that is more low-key to create a more dark-sky effect. Mr. Piga said the lights were not full cut-offs, they were semi-cutoffs; he noted that the whole thing was about the issue of security. Mr. Weston reiterated that going forward there should be some consideration to more natural lighting as the project expanded deeper in to the more natural areas of the Reservation. Mr, Weston asked if there would be a fence in the area of the train tracks. Mr. Piga said that there would be a 4-ft high split-rail fence with a mesh barrier between it and the tracks from the beginning to end of tracks; it would be far enough away from the train so that pedestrians would be unable to reach over to touch or gain access to the train. Mr. Weston asked about the steep drop off near the gabion, was there any concern about the steepness of the area; was there any plan to install a true guardrail type fence. Mr. Piga said he was not concerned about the area; although people could walk down the slope; the plan was to keep people focused on the path; if people really wanted access, they would be able to gain it; the area had to be kept accessible to the water company. Mr. Weston asked if the whole surface pathway around the reservoir would be paved, he NAPLANNING. BRO\WPIMINUTES|2013\12-4-13 Draft Minutes.doc 3