CC 08-21-2018 Item No. 25 Regnart Creek Trail - Public CommentRegnart Creek Comments
To:
\=~y su.\o \V\\ss,~ ~
Gt~ ~UJ(',t~\
Cc_ ! /d-1 /16
#~
From:
Mayor Paul, Cupertino City Council Members J
M. Gary Wong, 20-year Cupertino Residen y /1~
August 21, 2018 U Date:
Re: Opposition to proposed Regnart Creek Trail
Introduction: Mayor Paul, Council Members. My name is Gary Wong, a
20 year resident of Cupertino.
There are several critical, material, factual errors contained in the
Regnart Creek Trail Feasibility Study that I would like to bring to the
Council's attention. These errors can alter the perception of safety and
privacy on the proposed trail and I urge you to seriously consider them
as you evaluate the acceptance or not of the Feasibility Study. Trust
but verify.
First, I want to make an editorial comment that the community has
not been given sufficient time to vet the findings and
recommendations of the Study, especially when it is a major capital
budget and planning item and because it has lasting impacts on the
privacy of over 100 homes.
At a meeting on May 23rd, residents of Lozano Lane and DePalma Lane
were not allowed to express their concerns with the Trail and
information provided to the Consultant and City Staff were left out of
the 360 page Feasibility Study.
Specific Errors contained in the Feasibility Study:
1. Page 14. Despite advising the Feasibility Study team and
providing a Map of Tract 9405, clearly showing the Santa Clara
Valley Water District was deeded only 10 feet next to the creek
for a pedestrian path and utility service path, the Study wrongly
states that 15 feet is available for that part of the Trail. Show
Tract Map 9405.
2 . Page 15. The map contained in the Study again shows 15 feet
when only 10 feet is permitted. This is a major mistake which
impacts design, safety and utility of the Trail in the Study. Show
Map of Page 15.
3. 10 feet does not meet any bike trail guideline issued by a city,
district, county or state. 2 foot shoulders are standard
guidelines, leaving only 6 feet for bi-directional traffic. This is
clearly against every known trail design standard that exists
today. Show Trail Design Illustration.
4. Further, along La Mar, most of the path is 12 to 13 feet, not the
15 feet that would be desirable. When fencing, trees and other
site attributes are considered, there is less than the minimum 12
feet. Thus, perhaps more than 70°/o of the proposed trail
may not meet current design guidelines for the Trail.
Show Photo of La Mar Measurement
5. The proposed bike trail is too narrow to allow pedestrian and
bike traffic to share and should not be pursued.
6. Page 16. The Study mentioned that during a storm, the Creek
conveys 560 cubic feet of water per second and is not in a flood
zone. The Study neglects to state that water rises to almost the
top of the creek, an unsafe condition for pedestrians and cyclists.
Show photo of water level of Creek.
7. Page 17 of the Study neglects to mention that the Trail site is a
habitat for racoons, Opossums, Coyotes and Vultures. Perhaps
they are not harmful to humans, but explain that to a child
walking the creek. Explain that to a child who is panicked and is
boxed in by a wall and a 14 foot drop on the other side. Tell the
child it was foolish to run when he gets injured. Show photo of
Vulture and Coyote .
There are many more issues to raise regarding safety and privacy but
the 3 minute time limit doesn't permit further comment.
Do not approve the Trail for safety, privacy or cost. There are
wonderful alternatives available. Thank you.
2
Significant & Permanent Impact on Properties
From this To this
• Loss of privacy
• Loss of view
• Increased noise from
talking, music, skate
boards and scooters
• Light pollution from
lights
• Trespassing on properi v
• Increased litter
• Increased pet waste
• Harmful impact to cre b k
habitat
4
REGNART CREEK RIGHT-OF-WAY
Regnart Creek meanders through the soulhern port of
Cupertino adjacent to single family hom e s, porks, and
municipal buildings. TI1e SCVWD own s an d maintains the
55 -foot-wide right -of -way wh ich conta ins the creek and
o maintenance access rood. The exis ting a ccess rood is on
unpaved , dirt rood which varies in widlh from 12 feel to 25
feet lhroughout the corridor.
For o 400 fool portion of the creek corridor, adjacent to
Lozano Lane and De Palmo Lane, the SCVW D right-of woy is
4 5 feet -wide ond co nta ins a 15-foot w ide ubl ic use bi cyc le
and pedestrian pathway granted by Jo int Use Agreement
(Appendix B) belween the City and SCVWD . A 5-foot -w ide
public walkway connecting the creek to Ro d rigues Avenue
was granted through the conditions of approval of the Lozano
Lane development. A 20' PG&E utility easement is granted
within private and SCVWD right-of-way.
