Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Aldine Right Of Way topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After heated public hearing, Roseville council rejects Aldine vacation but directs staff to pursue a protected pathway design
Summary
The council rejected a resident petition to vacate the 30‑foot Aldine right-of-way in a 3–2 vote and then narrowly approved (3–2) direction for staff to pursue a pathway plan favoring TKDA’s boardwalk/gravel Option 1. The meeting featured hours of public comment on tree protection and neighborhood connectivity.
The Roseville City Council declined a petition from adjacent property owners to vacate the Aldine right‑of‑way but subsequently directed staff to pursue a design for an accessible pathway through the corridor.
After hearing more than an hour of public testimony from both sides — homeowners seeking to protect an oak stand and neighborhood users urging retention of the connection — the council considered a resident‑initiated resolution to vacate the 30‑foot right‑of‑way. The motion to vacate failed on a 2–3 vote; opponents said the vacation would permanently remove a public connection and eliminate future options for a public pathway.
Supporters of the vacation argued the corridor functions as a small urban forest and that construction would imperil a number of mature oaks. “Vote for tree preservation,” said resident Mindy Ericson, reading a petition and tally of community supporters she said topped 740 signatures. “Once path development invisibly kills the oaks, we will never get them back.”
Those urging the council to retain the right‑of‑way argued the corridor is a longstanding public connection that provides safe, short routes for children and neighbors and could be designed to reduce tree impacts. “The right‑of‑way is a link connecting public benefit from the past and present to and for future generations,” said a resident speaker who urged the council to preserve the public interest and pursue the TKDA Option 1 design.
TKDA’s feasibility study — presented earlier in the meeting by Dana Schumacher — described two design options: Option 1, a hybrid of stabilized accessible gravel and raised boardwalk sections routed over critical root zones to minimize soil disturbance; and Option 2, a gravel‑only approach that would mechanically disturb more of the trees’ root zones. TKDA and an arborist warned that some trees (identified in the study as trees 12 and 13) would be greatly affected even with mitigation, and the consultant said long‑term tree health cannot be guaranteed after construction.
Councillors debated competing values: tree preservation, long‑term public access, equity of service, safety for school routes, and the city’s budget priorities. After the failed vacation vote the council approved a motion (3–2) to direct staff to move forward with pathway planning using the TKDA study and to treat Option 1 as the city’s preferred approach while preserving further public input and design-level review.
What happens next: staff will move the corridor into formal pathway planning, pursue more detailed design and cost estimates, and return to the council with funding options and any needed land‑use or easement decisions. Several speakers asked the council and staff to pursue a conservation easement or other legal protection; city attorneys said any easement would need to be voluntary and recorded and cannot be forced as a condition of vacating.
