Loading...
09-18-18 Oral Communicationscc q/1r/1 t 5750 Almaden Expressway, San Jose, CA 95118-36 l 4 I (408) 265-2600 I www.valleywoter.org August 21, 2018 Ms . Jennifer Chu PE Associate Civil Engineer City of Cupertino Public Works Department 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino , CA 95014 Re: Comments on Regnart Creek Trail Feasibility Study Dear Ms . Chu, File: 33661 Regnart Creek B lf!,j}' l L-OW\. rvi San la Claro Volle~ Wate r Distiicl6 Santa Clara Valley Water District (D istrict) staff has reviewed the admin istrative draft of the Regnart Creek Trail Feasibility Study (Study) received on August 3, 2018. The District has identified the portion of Regnart Creek between East Estates Dr ive to Pacifica Drive (the feasibility study limits) as either showing signs of deterioration and in a "monitoring" mode and/or in need of minor maintenance or in such a state of degradation that a more significant maintenance project is required, w ith the most seriously degraded areas located between Wilson Park and Brittany Court. Consequently, the District has concerns that the Study analysis does not include sufficient defe rence or consideration to the needs and requirements of the District for performing flood protection operations and maintenance work, including cost increases to District operations associated with each alternative, in its ranking of feasible alternatives where those alternatives include reaches located on District right of way. The District has the following specific comments on the subject document and requests that these issues be addressed prior to final adoption of the feasibility study. 1) Page 3 . "Trail Acce!..s": Please note that District access roads have limited space for amenities such as informational boards, seating, etc. This section shou ld specify that trailhead amenities may be provided where they do not conflict with or reduce the District's existing maintenance access. 2) Page 4 , Table 1.3 : Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative but has the most adverse impacts to the District's maintenance access and operations. Alternatives 4 or 5 will have the least impact to the District's maintenance access and operations , followed by Alternatives 2, 3 and then 1 (most impactful). 3) Pages 7 and 11: Designating trails as transportation corridors can be a prob lem for the District when considering future uses of the right of way for District purposes. It confers a duty onto the District, through CEQA, to mitigate for any loss of or adverse impacts to the transportation corridor, in addition to any lost recreational use. Any future joint use agreement with the City for portions of the trail located on District right of way will provide that the City be responsible for trail closures, trail detour routes, signs, and Our mi s~ion is to provide Silicon Volley w fe, clean wote r lor a healthy life, envi ronm en t, end economy. Ms. Jennifer Chu Page 2 August21 ,2018 maps, and any CEQA documentation and mitigation required to implement t he trail closures , when needed to allow the District to perform its flood protection work. 4) Pa g e 8 1 Agencies and Stakeholders: The ingress-egress rights of PG&E and AT&T should be verified through actual title documentation . 5) Pa ge 14 1 Re g nart Creek Right-of-Way: a . The Study states that our maintenance road varies from 12 to 25 '. District as- builts show the maintenance road widths in this reach are mainly between 10 feet and 15 feet ; however, this width has been reduced in many areas due to ongoing e rosion/deterioration . The document shou ld be revised to reflect this information . b. City responsibilities will be outlined in any future joint use agreement with the District and will include responsibilities mentioned in our comment no. 3, above. 6) Page 16 . Watershed and Creek Conditions: The feasibility study states the channel has no erosion. The information provided appears to have been taken from an outda ted report. We have documented erosion or sediment conditions in all reaches of Regnart C reek from East Estates Drive to Pac ifica Drive. The banks in these reaches are unstable. As mentioned earlier, the majority of the study area has significant erosion/damage/undercutting and minor repairs are needed. There are also a handfu l of areas where a larger repair is needed . This section of the study needs to be updated to reflect the current conditions along Regnart Creek where the trail is proposed. 7) Page 22 , Available Right-of-Way: . See comment no. 5a , above . 8) Pa g e 25 , Trail Design and Construction Practices: a. The text should clarify that the District does no t have allowable trail tread width standards-perhaps a different agency should be referenced. b. The District does specify that trails shou ld be able to accommodate fully loaded maintenance equipment and any damage to the trail will be City responsibility. 9} Pa ge 25 , T rail Closures: This section should clearly specify that the City will take responsibility for trail closures when needed for District flood protection maintenance purposes . 10) Pa ge 25 , Private Accessto Public Trails : This section should be revised to reflect that the District does not allow or permit private access to public tra ils . All access points must be public access points controlled by the City . 