Guidance for trail de sign next to SCVWD streams ond
streamside resources is presented in the Guidelines and
Standards for Land Use Near Streams: A Monuol of Tools ,
Standards, and Procedures lo Protect Streams and Streomside
Resources in Santa Claro County (Design Guide) which
addresses land use near streams and surface and groundwater
quality and quantity. The Design Guide, pre pare d by th e
Sonia Claro Volley Water Resources Protect ion Collective,
is to be incorporated as appropriate by loca l a ge ncies into
their existing pra ctices . Unless determine d oth erwis e by on
agreement between the SCVWD and th e local agency, the
Design Guide will be used in the design and c onstruction of
creek trails .
The City is responsible for the design, co ns truction, and
maintenance of City-own ed facilities including public streets,
sidewalks, curbs and gutters, medians, storm dra ins, lights,
landscaping, and parks. Public, cree k side trails, although
within SCVWD right-of-way, will be city-owned and
maintained .
Pho to 3.7: Re gnort Cree k ad jacenl lo Cu pe rtin o Civic Ce nter
Pho to 3 8 : Bicycl e an d Podes lia n pathw a y par a ll e l to Lo zan o
Lo ri e
Photo 3.9 : Regno rt Croo k west of Wilson Pm k
• ~, -·~ .. ...,.,...,t-\o"'tl"-.-T••''""_-..,.---,,r~ ...... ~,.,..
-' > ----• • HMl-1 I M : 1111
--
.-,6)t( t.t
•, A t ·r· fr-.:
":·,·
I l!lh' ;i
-\
/~~r,~~-r~: /2 -.. , ..... ,., . --------
RODRIGUES AVENUE
~~..!!!. / ·--u-~•,•1
rz•t· r=,
11-r:f -·-'-· ~;~r.:~~
jJ
,I
,;
i~ .; ;
j !I
I I
I
I
;, !:
~· ~2
C:,wltl~I .IF.! ,1
LOT 1
::.s:1 ;,;
P s.r. ~·.:: r. ~~ .... r
I;; t 1~ ..... .,., .. ,
~ t~
3 j
• !
J1 l'fS-..... ,.,, . .:."t J ...
•u••t"'""'!-:.~
I
~ . -. -,.,, ~--"' :
• .; V • • .:,·~.:--~ .... ,~::.. • ·•~. ;;;-~ r .K~,,.. ,,.,~ ~·,:-. ' ' :.:-:"" ..... ,.
c; LOT 2 ,
.• , ::-i:• ,-:1 ~ I . .. ••.
J• •
i J
~, I
L OT 3
.:;1a s;
~ . . . "'f;;rt..~·=.3C·=·r=·= =.::;-~ ~-=
:] ~ !! LOT 4 .•: LOT 5--j :~: !.;" ~ .... ~ SI'
-;: ~i
~ i r .. ;;~· .... ,.-.:.~J~1 ; •
•: ~i:: P-4 : =-! ;:i ~ i L ;-t·~· • .!f ..:;:..,,JI • ..:....r l!.i!·.~:z::-.-1:-;;·. e
n 11•~ ----1.....:6 ,; H .1j ;:. ,
! ~
-:~tr"'I' -.. ~...... n :r · .,~·;c-,. ..... I·, . -~:· r-u u ~w· t --~;;r-r '".. ~ ..;;~:..7-,.;:.~.
.~ ~J Ii :! ;f r ~ .
.. 'l. ... • • •!" -.. , ·' t · -'• LOT 6 ·' LOT 7 ,. '2 LO 1 8 • L OT 9 ' 11 r1"jf ,u, ~ ~ , • .,, sr n-. ~1 , 'ii; 16J/ ~r ; nu :.r
,! r,.i :;• ~ ~ . :: f
,(
t-~-V
J
' ~,· ..
• 1. ':""J ~, ,,, u.i;i ·1
~fU'""i.("IJr r lit# IJI.! U • 2i r~:.Z l ,a' • •:~.-
...,-=~---, l' 1;1 • .,_...~,,r___.,.._n,,-) ••· ..... ~•.3...!!. r;;,_r,:::..._ ~ ...
',,. [ V,__,---.--,-, _,,,,~t t9 •:N~~L""'l '•X~~-,-•,.,,;~ .:;:;.-~t~ t;
II '' Y-5 k = --: ~ , " r-• ·• !:i • • t:= --. . u,! . ~ ,;;, ., I "l .... -~ .-~--.,-,,._~..-·~'-" .. ,, --. -------.... --._~.-. ~ -..... _ .
.,, ,!1t"t• ..... ,-/l
::,:.u,.,fSJ,, -.'.!.
[_/·:GN)·~
_f ,: :.,.:..!'.., ,~ ... ·-= i1 u,r.»" .. ~r I
--~ ... ,o .••-'"I
--~ ~ .... ~ • ...:i'"o'k~--
c:n:,r:, UJ,.
i ,'_'. ,: -:,,; I!
\ It \.'L+ c.\?cG,:, l\ -\'~ ~ l \J \:~ v
' -',:JI·':.--.(!':.'!
l\.~·,'.,'_.~:t ·:r·i, :_f t~,:.;~:~·:: i· .•.:./
L!G!!i!l .,,~,. .. ~-.w
---.. ---J:..'0-'Si>,C''LM ----·----er-.-, .....
·-· ____ .,_.,,.,--........... _~·-~---..... ,
• ~~,~~ ...... '! ...... ~ .. ~.,,
• -.,-.n,.-, ....... _., ,,aoe~
0 ~,i :,,,. ...... .,.#""f ,•.:::".:::.J ,.,:
#l, l'r,.&C L.,C:,tul .-'°"
,... f a.;)Ollr #--=
p.,
,_,
l oCr.,c,,("" ........ , .-t.:t :1 f--7_ ...
:n.>--TI • •-« ,-:: -o,, ,: r•=...-:.4 ,":t~• .... t:;. ... c-('l"•:r~-1
~-~, .......... ,i::
~~· _ .. _.,..~,,:..;,-..,..v ~.ar·~"""',,...._ ... O"_
=,.r~· ~,: :::
TRACT 9405
CAMPO DE LOZANO
ern,c; A SUBDIVlS:0.'1 (l;' Tl<t.T Pi!CPERTY C£SCR1Brn
BY D~EO Fi(CCRO .r.PR IL :9, 2CJI, ;:;i'•ICl .. l RE CORDS
o , SMHA CLAR.:. ccumr ur:Cf.R R£CCi'i 0£fi"S S~HJJ.~
uuus::~ 1~6.C2ESS • .:.t.-o !. "'NC ~UTl ~~L 'r \\i f"'1 C"i :H[
CITY OF CUPER TINO, CAu;:-oRNl,tl.
.U'tir...::0.:.1 ~,,·.,w
'fratc1u1~=al 4 i.u11,:£i;--=-1
/
L_:'::.~~~~1:::-~ I
~~!1' C•
:--.n " r-,n-,.,."~-... -··-
iv,cui,r°l't f-
j{ ,) e i o Ft-
in
U)
I
---1.,._
r.::--i
-~
1D358
10328 10338
LOZANOLN
i
~l [:]'[]
20045
103SII ffJ ~i 0
'
~-400.47' -· .. -----1-.:--....... "-
20123
LAS ONDAS WAY
-------RIGHT-OF-WAY
I I ~~~~F-WAY
I I PRIVATE
PROPERTY ~-----~
LEGEND
~ JOINTUSEAGREEMENT
~ AREABET'h'EE N THE
~~~~~~~ C ITY AND SCVWD
~PG&EAND
~ COMMUNICATIONS
-EASEMENT
I I PUBUC WALKWAY GRANTED
THROUGH CONDITION S OF
APPROVAL FOR DEVELOPMENT
F,gurc 3 3 Property 11ghb w,lhin th e Lozano Lane and De Pclmo l o n e vicinity
'
\
\
\ • c, • "[·•• '1' I • . • ' -• .,. . 't'mi J 11 1
IQ00-6
November 20, 2017
IIICHWAY DESICN MANUAL
Figure 1003.1A
Two-Way Clase I Blkeway (Bike Path)
NOTES:
(...(.~ · .. -.:.····~ . . . . .. ~~
, ~. l. '
~ ' ... ~ ,----' . . ' '(:.· . . . .. ·. ·~-.,.:~ . · . ' f·,c:.·~ . . ~ ' . t:J.1"~h
SeeNote2
(I) See Index 1003.1(15) for pavement structure guidance of bike path.
(2) For sign clearances, see Callf omia MUTCD. Figure 98-1. Also, for clearance over the shoulder see
Index 1003.1(3).
(3) The MSHTO Ouide for the Developmenl of Bicycle Facilities provides detailed aufdance for creating a
forgiving Class I bikeway environment.
• I% cross-slope minimum.