11) Pa ge 26 . Trail Monitorin g and Maintenance: a. This section refers to "managing agencies ." This section should be revised to reflect that the City is the single managing agency for the trail. b . Maintenance and inspection criteria that the City will utilize should be specified . c . The Study states that , "Corrective work for dra inage or erosion problem shall be performed within a reasonable period of time ." The Study should specify tha t the City will prioritize and implement immediate repairs on District right of way where problems are impacting Regnart Creek or maintenance activities. 12) Pa g e 27 , Public Outreach : The District would like to be invited to participate in future outreach efforts so that we can be aware of community concerns related to the proposed use of our right of way and the City's plans for addressing those concerns. 13) Pa ges 34 thru 38: As mentioned in comment #2, Alternative 1 would be most impactful to the District's operation and maintenance activities. It will increase ma i ntenance costs on any work we do in this area, and the bridges may not be feasible without more Ms. Jennifer Chu Page 3 August 21, 2018 detailed information on how their construction will affect our maintenance access. Additionally, it has been our experience that pedestrian bridge abutments cannot usually be constructed without removing the adjacent creek bank, which will require regulatory approvals. 14) Page 39, Creek Bridges: a. See comment no. 13. Bridges reduce the width of maintenance roads, as does the addition of fill and fencing. The District will still need access around the bridges with vehicles throughout the year. This section should include actual cross sections on this page at the most restrictive pinch points to show how the existing maintenance road access width will be impacted. b. For removable bridges, the Study should specify how quickly the City will respond to requests to remove their bridges when requested by the District and provide a description of the public noticing that the City will perform for its removal/closure . 15)Pages 40 and 41, Figures 6.81 6.11 and 6.12: Railing will not be allowed along the top of bank, unless it is outside District right of way as it impedes our ability to access the channel from the top of bank. 16) Page 42, Alternatives Discontinued from Further Evaluation: The Study states that box culvert and cantilever designs and reduction in road width from fence posts weren't selected because they were unacceptable to the District, or the District was unwilling to accept them, or they were unfavorable to the District. The language should be changed to indicate that these alternatives were discontinued since they would cause erosion, affect seasonal wetlands, and restrict District maintenance activities required for flood protection. The box culvert and cantilever designs were not selected based on sound engineering principles and do not represent the District's opinion. 17) Page 44, Trail Heads: Trailhead features should not limit ability for the District's maintenance equipment to enter and leave maintenance roads. 18) Page 45, Figure 6.16: Planting and decorative pavement at entrances are subject to damage and may be in the way of maintenance activities. 19) Page 47, Security and Safety: a. Safety railing and features make maintenance and inspection of District facilities difficult. Most bank slopes are steeper than 3:1. At 3: 1, no fencing is required . A fence 2 feet from top of bank reduces usable space understanding that a vehicle needs more than 8' +/-width of the vehicle when there are constraints/wall on either side. Additionally, secondary screening fences will take another 18 inches or so, further reducing the width of the maintenance road. b. Removable fencing is also a lot of work and setting the fencing 2 feet back from the top of bank will reduce the District's maintenance footprint to 10 feet in some places which is not enough room for maintenance equipment. 20) Pages 51 thru 53: The biggest cost to the District from the proposed alternatives is the cost of all additional measures that come with maintenance on a pedestrian corridor. It limits when and how we inspect our facilities, It increases public frustration with the District when facilities must be closed, and increases labor hours to work around additional features and facilities (bridges, railing, trailheads, etc.). Ms. Jennifer Chu Page 4 August 21, 2018 21) Page 57, Trail Surfacing Evaluation and Recommendation: Porous pavement must be designed to withstand maintenance vehicle loads, and any swale/drainage designs cannot restrict maintenance path width. 22) Page 59, Security Measure Evaluation & Recommendation and Railing Evaluation & Recommendation a. Suggest City staff assess sheriff and police availability for the recommended patrols and seek commitment through an agreement with police that they can provide this level of support. We have found, county wide, that Police Departments are strapped for resources and cannot provide consistent patrolling. b. The Study states that removable fencing /posts is consistent with many creekside trails. There are few Santa Clara County trails that have top of bank fencing. This is a significant impact to the District which must be addressed. The time to remove the railings adds significant costs to creek maintenance when the District has limited regulatory window of time each season to perform its maintenance activities. We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments. I may be reached at (408) 630-2731, if you have any questions. Sincerely, Usha Chatwani, P.E. Engineering Unit Manager (Permit Authority) Community Projects Review Unit cc: M. Richardson, S . Tippets, Y. Arroyo, U. Chatwani, S. Dharaskar, C. Houston, J. Codianne, C. Pilson, C. Grande