Split Rail
Removable
Fence
Proposed Hig ·h water levels
CC o/ ?/) I tf
.:rt=)_,~
\~ ~ ---\
0 20 40 80
I I ! I
1 INCH = 40 FEET PROPOSED
TRAIL SURFACE
PROPOSED
TRAIL SURFACE
19867
PROPOSED
REMOVABLE TRUSS
PEDESTRIAN/BIKE
BRIDGE
EXISTING CONCRETE _/ EXISTING
MAINTENANCE WOOD FENCE
VEHICLE RAMP
19851 •,... 19841
TOP OF BANK
TOP OF BANK
19831
b
0
Figure 6.8: Plan View of truss bridges at Wilson Park
PROPOSED
TRAIL SURFACE
19821
10 .0'
WOOD
SPLIT-RAIL
PROPOSED
REMOVABLE TRUSS
PEDESTRIAt(BIK
BRIDGE • di
t>"'
19811
HMH I 40 1111
~
\
('[)
('[)
l/l
QJ
I ~
('[)
n
r-+
('[)
CL
0
:::J
~ -· -
Sou.-TM s I d,,e. ~
• ~. I •OH PA AJ(
{ F-A-c,Nr. EIASt )
Problem statement -Is there one?
What problem are we trying to solve?
Ct t/J-< /1g
.fF;;).S-
No Sidewalks in
these areas:
West of De Anza
lflw~
""' -, C'•tr rJ ·v' 1:" '
] -Sleven ~e<!k fllvd . =•
"' ._::_c. -7t
,~a
,t't
$
Map Elements
lnvent.ory Land Use
-No Sidewalk Park
Private Road School
Convnerclal
Civic
Apple Campus
Rural or Semi-Rural
• All streets have sidewalks in this nerghborhood: East of DeAnza
• Safe for pedestrians 3
What problem are we trying to solve?
• Bike and pedestrian . . issues are on maJor
corridors/ arteries
• No issues on \\alternate 11
residential streets
parallel to the creek
points
• Streets here are safe
with sidewalks for
walking and biking
I __ _.
.... ,;, ,' I ,. ~,.~
\../ f ;,, ......
'<.
15 '=-":"&,_~ I ,_ •
• V l • • •
• u~ ·=-• ..,4. • .. • ---",::-•a •••• = -. • • o •o (;) f • ...-... , .. •·O • r
-~ d • :; l
i:i=;:O a • -~ ! • --• . f I • ...... -•'"-c·' -·-..... ' • ... --... -C'-41•114 "" • •• 't' P.c4'1r.1 0r ~· • •
-:::-i.;·;r ~ ,c . t' ct ~
. '-1!\itWa I ' ~ 'ti c i' \
·-·-• # 1 ·\ • I.! 't't • -·-·-,:t4i . ' 13 -::-•
• • • !Ill'". •
,.._o, • !!f ap Eleme~ts
e
.. Senrity Land u ..
• Fatal Part,;
I s.tous Ln)lry Sc:hod e Minor l'lf\l,Y
/11t,.Jt.,O"•-<r1
..,_, C.l\\llll. 1,,:1•
• 5Ul(IIJ$11lk' -(Lt'i,1111(.J,N.
o:za:uo f\llllllUIJIVUII
--(:/fl\USCIIUUII
Safety·concerns as a shared use path (bikers/ Peds)
K-5 & teenage/adult bikers: optimum design needed to avoid conflict
•
•
The path is narrow for a
shared use path, does not
meet state, county, national
guidelines (UM4.53, HDM
1003.1, AASHTO)
Tread width will be 6-8ft in
multiple segments of trail, is
AAS HTO G uid e fo r t h e Deve l o pme n t ·Of B i c y c l e
Fa ci l i ties (20 1 2 )
C h apter S : Desi g n o f S h a r ed U se Path s
5 .2.1 Widch and C l ear a nce
Th e minimum pave d ~fora two -d irection a l share d use
is 10 ft (3.0 ro) .. In v e ry rare circumst an c e s , a
reduce d width of 8 ft (2.4 m) may b e use d .... Wider
pathways, 11 to 1 4 ft (3 .4 to 4.2 m) are recomm e nded in
l ocations that are a nti cipa t e d to s e rve a high p e r ce ntag e of
p e d e strians (30 p e r cent or more of th e tota l p a thway
volume) a nd higher user volumes (more than 300 total
users in th e peak h o ur).
Urban Shared-U se Trail Sections PPP
pt1mum 12
Centerline Stripe: 4' (100 n,n,)
yellow cenr.erll nc <Stripe,
continu ous on cu rve~
U"ifom, lnttr,ur itdie1in11al Tra il Dt1ig11. U1r. ,md M,11111gemcm G11idc/i11t<
Snm11 Clam Corm~y i nu,.,·ur,:(dicrirmal Trllili Cmmuim.,,·
lower than minimum
standards
Note: See Figure,.:; for
landscnpc guldcline5
• 8 ft should be used only in
very rare instances
(AASHTO); found to have
poor levels of service
(USDOT)
Paved Trail
(See Figure T-2, A an d B) -
Safety issues on narrow shared use path next to deep creek I . l I ! I ~·~·~ -·--;
I
I I I I
I Safety rail
p:
wf1~1
I M""momOpN.11"'4
4'(1.l~
P,~f...-ood OJ'!all"f
~·11~q
I
' I rY"
"'
_1 ;:-~~t' ~, ~ -=-1g .s
-I
-~ L. I
1.1 m
(3.5ft)
r--_.._~~_.._~--~-i..+-,c-~~~~~~~-+~
I Bicycle path less than 1.5 m ~ Q)
I " (5 ft) " E o
1 1 ~E / jo
/ 7'0
I Regnart Creek slope is 1:1 or steeper and drop is up to
i 1 12-14ft. Not enough clearance for safe shared use
:r I
Width _s !
• Not enough width,
tra i I is not idea I
location for a safe
shared use path for
children and bikers
even with 4 ft railings
---
6
6
Privacy impact for 82 homes in an established
neighborhood ~ 1
/,,.." --
;tl
• Privacy issues not
fully addressed in
Feasibility study
• Not fully budgeted
in the study
• Other Cupertino
trails did not have
impact of this large
magnitude
'. -
' ·-.,----~'.-._
J ! c:::~~o ·~·~-
: -a-1 .,.....,.c.--,.
l
'-, y
-.--1 TRAf Tl;.Al,,TERNATIVE 1 ,. ~.
,.. . . -. ·----'
Proposed Regnart trail runs through residential area,
order of magnitude impact compared to other trails
...
2: li.
Stevens Creek trail
primarily runs through
green space, impact to
few homes (3-5)
~
i
J
t ! (L'~f~,
-···-l \ f1 6 f
n .... .r .. 11t:1r l
.,..:.,
q~
1Unaf'iole11~dil R-··--•&P'ai.
" i'
Sarat .. oga··creeiZ'tra il runs
parallel to Lawrence and
partly green space,
impact to 9 homes1
The Cupertino "Loop" Trail concept
• 44% of "the loop11 is
on major streets & . crosses maJor
junctions: Stevens
Creek, Stelling,
McClellan, DeAnza
• Only 56% on trails
• So "the loop11 can
continue on much
safer \\Alternate 4 11
streets in th is
neighborhood (6%)
...
f I ( ··----CUPERTINO LOOP TRA IL -~ " l
,_,,.I~
---Q.J651M(P!UH -1·1.?soo:>L -PUll.lCiWII = Oi SIR[(T (Qj!ICIOI -CJl'I( -A'ft.~ NC
,:;4RATC CllPlllJiO,(n,IIUII
-~ Q l(QlMl5A.lfflEHP~Y ;:;a :IM.IJU/.
9
Existing safe "Alternative'' residential streets
• ''Alternative 4 11 on existing streets is $100K compared to $2.4M for
the proposed trai~ ~ ~----i--------·-T-·-. i ,' ,t
IOOllOUB'"'-
CMCCENTEI
rs ............ I
Pacifica Dr
' TRAIL ROUTE ALTE
Figure 6.4: Alremattve Route 4 is on on-slreet ro
A Class Ill bike lane exists in East of DeAnza
Bike Blvd project connecting
\\Creekside to City center via Eaton School"
Class Ill markings already exist on East
Estates and Clifford connecting
Suisun/Eaton (with crossing-guard)
--
•• do.I •• ClaMla
"":-,_,-, ....
'·,. '/~:,·-'
. --?
_)
/'
.,..,,,..,
I
I
I
I
I
i
/ ;
/
+,I
VI
l1J
UJ
'
I
' I
/'\ .,.,...... \
s·
Creekside
Park
8
Summary
• Safety of children and Privacy is critical when retrofitting
trail in an established neighborhood
• Consider the risks associated with proposed trail, liability
risks to the city and taxpayers
• Choose \\Alternative 4 11
: Existing safe routes to school on
residential streets with sidewalks
• Save $2.3M, direct funds for broader use to improve
pedestrian and bicycle safety on major arteries and
intersections across the city
• Vote No on Regnart Creek Trail
10